In case you haven’t heard, for the first time ever, a rule has been proposed to change one of the basic truths within the game of golf…namely that there is only one set of rules for anyone that plays the game. This means that anyone that plays golf, plays on the same courses, according to the same rules, and with access to all of the same equipment. Currently, the United States Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient golf club have issued a proposal to roll back the golf ball for “elite” golf events. Essentially their position is the current golf ball goes too far.
Specifically, under certain testing conditions, which include a club head speed of 127 mph, the ball will need to go only 317 yards to conform with the proposal. https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2023/Notice-Proposed-MLR-Golf-Balls-Final.pdf
Titleist has described this as returning ball technology to the state it was in during the 1990s. Notably, the average clubhead speed on tour currently is about 114 mph so the testing equipment would be in excess of the average for the “elite” player. As a proponent of innovation, this doesn’t sit right with me. I am curious to hear other thoughts and would appreciate your comments below.
This controversial proposal has created a category 5 storm in the golf media with everyone offering their opinion for or against the proposed change. https://www.golfchannel.com/news/bifurcation-detrimental-stakeholders-respond-usga-ra-proposed-golf-ball-rollback https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ball-rollback-proposal-draws-diverse-golf-world-reactions The PGA has not offered an opinion other than they will perform their own analysis and work with industry partners to determine what is best for the game. Notably even if the rule is passed, the PGA is not obligated to adopt it potentially limiting its application to only USGA and R&A events such as the U.S. Open and the Open Championship.
Manufacturers have until August 2023 to provide their comments on the proposed rule. Titleist has already provided its comments opposing the proposed rule and describing it as “a solution seeking a problem.” https://mediacenter.titleist.com/en-US/224086-acushnet-response-to-usga-and-r-a-notice-comment-proposing-golf-ball-bifurcation
I tend to agree. I remember when golfers like John Daly and Tiger Woods first started “overpowering” golf courses and everyone feared that golf would become too easy for the elite players. The fact that the ball goes farther and pros hit shorter clubs into greens has not changed the excitement of the competition. I certainly believe that this is a reaction to the 20 below par score at the Open Championship at St. Andrews. That somehow scores can be too low for there to be good competition. That is simply an ego trip by the USGA and the R&A.
As a fan, I want to see players play well. I want to see them bomb the ball and get really creative with shorter clubs. I do not mind lower scores as long as the head to head competition on the course is good. The USGA and R&A by looking at this as a technology problem discount the amount of skill and physical fitness that goes into generating consistent shots at those club head speeds. There also does not appear to be any consideration of how hampering the technology available to the elite player will trickle down to the average player. And I am sure the words intellectual property were never mentioned in their proposal.
Turning to the technology, creating a rule that only applies to elite players playing elite events, the USGA is discouraging the progress of innovation. Effectively capping technology as it existed 3 decades ago. From an IP standpoint, it raises the question of whether what is old becomes new again. Patents on those 1990s golf balls expired several years ago. Does this proposal open the door for others to jump into the golf ball market by offering old technology? While the increased competition may help the price point for consumers, the reality is that the product is still inferior to what is on the market today.
The proposal disrupts the trickle-down process of development. Currently, ball manufacturers work and test with players at the elite level because they know that customers will want to pay a premium to play what the pros play and have access to the latest and greatest ball technology. The economics of creating a ball that flies less far for only the elite players does not work. There is no financial incentive to make something specifically for such a small group of people and have no market with the general public. It also has the negative impact of taking away one of the greatest selling features of creating a ball for the pros that also helps the average golfer hit it farther and straighter. From a traditions of the game standpoint, it destroys the principle that everyone is playing the same game.
Titleist has already spoken out against the rule stating: “Golf is an aspirational sport, and we believe at its very best when equipment and playing regulations are unified. Golf’s health and vibrancy are at historically high levels, … Unification is a powerfully positive force in the game, and we believe that equipment bifurcation would be detrimental to golf’s long-term well-being.” David Maher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Acushnet Company. Certainly this is true from an innovation standpoint as research and development to improve the golf ball at the pro level is justified by the dollars created by average golfers wishing to purchase a unified golf ball.