For an early December week it's been shockingly newsy, not that any of it is for the better...
This post might be a bit of a mess for the reader, as I began drafting Thursday afternoon as the Rahn news was breaking. I shan't rewrite anything, though I'll throw in some new bits, so expect a continuity-challenged post. Yanno, just like any day that ends in "Y".
Fealty, Schmealty - As I peck away on Thursday afternoon, there's been to official announcement, though it seems like a done deal:
Jon Rahm bolting PGA Tour for LIV Golf in potential $600 million coup
The whispers in the golf world are becoming a shocking reality.
Jon Rahm is leaving the PGA Tour for LIV Golf this week, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
Previous reports on Rahm’s defection have noted the deal would pay the reigning Masters champ somewhere in the range of $600 million.
ESPN confirmed Rahm’s LIV move and put the money at north of $300 million in a three-year deal.
That's an amusingly wide range of deal values, but it's quite the background music for Jay's warm get-together with Yasir this week. Wonder what they might talk about...
As the guy who told you to watch Jon Rahm way back at the dawn of time, his relationship with Phil and Sergio always ensured that he'd be a flight risk, though I'm still struggling to understand the timing. But there's no underestimating the potential impact, both because of his status in the game, but also because Rahm, more than most, made the intellectual case against LIV.
Shall we review some of his prior thoughts, many of which have been helpfully compiled by Golfweek here First, this that came with his fealty:
February 2022: 'Declaring my fealty'“I wanted to take this time to say that this is my official, my one and only time to talk about this, where I am officially declaring my fealty to the PGA Tour,” Rahm said ahead of the 2022 Genesis Invitational. “I’m a PAC [Player Advisory Council] member and I have a lot of belief in Jay Monahan and the product.“There’s been a lot of talk and speculation on the Saudi league and it’s just not something that I believe is best for me and my future in golf and I think the best legacy I can accomplish is on the PGA Tour.“Everybody’s free to make their own choice, it’s as simple as that. All I can say is from somebody young like myself who has his entire future ahead of him, it doesn’t seem like a smart thing. Again, the only appeal I see is monetary, right? So like I said just earlier on, I think there’s a lot more to be able to play for besides just money on the PGA Tour. There’s history, there’s legacy. At the end of the day, I’m in this to win tournaments, I’m in this to play against the best in the world.”
Jon has a clarification for us....he doesn't play for money, though apparently he does play for boatloads of money....
About that innovative format:
June 2022: 'Shotgun three days to me is not a golf tournament'
“I consider the PGA Tour has done an amazing job giving us the best platform for us to perform. I do see the appeal that other people see towards the LIV Golf. I do see some of the – I’ll put this delicately – points or arguments they can make towards why they prefer it. To be honest, part of the (LIV) format is not really appealing to me. Shotgun three days to me is not a golf tournament, no cut. It’s that simple,” Rahm said at the 2022 U.S. Open. “I want to play against the best in the world in a format that’s been going on for hundreds of years. That’s what I want to see.”
“There’s meaning when you win the Memorial Championship. There’s meaning when you win Arnold Palmer’s event at Bay Hill. There’s a meaning when you win, LA, Torrey, some of the historic venues. That to me matters a lot, right. After winning this past U.S. Open, only me and Tiger have won at Torrey Pines, and it’s a golf course that we like, making putts on the 18th hole. That’s a memory I’m going to have forever that not many people can say. My heart is with the PGA Tour. That’s all I can say.”
So, is he leaving because of all those no-cut Designated Events? If so, that would be epic, because there's a point that we need to make, which is that the PGA Tour has muddied the distinction with LIV through their Honey, I Shrunk The Field Size initiative, and I'll support Rahm if he makes the case that in ruining the Tour's marquee events he eliminated any reason to stay.
At the same time as these comments, he had this as well:
“Will our lifestyle change if I got $400 million? No, it will not change one bit,” he said. “Truth be told, I could retire right now with what I’ve made and live a very happy life and not play golf again. So I’ve never really played the game of golf for monetary reasons.
That's why I'm guessing that ESPN's $300 million number will prove to be low....
And, doesn't this just sum it all up:
August 2023: 'I laugh when people rumor me with LIV Golf'
Because you knew they were wrong, or because you knew they were early?
Eamon Lynch had these thoughts a week or so ago:
OK, whatcha mean by that?
For two years, we’ve seen skirmishes claimed as decisive victories. The moves by Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka to leave the PGA Tour for LIV were no more conclusive than the decisions of Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy to remain. A jump to LIV by Jon Rahm – the subject of intense speculation – will be no different, whatever the banner-wavers and pearl-clutchers on either side say. But it would represent something significant, beyond being an example of what happens to a man of supposed character who remains in the mephitic orbit of people like Phil Mickelson and Sergio Garcia.A Rahm departure would be more impactful mostly by dint of timing, hastening a reckoning for the competing agendas that have all but paralyzed the PGA Tour’s Policy Board.
Gee, I'd been reliably informed that Tiger was running everything now, so what is this paralysis you speak of?
Among players on the board, there’s a faction opposed to involving the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund in the future of the Tour, preferring to partner with one of several interested private investors. Their motivations are varied, whether it’s patriotism, a desire to see LIV continue for leverage or simple aversion to a Framework Agreement foisted upon them without consultation. Jay Monahan, however, is adamant that the Saudis be included, presumably because he’d rather not have a free-spending rival approaching apostate members who promise fealty only until the offer swells sufficiently.
I know which side Cantlay is on, but where does Tiger come down?
Word on the street is that Yasir has been slow-rolling the negotiations, so it's not clear that a deal is going to move forward with the PIF only one of the financiers at the table. But perhaps Jay is surprised that those that keep bonecutters in their consulates play hardball....
This standoff makes any poaching of Rahm an astute leverage play by PIF governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan, who is scheduled to meet Monahan this week. It would be a sharp reminder to resistant player directors of the damage he can inflict, potentially guarantee PIF participation in the Tour’s future, and secure terms more favorable than had seemed likely. If a peace deal is consummated, Al-Rumayyan might never have to make a Year 2 payment to Rahm. And if it isn’t? Well, he bought the Masters champion and world No. 3 as a high-profile plaything for his league.
To the Player Directors sure, but isn't it more of a warning shot to those other investment banks? It's one thing to fund PGA Tour ventures in a time of peace, but if they can steal Jon Rahm, they can steal anybody and maybe everybody.
Back to Eamon:
One school of thought says losing Rahm would finish Monahan, reinforcing a perception that he is being outmaneuvered. Alternatively, he could emerge stronger if hesitant players embrace his case for détente. Of course, player directors might also be galvanized against PIF as an untrustworthy partner and entirely torpedo the Framework Agreement. That too has ramifications. Do the Tour’s private equity suitors, who thought they were going into business with the Saudis, have the stomach to go to war with them instead?Like an artfully designed golf course, there are plentiful options, each with its own perils.
Just like we erred in thinking that Greg Norman matters, I'm not sure Monahan is anything more than a placeholder here.... But again, you guys had a nice little tour, are you sure you want to be partners with these folks?
Eamon gets the divide between the haves and have-nots, though can only go so far with it right now. But here's another curious bit that is related:
Overlooked in the torrent of news and reaction in the wake of the PGA Tour’s bombshell June 6announcement that it was forging a partnership with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund was that Tour leadership was aiming to make its loyalists whole by giving them an ownership stake in the Tour’s forthcoming for-profit arm, PGA Tour Enterprises.Jimmy Dunne, a Tour policy member at the center of the Tour’s secretive, high-stakes dealings with the Saudis, spelled out some of the plan in a piece published by ESPN on June 9, noting: “The new [company] would grow, and the [current PGA Tour] players would get a piece of equity that would enhance and increase in value as time went on. There would have to be some kind of formulaic decision on how to do that. It would be a process to determine what would be a fair mechanism that would be really beneficial to our players.”Last month, in a memo to his players, Tour commissioner Jay Monahan added of the equity stakes: “…this would be a unique offering in professional sports, as no other league grants its players/members direct equity ownership in the league’s business…[and] the PGA Tour will be stronger with our players more closely aligned with the commercial success of the business.”
Perhaps it was overlooked because of the complete absence of any information on what assets will be in this entity?
Alan Bastable does a creditable job of relating some of the conflict between the haves and have-mores, including Lanto Griffin's recent criticisms. But here it gets interesting:
Still, details about the players-as-owners plan have been scant, as some pros have grown increasingly agitated by the Tour’s shift toward catering to and lining the pockets of its stars. One such newish revenue channel that favors the Tour’s A-listers is the Player Impact Program, which pays players huge sums for, in the simplest terms, generating buzz. Another is the Tour’s signature-event structure, which the Tour’s middle-class critics contend is unfairly restrictive to players trying to rise up the ranks, given the number of FedEx Cup points that signature events award relative to run-of-the-mill tournaments. Going to bat for the Tour’s “normal guys” in an interview with Golfweek last month, Lanto Griffin, said, “To have the deck stacked against us — we’re losing points, money, starts, it feels like, who’s making these decisions?”The players are, Lanto! At least some of them are, anyway, and far more proactively than they were even just a couple of years ago. The signature-event concept was cooked up by Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy, along with 20 or so of their other top-shelf comrades, at their now-landmark Delaware summit in August 2022. That the new schedule most benefits the stars who bring the most eyeballs to the Tour was no accident and it has not sit well with some of the Tour’s proletariat. Chris Stroud, a 41-year-old one-time Tour winner and former Player Advisory Council member told Golf Channel last week, “The Tour doesn’t care about you if you’re not in the top 30 and I learned that quickly that I needed to take care of myself.”
Some of them, exactly. And some of the players re making the decision to compensate some of the players, the Venn diagram of those two "somes" requiring only the one circle.
There's bene pushback:
Seemingly sensing the growing angst, the Tour’s player directors — Tiger Woods, Charley Hoffman, Peter Malnati, Patrick Cantlay, Webb Simpson and Jordan Spieth (plus Adam Scott, who next year will replace Hoffman) — dispatched a memo to the membership last week, which touted the “diversity” of the player directors’ career paths and outlined plans for the creation of a “governance committee,” which would ensure “no major decision can be made in the future without the prior involvement and approval of the player directors.”
Which isn't going to make Lanto feel any better about all this, because those are the very guys that already robbed the bank for the PIP program and Designated Events. But then comes the curious part, as this opportunity is presented without any linkage to the civil war amongst players noted above:
The P.D.’s buried the lede, though. The real news for Tour members itching for more guaranteed income was on page 2, which confirmed that plans are afoot for a new revenue stream for all players. The fifth of the memo’s seven bullets read: “We will establish a program through which membership has direct ownership in our tour through equity grants. Alongside our governance review, we believe this program will help further align our interests and create substantial economic opportunities for the membership. While we are finalizing the details of the program with management and the independent board members, we are committed to providing ownership opportunities to both current and future PGA Tour members. All investor groups have been incredibly supportive of this program.”This is a paradigm shift. Historically, Tour players have been independent contractors guaranteed not much more than tournaments in which to compete. Make more birdies than bogeys and players are handsomely compensated, but the inverse can mean players going home with nothing — actually less than nothing when you factor in their travel, lodging and assorted other costs. Established players do get to participate in the Tour’s generous pension plan — according to golf finance reporter Jared Doerfler, as of Dec. 31, 2021, more than 100 members had retirement account balances north of $5 million — but until recently regular old paydays have come only through one primary channel: weekend tee times.Now, players will stand to profit not only when they play well but also when the Tour itself turns a few bucks. A Tour spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry about how the ownership grants will work, but the memo from Tiger and Co. clearly affirmed that they are nearing fruition. To players fighting for their livelihoods, missed cuts will still hurt, but having another revenue stream should help soothe the sting.
Repeat after me, kids. SOME players will stand to profit, but can we venture a guess as to which players it will be? Gee, you're quite the cynical crowd, aren't you?
Lastly, Geoff has weighed in with a Quad post as the whys of Rahm's decision, so shall we take a peak? Yeah, that was rhetorical....
Take your pick of reasons Jon Rahm went against his word and has hopped on Saudi Arabia’s sportwashing bandwagon:
The money, of course. It might be the richest contract ever given to an athlete. Rahm told Fox News’ Bret Baier that the advance money is “private and it’s going to stay private,” then proceeded to suggest he does not play for the money but wanted to give his family the “resources” necessary. The old put food on the table play which does actually work in some circles. Moments later, after having it pointed out that he’s made negative statements about LIV in the past, Rahm wheeled out his first of what are expected to be many “grow the game” pronouncements.
As you're well aware, when they tell us it isn't about the money....
The PGA Tour leadership legitimized sportwashing. Everything changed on June 6th when Jay Monahan flipped on Saudi Arabia, swooned over his new friend Yasir, and Jimmy Dunne forgot. This shocking turn occurred when the Tour appeared to have the upper hand from victorious decisions bound to put Yasir Al-Rumayyan in a deposition he wanted no part of.
Rory was the more public face, but D-Day was a betrayal of everyone that stayed, so why should they be bound by their public statements, when their alleged leadership isn't. Rahm's comments about the LIV format are being repeated fairly, but without the acknowledgment that the Tour is moving in that very direction.
But this perhaps shouldn't surprise us:
Easily annoyed. The general worldwide for Rory McIlroy gets to Rahm. He appears to loathe when, (A) McIlroy is held up as a standard bearer, (B) as the epitome of what the game stands for and, (C) when he’s viewed as golf’s greatest talent even as Rahm picked off two majors while McIlroy’s drought approaches a ten-year anniversary. We also know Rahm believed more toilet access during a round was a top priority. So his First World needs are as robust as his bladder is tiny.
Yeah, seems to be missing a noun, but we take his point. I'd guess that Rahm assumes the Ryder Cup will work out (in fact, he might be OK with that taking a little time, as Bethpage looks like a tough week), but we can console ourselves with the thought of hos awkward this will all be to Rory...
It may be just petty jealousies, as Geoff suggests. But my own personal belief is that Rory and Tiger failed to show actual leadership in failing to protect the rabbits and the integrity of the high-dollar events, so is it possible that Rahm agrees? And, logically, if everyone is selling out and getting theirs, why shouldn't he take the easy road?
Global golfer. Rahm views the game globally and the PGA Tour’s future is shaping like a glorified AJGA schedule made by graduates of that borderline xenophobic college admissions program. The PGA Tour had its chance to re-imagine the operation into an F1 global spectacle largely based in the U.S., but the Delaware summit types made clear that is not of interest. “I want to leave the game of golf, at least in Spain, in a better state than I found it,” he told Fox News. “If I can do a little bit in Spain and maybe the rest of the world that will be a very successful career, and I hope that solves whatever issues there may be in the game.”
Only a global golfer could turn his back on two tours that made him rich, so sure....
Kooky advisors. Rahm’s got a strange inner circle and talks to people who’ve shown they aren’t the sharpest grooves in the set: Phil and Tim Mickelson, agent Steve Loy, and Sergio Garcia.
I assume Sergio and he will have a tearful reunion, presumably destroying a few greens just for old-time's sake....
Category error:
Exempt. Rahm will make Masters appearances until he’s 65. He is in the U.S. Open until 2031. The PGA Championship and The Open through 2027. He also seems to have left open the door for appearances on the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, telling Fox News: “LIV Golf gives me the freedom to be able to play golf when it doesn't conflict, with the PGA Tour or DP World Tour and I certainly want to be a part of that in the future.”
That may explain why he can do it, but doesn't cover why he would want to... But it does somewhat limit who could follow him, no?
This is new data for sure:
Support from Callaway. An initial report suggests Callaway will take a stake in Rahm’s LIV team, where Rahm already has a stake in the company. This marks the first major corporation to back LIV.
Does he have gambling debts for them to pay off as well? maybe we should have seen this coming given their ties to Phil.... I certainly will not be at any Callaway demo days in the near future.
Underappreciated. Most marvel at how he has delivered on the hype of becoming the next star in golf. Or at how he learned English and continues to refine his eloquence. Or at his sincere appreciation for the past and at how he overcame a childhood deformity that limits mobility in his right leg. But we also see his on-course tantrums and swearing that suggest mood swings or even a darker side to his thinking. When he randomly revealed his childhood ankle issues—I was there and immediately asked a peer if he’d told this tale before and the answer was “definitely not”—Rahm seemed perturbed at golf media for not somehow knowing this previously-held secret.
I'll pass on that until we get a team in from Vienna, but we can only enjoy the knowledge that Jay's sit-down with Yasir will be quite the high-stakes shootout.
As wide-ranging as Geoff's analysis is, it seems to me that it's all Tiger's fault. Rahm told us what he needed 18 months ago, and it wasn't the damn porta-potties:
Jon Rahm had some fun chiding Tiger Woods on Tuesday when asked if he’s sought any advice from Woods over the years like advice Woods once got from Spanish legend and former Masters winner Seve Ballesteros about Augusta National.“I think there’s only one man in this field that hears advice from Tiger, because I’ve asked before and I get nothing,’’ Rahm said. “So, you might need to ask Justin Thomas. I’ve asked [Woods] before. I remember asking him at East Lake the year he won [the Tour Championship in 2019] on the putting green in the practice round: ‘Hey, man, any tips for Bermuda?’ He turned around and said, ‘It’s all about feel,’ and just kept going.“I was like, ‘Cool, thank you.’ ’
And now we hear that it's Tiger that will save us from the abyss..... All he had to do was throw the Spaniard a bone....
Taking The "Back" Out of "Rollback" - As expected, the USGA and R&A have quickly pivoted from their Bifurcation strategy and have announced that we'll all pay the piper, though no need to toss those Pro-V1's just yet.
From Geoff, their new propose is as follows:
THE R&A AND USGA ANNOUNCE DECISION TO REVISE GOLF-BALL TESTING CONDITIONS BEGINNING IN 2028Revised test conditions to address consistent increases in hitting distance, golf’s sustainabilityImpact on recreational game kept to an absolute minimum6 December 2023, St Andrews, Scotland and Liberty Corner, NJ, USA: The R&A and USGA will update the testing conditions used for golf ball conformance under the Overall Distance Standard (ODS), which will take effect from January 2028. The decision aims to reduce the impact increased hitting distances have on golf’s long-term sustainability while minimising the impact on the recreational game.
The word rollback does not appear, as we're merely modifying testing conditions:
The revised ball testing conditions will be as follows: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2220 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees.The current conditions, which were established 20 years ago, are set at 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.To recap: 125 was the initial proposal, raised to 127 but lowered again after pushback from during the comment period. (Comments submitted and approved for public consumption, as guaranteed in the Vancouver Protocols, can be viewed on the R&A distance page). However, USGA CEO Mike Whan implied during a Golf Channel appearance that the speed number shifted back to the original 125 number when it was decided to apply testing to all golf balls instead of a competition ball concept opposed by, among others, the PGA Tour and PGA of America.
Sorry, not trying to make your brain hurt, but this is how it's done. What's it all about, Alfie?
An analysis of ball speeds among golf’s longest hitters in 2023 shows that the fastest ten players had an average ball speed of 186 mph, while the average ball speed of the fastest 25 was 183.4 mph (the very fastest averaged 190 mph).The longest hitters are expected to see a reduction of as much as 13-15 yards in drive distance. Average professional tour and elite male players are expected to see a reduction of 9-11 yards, with a 5-7-yard reduction for an average LET or LPGA player.The change in testing speed is expected to have a minimal distance impact, 5 yards or less, for most recreational golfers. Research shows an average swing speed of 93 mph for male golfers and 72 mph for female players.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me whether the new balls will spin more, which always seemed to this observer a way to accomplish that which is desired without unduly focusing everyone on lost distance.
Why the change from the previously-announced Model Local Rule model:
The extensive feedback received showed worldwide sentiment that the retention of a single set of playing rules and equipment standards is critically important to the sport and should apply across the game. Feedback from manufacturers resulted in the timeline being extended to 2028 to allow more time for innovation and production of new products for elite and recreational players.
Short-sighted, methinks. The rules-making bodies are reinforcing the belief first developed in the square groove litigation, that these entities cannot issue equipment rules without the consent of the manufacturers, which seems entirely bass-ackward.
There's a couple of fair-sized surprises involved, first this factoid that will surprise many:
A significant portion of golf ball models that are currently in the market – and more than 30 percent of all golf ball models submitted for conformance across the game – are expected to remain conforming after these changes are applied.
So, in what sense is the ball being rolled back for recreational golfers? To me, the most serious criticism of this move is that the proposal is so timid as to be not worth the effort, an opinion with which I reluctantly am in agreement.
The second surprise is for sure big, though it's an open issue as to whether an asterisk is justified:
Arguably the biggest surprise in the announcement, the governing bodies announced a continued effort to investigate driver performance in two areas: spring-like effect and off-center forgiveness. To be clear, this isn’t the first time the USGA and R&A have questioned whether the driver needed to change.In 2020, their Distance Insights Project hinted at the potential for new conformance tests for clubs and balls, as well as the adoption of local rules that would allow courses to require limited-flight equipment. A Notice and Comment in March 2023 also identified an interest in investigating driver performance after repeated use, also known as “CT creep.”
Which might have TaylorMade worried if, yanno, they hadn't folded like a house of cards on the golf ball.... Just sayin'!
Golf.com stood up an ad hoc Tour Confidential panel on this subject, so I'll freeride on that to the finish line:
The USGA and R&A have officially decided to rein in the golf ball, crafting a rollback plan that will go into effect in 2028 for professionals and 2030 for recreational golfers. (You can learn more about it here.) For starters, let’s ask an easy one many golfers might be wondering: why does golf need a rollback anyway?Sean Zak: Because two-decades worth of trend-lines say that in 2044, we’ll have pro golfers hitting the ball 340 yards in the air over the course of an entire season. Should that impact the 12handicap? It’s an easy argument to say no. But we’re all connected in this game. People want to be connected to the golf Rory McIlroy plays. It is going to help the game to slow down the direction top players are taking it.Jack Hirsh: Aside from the fact that some of the game’s great cathedrals are becoming or already obsolete, I think excessive distance is too easy to come by at the amateur level too. For example, my 68-year-old father has played holes exactly the same way as he has since he was my age. But I take lines he’s never even thought of when I don’t hit it much farther (relatively) than he did 40 years ago. Because of lines I can take, I can shorten a hole that on the card would seem like a 7-iron approach to a wedge, while he has hit 4 or 5-iron into the same hole forever. Now, on some of those holes, I’ll probably have to take the line the designer intended me to, evening the playing field.Ryan Barath: I believe the scale of the game has gotten a bit out of hand at the professional level, and that same issue has trickled down to elite amateurs and even to junior golf. Many courses have been relegated to driver-and-short iron contests, and with the goal of golf being a total test of skills, this will bring more skill back to golf as a whole.
I like Barath's take best, because these guys simply overpower Par-4's. I remember Gil Hanse putting a centerline bunker on a Par-4 at TPC Boston a few years ago, and seeing DJ lay up off the tee and hit 7-iron into the green. As I recall it, DJ said it was the longest club he hit into a Par-4 all year.... is that the game we want?
According to the governing bodies’ research, the longest professionals are expected to lose about 13-15 yards in driving distance, with average professionals and elite males losing 9-11 yards, LPGA players losing about 5-7 yards and average males with swing speeds of 93 mph or lower to lose about 5 yards. Are those driving losses too much? Too little?Zak: I’ll take the Content Goldilocks stance and say I think they’re justttt right. Just enough to keep Augusta National from creating a new tee box on Hole 3. Or on Hole 2. Just enough that they might be able to move back up a tee on No. 15. Try your hardest to not think about the changes to your own future game — which for 95% of golfers will be negligible — and realize that this move is still about the longest players in the world. It’s bifurcation lite.Hirsh: I agree with Sean. You could argue it’s not quite enough for the game’s longest players. However, most recreational golfers won’t notice a difference and some of them can even continue to play the same ball.Barath: At the very highest level I was expecting a further decrease in distance, but also think that as a whole this could lead to additional changes down the line, so for right now this seems like a great start.
As noted above, there's a question of whether the gain is enough to justify the changes....
A key part of all of this is to make sure some of golf’s classic golf courses aren’t rendered obsolete by an explosive golf ball and evolving equipment. But USGA CEO Mike Whan said on Golf Channel Wednesday that he’s “got a folder of golf courses we don’t think we can play our elite events. This change is not significant enough to make me take any of those courses out of the folder.” Why isn’t it possible to make those courses playable again, both with this distance rollback and course setup?Zak: The move isn’t exactly to pull courses OUT of Whan’s magic folder. It’s to keep from putting more courses INTO the folder. The rollback is to keep from adding St. Andrews’ Old Course to that folder. And so when the U.S. Open goes to Merion in 2030, we’ll have two years worth of seeing no one launching it 340.Hirsh: There’s no doubt in my mind we won’t eventually get back to the same place we’re at now with distance. Equipment isn’t the only issue here, so too is human performance. While there have been advances in the aerodynamics of driver heads in that time, PGA Tour average swing speed has increased 2.7 mph since radar tracking began in 2007. While that might not seem like much, it translates to 4 mph of ball speed and about 8 yards. Yet, average driving distance increased about 11 1/2 yards in that span. So both equipment and human performance are partly to blame, but human performance will make up for the distance the rollback losses in time.Barath: Unless golf architecture resorts to digging literal trenches to prevent golfers from hitting it to certain places on the course, the overriding advantage will still be distance. Without the ability to lengthen a golf course, any course that isn’t at a specific length or has the infrastructure to host will forever be lost to high-level competitive golf, and that’s unfortunate but it’s just a reality.
Ummm, Sean, being a golf writer means actually knowing stuff. The Old Course has only been playable for the professionals because several tee boxes have been placed on adjoining golf course, so it's lone been in Mike Whan's folder...
What’s an important piece of all of this that isn’t getting enough attention?Zak: Overall selfishness. Everyone will react to this news with themselves in mind. It’s human nature. But as you read and parse through all the reactions, think about why they’re reacting this way. Keegan Bradley is thinking about himself when he calls it “monstrous.” Most pros are thinking about themselves. Equipment manufacturers are thinking about how much it’s going to cost them in R&D. I’m doing my best to be sympathetic to their worlds being turned sideways. But my assessment of who is being the least selfish? The USGA and R&A and their 20- or 30-year view of where the game was being taken.Hirsh: That they’re going to look at driver forgiveness next. I think that could be where the game actually becomes bifurcated because you need to give players incentive to not just swing away as hard as they can.Barath: Jack hit the nail on the head — the fact that they’re ready to start looking at limiting driver speeds and potentially forgiveness could bring even more limitations to golf at the highest level.
Yeah, and let me just say that deferring the driver until later strikes me as really weird. But, more so than weird, pushing it past 2030 seems a dereliction of duty, no? Almost like they're not really serious, eh?
So, any parting thoughts?Zak: I am in the 99.99th percentile of awareness on changes to golf courses with hosting professional tournaments in mind. I study this stuff largely out of boredom. But at every tournament, Tour pros get a pamphlet of changes made to the host course from the previous year. It could be a different length of grass behind a green or a new bunker placed along a fairway, but often it’s a new tee box or two, created in the last 12 months, to make this course a little more challenging, always through lengthening. It happens almost everywhere all year round. At the Charles Schwab and at the Masters and at events in the fall. Every major tournament that revisits one of the best courses in the world often does so with a new tee box. Always lengthening. The USGA and R&A have made a blanket decision to slow down all of that. Good riddance.Hirsh: I think a lot of the anti-rollback argument comes from the PR perspective that it’s a bad look for the game. “The game is in a great place, why would we make it less fun?” This is bogus because the majority of new golfers probably have no idea about the rollback and probably won’t care or know the difference. To me, it seems the expected mass blowback and negative response didn’t materialize amongst the general golfing population.Barath: I think like many things in the modern day world, any perceived big announcement brings with it enormous amounts of potential arguments and individuals not willing to look past their own biases to formulate a more educated and balanced response. Nobody ever wants to have something “taken away” and the messaging is going to be the most important part of this change going forward, especially for most recreational golfers.
Yeah, but they might have already lost that messaging war....
That's it for this week. Monday is a travel day, so we'll probably catch up on things on Tuesday from Western HQ. Have a great weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment