Open letter to USGA and R&A on distance insights report

August 14, 2023

Re: Distance Insights Project                                                                                         

Dear USGA team,

It is cause for celebration that together with the R&A you have taken serious measures to restore key elements of the game by curtailing the outsized distance gains over the past couple of decades. The purpose of this letter is to express my full support for the proposed MLR and to add further support for additional measures, and to share a few perspectives from a deeply engaged participant.

Firstly, I would encourage you to consider rebranding the initiative. The narrative should be focused on restoring the scale of golf. Unfortunately, the discussion currently features too many headlines using terms such as “rollback” and “distance reduction”. These headlines are too literal, and they shift the focus from what golfers will gain to what they might lose, causing the average person (who is only vaguely interested in the details) to have a negative first impression. This makes an uphill battle, an even steeper climb.

The arguments made against your thoughtful initiative are grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of the recalibration that will come from restoring the scale that the golf ball flies. I firmly believe that your proposals will make golf more fun for all who play the game.

My principal reasons for supporting a “golf scale restoration” are the following:

1.)   Time: Golf is more fun when playing takes less time. The distance gains of recent decades have led to ever longer courses which take longer to play.

2.)   Health and longevity:  One of the treasures of our game is that grandparents and grandchildren can play together and remarkably they can even be competitive. Very few activities possess this magical combination of skill, agility, strategy, and experience that can last into ones 80s and 90s. Back issues are notorious in golf, and recent changes to the “all out nature” of the golf swing will likely only make this worse. Until recently, the ideal golf swing was about balancing power with rhythm. To get the most out of a shot you had to swing powerfully, but smoothly. Now, driver head and shaft technology are such that swinging ever harder is rewarded. It is hard to say where the limit is with respect to the wear and tear on the body. But it sure feels like we have surpassed it.

3.)   Sustainability: Restoring the scale of golf will help reduce the demands on maintenance. The challenges golf faces from water shortages and environmental restrictions on chemical use are only going to grow.

4.)   Cost: Golf is at its best when the highest number of people can enjoy its timeless benefits. Outsized distance gains have led to longer golf courses with more grounds to maintain, translating to higher operating costs and increased green fees. Anything we can do to reduce the cost to play is worth considering. 

5.)   Ability: The Fried Egg had a recent insight into how approach play is a much more important part of the women’s game than it is for the men’s game, where driver performance weighs more heavily on overall scoring.[1] As the driver has become more forgiving and the golf ball flies further, the game becomes more one dimensional. Moreover, and perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems that the distance gains have benefited high swing speed players (minority of golfers) more than medium and low swing speed players (majority of golfers). This relative difference in the impact of technology has created a gulf in the types of players who can be successful. Restoring the scale of golf would reduce the “unfair advantage” that high swing speed players get from distance gains.[2]

The argument that most convinces me is that ‘fun derived from distance is relative’. It is fulfilling to carry a hazard with a drive. It is satisfying to outdrive ones playing partners. It is not necessarily intrinsically more fun to drive a golf ball 290 yards versus 270 yards. Satisfaction from distance is relative. However, I concede, that articulating this argument in favor of restoring the scale of golf is challenging.    

Concluding remarks:

I support your proposal for a Model Local Rule. While I do not love the idea of bifurcation, I understand that it is a necessary step. And perhaps only a temporary step.  

I support further rescaling of the golf ball, beyond the currently proposed amounts. However, I think the current proposal is a very good start.

Furthermore, I support re-evaluating driver head size and forgiveness. Making the driver swing less about all-out power, and more about precision would be good for preserving golfers’ bodies, longevity, and leveling the playing field.

Please carry on. I can imagine how hard it is to face the opposition from certain equipment manufacturers and from some professional golf organizations. You are the stewards of our ancient game. Keep the long view.

Thank you.

[1] Majors in 2023: Women winners have 44% of strokes gained from approach play. For men’s major winners this year it is less than 30%. Whereas with strokes gained from driving it is the opposite. 16% of strokes gained for women came from driving, and for men 30% of strokes gained came from driving.       See:  https://thefriedegg.com/2023-womens-british-open-walton-heath/

[2] As a theoretical example, if the modern golf ball flies ~10% further than it did about 20 years ago, then a drive that used to fly 260 yards, now flies 286 yards, +26 yards. Whereas a drive that used to fly 220 yards now flies 242 yards, +22 yards. This delta of 4 yards is what creates a further separation. What is more, I think the reality may be even worse, where the faster swing speeds actually have an even higher % gain in distance, leading to an even larger delta. I suspect you have studied whether this is the case or not.

Link to USGA distance insights updates:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights.html