Words by Sam

The ongoing dialogue about equipment regulations in golf reflects the timeless tension between tradition and progress. Whilst the proposed rollback in distance, if implemented, could herald a new chapter for the sport and as golfers, enthusiasts, and governing bodies navigate these changes, the essence of the game remains unchanged; the honing of one’s physical skills, test of one’s character, and the enduring friendships and camaraderie which the game fosters between people of all different walks of life.

So, before everyone works themselves into a frenzy with the latest rollback announcement, and social media runs wild with hyperbole on both sides of the fence, it’s essential to acknowledge that the ‘distance-debate’ has been raging for well over 100 years, and it will almost certainly continue to do so for as long as we keep playing.

I had a very enjoyable drive back from Surrey on Sunday night with renowned golf historian Simon Haines. Naturally, our talk turned to the much-anticipated equipment announcement. A 30-second scan through his dense Google Drive yielded endless articles and announcements from the pre-eminent players of every generation citing that the ball was going too far or declaring ‘standardisation was now essential’. (credit: Simon Haines for some of these quotes throughout the article). 

Not dissimilar to today, common concerns were that the game was being reduced to a “wedge-fest” and that the relevance of historic courses around the world needed to be protected .

‘‘I am sick of playing nothing more than drives and mashie-niblicks’’, Robert Tyre Jones

The evolution of golf equipment regulations and ball specifications has been a fascinating journey, reflecting the dynamic interplay between technological advancement and our own nostalgic view of the sport’s timeless essence. Let’s first embark on a chronological odyssey, exploring the key milestones in equipment rule changes, with a particular focus on the golf ball, which has been at the centre of recent discussions (credit: USGA who house the history of rule changes on their website).

1909-1940: Early Regulations

  • 1909: Introduction of rules on the “Form and Make of Golf Clubs” marks a crucial moment as golf’s governing bodies recognise the need to standardise equipment.
  • 1911: The inclusion of “conformity” in Rule 1-1 reflects a growing emphasis on uniformity in club designs, laying the groundwork for future equipment regulations.
  • 1921: The introduction of weight and size limitations for golf balls highlights concerns about increasing distances, prompting the first steps to curb potential technological advantages.
  • 1922: The expansion of Rule 1-1 to include both clubs and balls highlights a comprehensive approach to equipment regulation, reflecting a desire to maintain a balance in the game.
  • 1924: Experiments with lighter balls demonstrate a proactive stance by the USGA to address the changing dynamics of the sport and ensure that skill remains a crucial element.

1930s-1950s: Evolving Equipment Standards

  • 1931: The USGA’s move to limit the power of the golf ball represents a response to technological advancements, demonstrating a commitment to preserving the traditional challenges of the game. This is the first time 1.68 inch diameter balls entered the lexicon for the USGA, the R&A having promoted its smaller 1.62in ‘marble’ since the early 1900’s. The two governing bodies would not agree on the size for another 60 years. 
  • Around the same time, steel shafts were entering the game and becoming more popular, a move which likely fast-tracked Bobby Jones’ retirement following his legendary grand slam win in 1930.
  • 1934: The specific penalty for non-conforming clubs or balls resulting in disqualification reflects a growing need for strict enforcement, emphasising the importance of adherence to equipment standards.
  • 1938: The introduction of the fourteen-club limit aims to streamline the game, preventing an arms race in club selection and promoting strategic play.
  • 1942: The implementation of a velocity standard for golf balls during World War II showcases adaptability, as golf authorities respond to challenges posed by the global situation. 1.62oz in weight limited the velocity at 250 feet per second, a move to essentially ‘freeze’ the distance a ball could go at 1941 standards.

1960s-1970s: Further Specifications

  • 1964: The introduction of definitions for “iron,” “wood,” and “putter” reflects a period of refinement and categorisation, laying the groundwork for more precise equipment standards.
  • 1968: Specifications for shaft deviations and putter shafts showcase a focus on the technical aspects of clubs, aiming to strike a balance between innovation and tradition.
  • 1976: The implementation of the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) marks a significant response to concerns about increasing driving distances.

1980s-1990s: Modernising Regulations

  • 1984: The removal of the requirement for V-shaped grooves in irons signals a shift towards more flexible design standards, accommodating evolving manufacturing techniques. A huge move which significantly impacted the rapidly growing cast iron producer – Ping. 
  • 1990: Golf ball is standardised at <1.62oz and 1.68in minimum diameter ending a 59 year saga between the R&A and USGA
  • 1992: Insets in clubs, including irons as well as persimmon are permitted.
  • 1998: The introduction of tests to limit driving distances reflects a continued effort to balance technological progress with the preservation of the game’s essential characteristics. Tiger Woods won The Masters the previous year, eclipsing the field with a new brand of golf.

2000s-Present: Technological Advancements

  • 2002: The Joint Statement of Principles in 2002 marks a collaborative effort between the USGA and R&A to address equipment challenges, emphasising shared values and goals.
  • 2004: Standards for clubhead size and maximum length respond to concerns about potential extremes in equipment design, ensuring clubs remain within defined parameters. 460cc is implemented as the maximum in clubhead size.
  • 2005-2007: Changes in the Coefficient of Restitution (COR) mean several driver heads are outlawed due to the trampoline effect, influencing distance and trajectory.
  • 2008: The introduction of an interim spring-like effect test for driver heads reflects an ongoing commitment to regulating technological advancements and maintaining a level playing field.
  • 2010: Adoption of new groove regulations in 2010 is made to equipment standards, addressing concerns about the impact of design on playability.
  • 2016: Clarifications on aerodynamic features and spring-like effect limits highlight the continued evolution of equipment regulations in response to advancements in materials and design.

On reflection, it’s clear that the balance between tradition and innovation has been a constant theme. From early attempts to standardise equipment to the nuanced regulations of today, golf’s governing bodies have had to navigate an extremely complex and commercially sensitive landscape. The backlash in recent months does nothing more than highlight the shifting balance of power from the games governing bodies to the manufacturers and tour professionals. 

We must remember that those watershed moments like the ‘small and big ball saga’ and the non-conforming driver list in 2005 were all pre-social media. An age where the governance of the game and regulation of equipment was much more autocratic, backlash from players on Instagram was impossible and far less lobbying could take place. 

“Suggest to the clubs managing the amateur championship that they ordain that all entrants for their championship might use balls of the same material and structure’’, signed by Mr John Ball, John Low, H.S. Colt, A.C. Croome

The Ball Dilemma: A Contemporary Challenge

In recent years, the debate around golf ball performance has gained considerable momentum. The introduction of new materials and manufacturing techniques led to a surge in driving distances, unquestionably altering the dynamics of the game. The changes in the Coefficient of Restitution (COR) between 2005 and 2007 had a notable impact, influencing the relationship between the club and the ball, particularly in terms of rebound efficiency.

While these advancements showcased the potential for exciting developments, they also raised concerns about the sustainability of golf courses, the environmental impact, and the balance of skill in the sport. The previous transition from traditional balata balls to harder covers marked an even more profound shift in the game’s landscape, affecting spin rates, control, and overall playability. 

These were far greater changes, which ushered in an era where the need to control spin was severely diminished, and instead drivers could be launched much higher and with far less spin – a recipe for prodigious distance. Our latest podcast looking at Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf Series underlines the seismic change in the way the game has come to be today – we see far fewer mid- and long-irons hit into greens, and players are far less concerned about the consequences of playing from the rough. Shots like Rory’s 2 iron in the 18th at Renaissance this year are now extremely rare which is a great shame because Rory’s skill and command of the golf ball was never on better display than that moment on a windy day in East Lothian. 

The Balancing Act: Addressing Distance Concerns

The USGA and R&A, in response to a surge in hitting distances, particularly at the elite level, are considering changes that would impact not only professionals but recreational players as well.

The decision involves revising the Overall Distance Standard test, by increasing the swing speed at which tests are conducted from the current 120 mph to 125 mph. This change, while maintaining the distance limit of 317 yards, could have significant implications for the golf ball. If a ball is close to the Overall Distance Standard at the current speed (which they will be), a 5 mph increase in clubhead speed could result in a 15-yard gain, pushing it beyond the soon to be established limit.

Whilst 15 yards might not sound significant, those same distance drops would also affect the approach shot, perhaps to the tune of a further 7 or 8 yards, so a compounded reduction in distance on a 440 yard par 4, would mean the difference of several clubs more. 

The impact? Lower descent angle, reduction in spin, increased danger of hazards and a requirement for precision. This author believes that to be a good thing. 

Anticipating Change: A Bifurcated Future?

The golf community has witnessed nearly three years of deliberations, with equipment manufacturers and industry stakeholders engaging in a “Notice and Comment” period. The initial proposal to change the test speed to 127 mph for elite professional golfers faced resistance, including opposition from the PGA Tour and PGA of America, prompting a reconsideration.

As a response to this, the governing bodies are contemplating a bifurcated set of rules, starting in 2028. Elite professionals would use a shorter golf ball than recreational players. From 2030 onward, all balls would need to conform to the Rules of Golf for professionals and amateurs alike, and while the impact on recreational players might be less pronounced, it could still be proportional, ensuring a harmonised approach to distance across all levels of play.

The Road Ahead: Navigating Change

In a recent Golf Digest survey, a significant majority (64.6%) expressed reluctance to abide by rules reducing ball distance. Similar sentiments were shared regarding distance limitations at the elite level, with 60.4 percent opposing a pushback for pros and top amateurs.

Yet, the proposed changes have found support from certain influential figures. Rory McIlroy waded in with his perspective on X (nee. Twitter) on Sunday evening. He emphasised that the golf ball rollback would make ‘no difference to the average golfer’, steering the sport back toward sustainability. McIlroy believes the move would also resurrect certain skills in the pro game that have diminished over the past two decades.

“Of course the ball has made such distances possible, and unless some regulation is devised, the ball will force us on and on in this mad race for yardage’’, The Links, by Robert Hunter

He highlighted an essential point; that the opposition shouldn’t be directed at the governing bodies but at elite pros and club/ball manufacturers who resisted bifurcation. The option for separate rules for professionals and amateurs was presented earlier, but financial considerations influenced the decision to pursue a less extensive rollback.

The Positive Outlook: Protecting the Future of Golf

The proposed rollback in distance regulations holds several potential benefits. An assortment of podcasts race through my mind in recent years, Clayts, Alistair Beggs on sustainability, and retro podcasts with James Day all beautifully capture some of the benefits that shorter distances would yield, but let’s be realistic about the extent of the changes. These are by no means going to transform the way the game is played, and take us back to a bygone era (sadly), but will almost certainly allow some of these benefits to be realised;

  1.  Excitement and Variety: A reduction in hitting distances introduces a greater variety of shots. The need for strategic approaches to greens, rather than relying on lofted wedges enhance the excitement of both playing and watching golf. Flatter descent angles, greater jeopardy and increased run into greens will all make the game more exciting, albeit challenging. I think we all want to see the best players in the world show their skills with mid- and long-irons…
  2. Sustainability: Limiting the surge in hitting distances may alleviate the pressure on golf courses to continually lengthen, promoting environmental sustainability. Shorter courses could reduce the environmental footprint, enhance walkability, and contribute to a more sustainable future for the sport. Too many courses now have that familiar 50-yard hike back to the tips, and if the daily course set-up meant some (or all) of those walks were reduced, then all the better! This would also lead to a reduction in the pace of play.
  3. Avoiding Bifurcation: The proposed changes aim to prevent a significant divide between amateur and professional players. A harmonised approach to equipment regulations ensures that the essence of the game remains consistent across various levels of play and feels to be at the very heart of most of the pushback. Angry folks on social media often cite the true beauty of the game as ‘playing Royal Birkdale off the back just like the professionals’ (let’s not go down the rabbit hole of the playing conditions which will be radically different in 2025 to what the average club member enjoys the remaining 51 weeks of the year where Open Championship greens will be clegging in the 140’s with any luck), whereas in football you can’t simply walk onto Old Trafford for a kickabout. Whether this is really a fair argument is not the question, but the perceived feeling of being on some sort of level playing field does create admiration for the skills of the elite players without doubt. 
  4. Protecting Future Generations: With younger amateurs showcasing unprecedented ball speeds, the focus on skill and strategy, rather than sheer power, could change the balance for upcoming generations of golfers who today are bred on a diet of Trackman, and generating maximum clubhead speed. Gordon Sargeant ‘cruising in the 190’s’ is a very scary proposition for tournament play. Mike Clayton once said on a podcast that ‘the longest players in every generation become the norm in the next’, so if we do nothing today, then in 6 years’ time, this will become a much more common occurrence. This would be a huge departure from what we are watching today by contrast.

As the golfing community awaits the official announcements from the USGA and R&A, the debates will undoubtedly continue. Golf’s journey through over a century of equipment regulations showcases its resilience and adaptability. The current proposals, while sparking controversy, signal some form of commitment to ensuring the sport’s longevity, sustainability, and preserving its character.

“Elite pros and ball manufacturers think bifurcation would negatively affect their bottom lines, when in reality, the game is already bifurcated’’, Rory McIlroy

A timeless tension between tradition and progress, all now wrapped up in a highly commercial industry which wasn’t there 100 years ago when Jones lamented the introduction of steel shafts. The proposed rollback in distance, if implemented, would serve as a small plaster to a much wider problem, and while something more far reaching would be interesting to see, it is as much as they can get away with given the size and complexity of the industry as a whole.