Golf’s global warming

3/2/01

Is modern-day equipment allowing golfers to hit the ball too far? The topic of distance is fast becoming golf’s equivalent of global warming -- some people think it’ll result in the end of the game as we know it, others think it’s much ado about nothing.

In last weeks column, I wrote that if there were no distance restrictions placed on clubs and balls, the maximum increase in average driving distance on the PGA Tour would only be about 15 yards (taking it from an expected 278-yard average by the end of 2001, once the apparent trend to the multi-layered ball is in place, to about 293 yards). Not close to the feared 400 yard drive. For the rest of us mortals, the added distance would be considerably less. So why all the fuss?

The major concern is an increase in distance -- even one of 15 yards -- would contribute to making many of the great old golf courses obsolete. As a traditionalist, I believe that if we can preserve the integrity of some of those famed old golf course designs -- and the art exhibited by those wonderfully talented architects almost a century ago -- then we should. Nobody wants to see St. Andrews dropped from the rota of British Open courses because it’s become too short.

Also, having to extend the length of golf courses will only add to the cost of playing golf (a thorn in the side of golf today). Also it may add to the time it takes to play (a major problem the game faces today ).

It is a sincere belief of mine that limiting distance-related properties of clubs and balls -- or even rolling them back -- would not be a fatal blow to the game. Golf will survive whatever happens, but I’d prefer to see a game that’s speedier and more affordable than the one we have today.

Is rolling the distance back worth fighting for? Maybe it is. This is a serious question for the governing body of the game, the USGA, to consider. Would golfers be willing to sacrifice a little distance to follow an exhibition of strong leadership on the part of the USGA, on the grounds that it makes sense, assuming there was ample and demonstrable evidence that distance has detrimentally affected the game?

The fact is, the USGA could not hope to attempt such a maneuver without the support of golfers. With the support of the governed, a roll back is possible. Without it, however, the USGA would not prevail and those opposed to such a move would ride the wave of dissent to their advantage, with the inevitable consequences. And the USGA would then seriously have to consider backing away from its 100-year-old war against distance. The war would be lost.

 

 

---

This column appeared on golfdigest.com where Frank contributes on a weekly basis. Check it out every Saturday.