Do we need a ball for the pros and a ball for the rest of us?

By Neville Idour

Golf’s governing bodies have finally made a decision about the bifurcation (dividing something into two parts) of the golf ball.

It means elite golfers and recreational golfers will be using different balls from January, 2026, should it be approved by the world's PGA tours.

A new model local rule will allow competition organisers to enforce it to ensure the players are using the balls that go a shorter distance than current models available.

The aim is to reduce the distance of the longest hitters by 14-15 yards, on average to 317 yards, with a three yard variance.

Apparently there has been a four percent year over year increase in hitting distances across all seven tours analysed. The model local rule is a specific one that tournament organisers can choose to use or not to use.

The R&A and United States Golf Association say the increased distances being hit are threatening golf’s future and the various playing skills that should determine success.

Add to this the move towards lengthening courses which adds to the cost and also the time to play a round. R&A chief executive Martin Slumbers maintains they have worked closely with the golf industry and listened to the feedback provided. But have they really listened, as we will see later?

The question has to be asked, have they listened to the players? It is difficult to find any players in favour or anyone other than the decision makers for that matter. Let us look at some of the comments on what has been a contentious issue boiling under the surface for some years.

One of the more rational and thinking players Adam Scott, who is chairman of the players' advisory council. He said there would be a lot of opposition from players.

“I’m not sure throwing a blanket on the golf ball is the way to do it,’’ Scott said.

``I don’t like bifurcating either. The ball is the ball, but the driver went from the hardest club to hit to the most forgiving. I want to see better evidence for making a drastic change now after listening to the decision makers and representatives from Bridgestone, Titleist and Callaway. The penalty for missing a driver isn’t high enough now, at the top level. Maybe address that first.”

Brian Harman said he was sceptical about whether reducing the distance the golf balls travel in elite golf would benefit shorter hitters.

Said Harman: “There hasn’t been any change or golf course design that’s helped a shorter hitter in 30 years.”

The backlash has come from players and manufacturers alike.

Bryson DeChambeau described it as “atrocious and will work against bigger hitters. It is the most unimaginative, uninspiring thing you could do.”

Jon Rahm, another of the more rational thinkers, questioned why the focus is on changing the ball, when course design could be the answer.

“The USGA are hyper focussed on making professional golf a little more difficult than it already is. There is plenty more they could do to make it more difficult, like course setup and design.”

Taylormade has questioned the move and is seeking feedback it can present to the governing bodies.

Titleist said: “The plans are a solution in search of a problem. One of golf’s unifying appeals is that everyone plays by the same set of rules, the same courses and with the same equipment.

``Bifurcation will divide golf between elite and recreational play, add confusion and break the link that is part of the game’s enduring fabric.” Telling words indeed.

Bridgestone is concerned the change could confuse and dampen the enthusiasm of millions of new participants to golf.

Think of the many professionals who happily give golf balls to eager fans and volunteers. Will they need to carry the balls recreational golfers use as well as the “pro” balls.

Rickie Fowler doesn’t like bifurcation at all. He said: “Why can’t we just freeze it where we are. The game has never been in a better place.”

Sam Burns said what’s best for the game is what is happening now as the game is in a strong place.

Scottie Scheffler said golf course designs and re-designs are likely having a bigger impact than technology and the golf ball. Courses taking out trees and the usual natural obstacles to big hitting has helped golfers smash the ball into bigger landing areas.

Said Scheffler: “Look at Hilton Head and Colonial that have stood the test of time. They are placement golf courses. Look at The Players (Sawgrass), players can’t overpower it. It is more about design than the golf ball.”

Look at Augusta National where they keep moving tee boxes back to stop players overpowering the course. Why not make subtle changes to provide more challenges from tee to green?

Bubba Watson was blunt and made some telling points.

“I don’t like it,’’ Watson said.

``Commercialism is paying all these bills for the USGA and others, and now you are asking them to spend millions of dollars to change a ball or design a new one and other things. Just because you hit it further doesn’t mean it goes straighter.”

He said other sports celebrate excellence and pushing the envelope. Why limit golfers?

“The sport is at an all time high, so don’t mess with it. Let’s just keep it growing. That’s my short answer.”

Rory McIlroy is against the change calling the R&A and USGA distance insights' report a huge waste of time and money.

``They are trying to change something that relates to 0.1 percent of golfers,’’ McIlroy said.

Justin Thomas agreed it was not necessary to change the ball. Lee Westwood said golf was in a good place.

``Why panic. I think it’s exciting to watch right now. I don’t see the problem,” Thomas said.

Nick Faldo suggested in 2020 a change in the driver face.

“There might be some serious mishits,’’ Faldo said.

``There would be a real sweet spot whereas now it is a sweet face.”

Ernie Els sees changes in course conditions as the answer.

“Golf courses don’t need to be longer. Make the tour rough knee high and the fairways firm and fast which is fair for all.”

Administrators Mike Davis and Fred Ridley both express concerns about the ongoing lengthening of courses to combat distance without saying outright that bifurcation is the answer.

Interestingly the PGA Tour has said it will not accept bifurcation. Nor at a recent meeting of the world’s various PGA tours, including New Zealand, was there a mood for acceptance.

In fact with what appears to be all of the PGA Tours unified against the move currently, the R&A and USGA need to open their ears and really listen to all the stakeholders of golf. They are saying maintain the status quo, get much more data and feedback from these stakeholders before contemplating any change.

As for those in favour of a rollback Tiger Woods has expressed his agreement as has Patrick Cantlay who said: “The ball needs to go shorter. They can’t keep moving the tees back.”

Jack Nicklaus raised the issue in the 1970s and Gary Player said: “If we don’t do something the ball goes 500 yards. Cut the ball back 50 yards for pros, not for members. Let members play with anything and keep the long putter against their chest. They are two different games.”

They certainly will be if we listen to him. Paul McGinley is another to be in favour of the rollback.

So what do we make of all these reactions?

There is no doubt the bifurcation of the golf ball decision has not met with significant approval. The consensus is very much against the move and many of the reasons given make very good sense.

Titleist's comments about division that will be created are hard to argue against. The suggestions to maybe limit the ball distances and the clubhead horsepower to the current standards possibly makes good sense.

Of course the obvious move for golf courses hosting the world’s best to make is to cease the obsession with combating length. Rather, why not shorten the length and create more difficulty tee to green thereby giving the shorter hitters a more even playing field.

Narrower fairways and deeper second cut rough will penalise the wayward drives along with strategic bunkering. There are already many short driveable par fours on the tours that are setup as risk/reward holes which are no easy beats.

By taking this approach smashing the ball will no longer be the number one go to. The obsession with par, aka the United States Open, needs to go. The score will be the score and a more even playing field will result for the longer or shorter hitters.

To conclude I will defer to Sir Bob Charles. He plays with his modern set and his hickory set of clubs. His modern top brand big headed driver only delivers 10 percenmt more length than his small headed hickory driver. So where is the problem? It isn’t either the ball or the club.

As some players have said the increases in physical stature, strength and fitness are the main reasons for the increasing distances. What do readers think? We welcome your comments.

Stop Press: The latest development has seen the world alliance of PGAs send a memorandum to the USGA signed by nine PGAs, calling for the ruling bodies (USGA and R&A) to pause and reconsider the unintended consequences of the proposed change.

“We fear that the proposed changes could seriously interrupt the current momentum in the game and be damaging and detrimental in the long run.

``We are also very aware of sets of data that conflict with the R&A and USGA materials ... we ask that the R&A and USGA extend the consultation period to allow a review of the conflicting data being presented , and also for more data to be gathered to prove or disprove if change is required.”

With all that in mind it could be a lengthy never ending process. As they say, watch this space.