This content was first published in Golf Journal, a quarterly print publication exclusively for USGA Members. To be among the first to receive Golf Journal and to learn how you can help make golf more open for all, become a USGA Member today.
On Dec. 6, 2023, the USGA and R&A announced that by the end of this decade, all golf balls will be tested under a revised standard; meaning, the majority of golfers will be hitting a golf ball that won’t go as far off the tee as the one they are playing now. For a game in which hitting longer drives is as aspirational as lower scores, it was a stunner.
The change takes effect for elite tournament play on Jan. 1, 2028, and for recreational golfers in January 2030. While tour pros will lose the most distance, they will adapt quickly. Meanwhile, recreational golfers, who come 2030 probably won’t notice a difference in how far their ball is going, might be asking, “Why is this happening?”
There has been disagreement and debate about how far the ball should travel since the mid-1800s, when the gutta percha replaced the feathery. The subject has gained urgency with the unrelenting upward distance trend on the pro tours, as well as more golf courses requiring additional land, water, maintenance and overall costs due to new construction and lengthening.
The following Q&A with Thomas Pagel, the USGA’s chief governance officer, more fully explains the factors that informed the decision.
Are you satisfied with the outcome and if so, why?
It was a long process. Satisfaction isn’t about us, but about seeing the game remain in a healthy state and having all stakeholders, including golfers and golf courses, benefit from that healthy state. The Distance Insights project, which we launched in 2018, was the most robust study ever on the topic, not only historically but also looking toward the future. We went through our equipment rulemaking procedures, we engaged with the community, we had many ideas on possible solutions to minimize or slow the pace of distance growth, and most importantly, we listened. So the outcome with this across-the-game change to the golf ball testing conditions reflects both the industry and the
process we went through.
How much did you struggle with having to relinquish the position on the Model Local Rule (MLR) that was proposed in March 2023 but met with resistance?
It actually took us a while to get comfortable with the thought of the MLR because we’ve been on record for years saying one of the game’s greatest qualities is playing under a single set of Rules and equipment standards. But as we went through the Distance Insights project, one comment we heard loud and clear is, ‘Please have little or no impact on the recreational game.’ The way to achieve that would be through an MLR that is focused on the elite game, but when we announced that as a possible solution, we heard from industry stakeholders and golfers that the idea of a unified game is important. When we decided to go with an across-the-game change, we also wanted to remain committed to having that minimal impact on the recreational game, which is why we reduced the clubhead testing speed from 127 mph to 125 mph. That means for the average recreational golfer, we’re looking at 5 or less yards of reduction on their average drive.
What do you say to those who might contend that the changes didn’t go far enough?
Our objective was to have meaningful impact with minimal disruption and we feel that this accomplishes that goal. The USGA and R&A are unbiased governing bodies, and so our role is to understand perspectives from all stakeholders across the spectrum and then balance those out to try and identify a meaningful solution. We know that this isn’t going to stop distance gains, nor will it open up the folder of golf courses that the game has passed by, but it will slow the pace of distance gains and that’s important. As governing bodies we need to prepare ourselves that we might have to do this again, but we’re talking 15-20 years off, most likely.
Conversely, how about those who say you did too much?
I would say again that governance is hard. We need to listen to all perspectives but ultimately make a decision. To do nothing or to do less than we did would just continue to pass that burden on to golf courses and future generations of golfers. This isn’t just about distance in 2024 or 2025, it’s really about 20 or 30 years from now; if distance continues to grow at the pace that we’ve seen historically over the last 40 years, golf courses will continue to lengthen. We could wake up in 20 years and have the average drive distance at the elite level be 20 yards longer, which means golf courses could be 200-300 yards longer, all of which creates increased costs that are ultimately passed on to golfers. The historical data and trends are clear, and it’s just not a sustainable model.
When you decided to stay with one set of rules rather than the Model Local Rule, did it put you between a rock and a hard place as far as requiring a more narrow compromise?
I think it’s just the reality of the process. We essentially had three options: Do an across-the-game change, do a Model Local Rule, or do nothing at all. Our leadership in Mike Whan and Martin Slumbers of the R&A were very clear that doing nothing was not an option, so that left us with two choices. It was that balancing act between certain interests or individuals who might say, ‘Hey, we don’t like the MLR,’ and then you change to across the game and they say, ‘We don’t like that, either.’ What they’re really saying is don’t do anything, and in our responsibility to the game and our role as the governing body, we felt it was important to the game’s long-term health, so we balanced those views and ultimately arrived at this approach.
What was the most important part of this decision in your mind – the distance gains and balance of skills at the elite level or the sustainability issue as far as the cost of water, land and maintenance?
For us here at the USGA it was more around the golf course. We wanted to provide a voice for the golf course in this process because these consistent distance gains over the last four decades have compelled golf courses to grow at a rate that’s very similar, or to make other changes such as adding bunkers, moving tees, etc. All those things come with a cost and as you add it up over decades and multiply it by thousands of courses, we just felt it was not right to pass on that burden.
Why would a golf course be lengthened at all if it doesn’t host a big tournament? Is it because the owners want to mimic what they are seeing elsewhere, or that recreational players are hitting the ball longer?
There are two primary reasons: One is that they desire to host a big tournament; that could be a college event, an elite junior competition, a state amateur or a professional tournament, so they make modifications in order to attract it. The second is around perception. We’re very aware that there are golf courses that have lengthened that probably didn’t need to, but the perception of what constitutes “championship golf” is real. In our research, we found that the top 100 courses in the U.S. continued lengthening at roughly the same trend line as distance gains at the elite level, even though fewer than 20 of those courses regularly host a professional event or a major.
The style of play at the elite level is now often called “bomb and gouge,” in which players are rewarded for distance more than they are punished for inaccuracy. Do you think that style is “de-skilling” the game?
I think when you look at skills, it really is a variety of skills that is most important for the game to be successful and enjoyable. We think this change will help continue to ensure that variety. It’s also a safety issue. We’ve seen players choose to hit tee shots on lines that even a decade ago they wouldn’t have thought about. On several occasions I’ve gone to a course and heard course operators ask about how they prevent a golfer from playing down this parallel fairway for the purposes of safety. These are the real-world challenges that we need to address.
Do you think the game might be a little out of balance right now, and is it the USGA’s and R&A’s mission to bring it back into balance?
The game is extremely healthy right now. As an industry we have been very fortunate. I think the enthusiasm for the elite game is in a really good place as well. But this discussion – and decision – is about the future health of the game. The easy thing to do if we wanted everybody to like us would be to quietly do nothing; if we did that and all of a sudden 20 years later the driving averages are 20 yards longer, it would become increasingly obvious to people that the game would be out of balance. Our responsibility is to ensure that the health of the game today can carry through and not let it get to that point.
How important was it that Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy all spoke out and supported the
decision when so many other professionals didn’t?
Not only is it helpful, but I think it means a lot to all of us as an organization that these champions and very respected voices in the game chose to support it. It’s important for golfers to hear that it’s not just the governing bodies reaching this conclusion, but also some of those players who we all look up to.
It seems like Distance Insights was run almost as a democracy. Is that the most efficient way to go forward or would you like to be a little bit more of a benevolent dictatorship?
The process we have in place to step back and listen can be challenging and frankly can be frustrating at times, but it’s the right thing for our game. Golf is very personal. There’s not a person in this industry who doesn’t love the game and doesn’t have strong views on the game, and I think it’s important that their views and their beliefs are part of the process. Moving forward, you’re going to see us continue to remain engaged, continue to listen and take in a variety of perspectives. But at the end of the day somebody does need to make a difficult choice, and as the unbiased party without any true interest other than the health of the game, we make those hard decisions.
How many minds do you think you’ve changed?
Early on we would have conversations and people would generally go back to their corner or their starting view on the topic. It was really tough to get people out of that. Over time there are those who have changed their perspective and there are others who haven’t, which is fine. We can all agree to disagree on certain things. But there are some individuals who three years ago would have said to do nothing and now they’ll at least say, I understand it. What we’ve done is update the test standard to reflect the longest hitters in the game; this test standard was first established in 1976 at 109 mph clubhead speed because that was considered the fastest swing speed for someone who had success at the professional level. We updated again in 2004 to 120 mph, and if you were to look at the data on clubhead speed and ball speeds now it’s obvious that our test to measure the effect of equipment when it’s in the hands of the longest players is no longer meeting its
purpose. So if you step back and explain, this standard has existed for 50 years and all we’re doing is updating the standard to more closely reflect the modern game, that’s when they say, ‘OK, I get it.’ It does take time, it does take a lot of conversations and there’s a lot of misinformation out there, but that’s why having the opportunity for a two-way conversation with the governing bodies is so critical.
Do you think that bifurcation is off the table?
We heard loud and clear that one unified set of rules and equipment standards across the game is really important. If we continue to hear that from golfers and the voices in the industry, we’ll continue to place
significant weight on those comments.
What will the effect of this rule be on recreational golfers with clubs other than the driver?
One of the pieces of misinformation we hear from golfers is that they believe they’re going to lose 10 percent across every club in their bag, and that is not the case. It’s going to be 5 yards or less and that’s going to be primarily limited to just your driver. Our data suggests that the average recreational golfer won’t see any distance impact by the time they get into their hybrids and irons, which will be unaffected. It fulfills our objective of trying to minimize the impact on the recreational game.