Good explanation on a complex topic. Thanks as always NLU!
While I say that it is complicated, I don’t think it’s as complicated as Matt Adams made it sound to be. Quick tangent, props to Shack for bringing up Adams love for having pros playing old courses during the debate. Shack can be an absolute savage when he wants. Ok back to my point.
This whole process starts with bifurcation. Why people or the governing bodies don’t want bifurcation baffles me. In all seriousness, how many amateurs are going to keep re-teeing drivers until they get one in play? For most ams, if you hit it out of bounds or in the woods and you can’t find it, drop where you think it should be or where it went in, take your penalty, play on. Thinks makes the game move faster, more enjoyable, and you want have an 20 handicapper holding up 2 groups because he has to play by USGA rules but can’t keep the ball in the park. Bifurcation then allows the USGA/R&A to implement a professional ball. Like was said in the post, many major sports have different rules and equipment for the professionals than the amateurs. If you got the chance to play Shinny, would it really cheapen your experience to be playing with a normal ball and not the same ball as Dustin Johnson? Sorry guys but DJ could be using hickory shafts and 1970s balls and still hit it past us all. Simple fact. Next, how would a pro-only ball really affect the manufacturers? They spend millions of dollars on projects that get scraped all the time. How many versions did Callaway go through to get to the Rouge or the Chrome Soft ball? Ams are still going to buy just as many golf balls as we normally would have, isn’t that where they make their money? Titleist can still say it’s the number one ball in golf every week, which is all Wally really cares about. Finally, the pros complaining about having to get used to a new ball need to zip it. This past week in Mexico, everyone had their Trackman on the range and by Wednesday had their new distances down. I’m not buying that argument.