Surprised by this feedback.
I thought Keith’s point about the best players getting on Trackman and figuring out how to launch a ball that spins differently in one session was particularly interesting. His main argument is that Trackman has changed the game so much to the point that any technology you throw at them, they’re gonna be able to figure out much more easily than Davis Love could in the 80’s. I constantly hear “Trackman” as an argument as to why players are able to bomb it more these days, but the confidence he had in his ability to get with tour reps and a Trackman to make any technology work certainly made an impression on me.
I did not think his golf course arguments were good, and challenged him on those to the extent at which I thought it was appropriate.
If you look at the USGA mission statement, it’s very easy to conclude (along with a shit ton of other reasons), that the ball should not go as far as it does:
The USGA promotes and conserves the true spirit of the game of golf as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions. It acts in the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment of those who love and play it.
And this is the lens through which I have made my stance for several years now. The equipment is so good that, in a variety of ways, the spirit of the game of golf has been greatly diminished.
With this in mind, I think his argument about what fans want to see actually holds water. The USGA has so clearly dropped the ball on the equipment issue and let this go on for so long, that there’s vested business interest to stick with the status quo. The USGA has strayed from its mission of conserving the spirit of the game, and seems way more interested in the business of the modern game. If rolling the equipment back meant more viewers, it would have already been done. I’d love to be able to prove that more interesting golf means a more interesting product, better ratings, and more value in the game. But that would require people in the golf industry thinking past the next step right in front of them. And people in the golf industry do not do that.
I can make a million points as to why the ball should be rolled back and equipment toned down, etc. But if it doesn’t address the money question, the incentive to rock the boat plummets. Simply put, the wrong people are in charge of the USGA and have been for awhile.
I thought his points about different equipment not changing the strategy was interesting. Combining that with his confidence that they could figure out ways to get the spin off of a spinner ball, and I had to rethink a bit crux of my main argument about the risk/reward of pounding driver. And I thought this coming from a tour pro is interesting and different than a lot of previous discussions we’ve had on distance in the past.
Changing the technology in golf is going to be a pain in the ass. It’s divisive, it’s gonna be costly for equipment companies, and it’s a big question mark for the professional tours/USGA. There’s uncertainty. While I think it’s so incredibly obvious that something needs to change, I actually find the “why change?” argument to be one of the best arguments for the status quo. In my mind, there’s no actual logic that shows that golf should be played the way it is played (and the way it has been trending, and continues to trend). But I have a lot harder time answering the “why change” question when he says “we’re gonna figure out the technology, the same guys are gonna be at the top, we might be hitting slightly different clubs into the green, you might think differently, but you’re a small subset of the golf fandom at large, and 95% of golf doesn’t put as much thought into this as you do.”
THAT is a way, way, way better view on the debate than anyone that tries to twist numbers or tries to argue that the ball doesn’t go too far, in my opinion.