No Laying Up - Golf Podcast - NLU Podcast, Episode 398: USGA/R&A Distance Report with Geoff Shackelford

Episode Date: February 3, 2021

Geoff Shackelford joins to help breakdown the latest announcement from the USGA/R&A about potential rule changes and other areas of interest. Geoff has long been an advocate for distance limitations in golf, and has more knowledge on the topic that pretty much anyone in the game. We pick his brain with some common arguments we hear against rollback/bifurcation, take some listener questions, discuss what the new landscape might look like, and a lot more.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm going to be the right club today. Yes! That is better than most. I'm not in. That is better than most. Better than most. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the No-Lang Up Podcast, Sally here. I don't know if this classifies as an emergency podcast, but unexpectedly, USGA in RNA Report came out today. This is Tuesday.

What is it, February 2nd? Something like that. A report that was a response to the 2020 distance report. We're going to talk through that with somebody that knows more about this distance stuff and has been talking about this for pretty much two decades. I'd say maybe even longer than that. Jeff Shackleford of JeffShackleford.com. He will break it down for us. Better than I can, I think. It's a very, very complicated issue. A lot of people are very not accepting to any kind of rollback or change or maybe don't fully understand it.

Every time I have one of these discussions, I think I learn a little bit more about it. And we thought of no one better to kind of help us break it down than Jeff. You can get more information on Jeff at JeffShackleford.com. He's also got a great new newsletter out. It's called The Quadrilateral. Just basically news from the majors, talking about architecture, course setup, business of majors, television, travel, all kinds of stuff. You can find that information on his website,

JeffShackleford.com. This episode is also brought to you by our friends at Pinehurst for 125 years. They have been the home of American golf. There's still never a better time to be there. The championship legacy. Don Ross' masterpiece, Pinehurst number two. The US opens first anchor site, five US open schedule to return of the next two decades there. USGAs actually moving to Pinehurst as well. There's also the redesigned masterpiece of Pinehurst number

four by Gil Hans. That's just two of the nine golf courses there. That's two of the nine championship courses that you can experience at Pinehurst. And that's just two of the, they got nine golf courses there. That's two of the nine championship courses that you can experience at PINERS. And then they've got the perfect little, you know, epilogue to your day. Grab a few wedges and join a loop at the Great Old, 789 yard short course. Build as the most fun 10 acres and all of golf

and then off the course. An array of activities and you can have some craft beers at the PINst Brewing Company, or there's also they've recently renovated the Manor Inn's hospitality suites, as well as the stylish North and South Bar. It takes a lot of days to get through everything you need to at Pinehurst.

So, it's never been better. Go to Pinehurst.com now to play in your visit, thought in your for the delay, here is Jeff Schachelford. All right, Jeff, you're gonna help me break this down as best as we possibly can. One of the most complicated topics in golf. I'm done trying to, you know, I say I'm done trying to address it on Twitter. There's no way I'm actually done, but it is impossible to do, they could make Twitter a thousand,

10,000 characters and you still couldn't do it. Explain to me like I'm five, what happened today? They came forward with a lot of ideas. They've telegraphed a lot of different things over the years, but I feel like today, and I'm still wrapping my head around it, because I didn't get to see this until this morning. Some people obviously got it ahead of time and had a little more time to digest. But my take is that they are really serious about restoring certain skills in the game and they have decided to go all in or at least throw out every idea possible which

has not really been their approach in the past and the the simple issue is that they have recognized and now documented with reports that they feel this is not a good direction for the game where we are now both for the professional game and for the everyday game that sort of reacts to the professional game often irrationally. But not always. There are golf courses that can tell you they're having issues based on changes in the way people hit the ball or where they miss the ball. They can point to their driving range fence that's gone up a hundred feet since of course opened and things like that. So it's both sides of the game and they are simply now digging in and I believe they've decided what they want to do, but I think what's interesting about today's announcement

is that they have thrown out everything on the table, which I did not see coming. Down to, if you read closely, you could say, well, grooves are a possibility to be looked at, driver head size, everything. And the other, I would say, a bit of caving that took place today is that they are now very open to a local rule. And I wrote a book 15, 16 years ago that had a chapter on local rule. And that was something they were just so appalled by, even though they've used

local rules for things like a putters only on the sixth screen at Riviera and I mean that the one ball rules the most common Thing that people would refer to as well. You've bifurcated before Where guys can't pull out a certain ball on on certain par five teams and you know They and they still have that at the PGA championship They've not been very consistent on the local role. So this is fascinating today, and that they've just come right out, and that is, as you tweeted, essentially bifurcation, and it's something that they have been resistant to,

and they still claim to be resistant to, but to put it in writing like this is a big change for these two organizations. And the report that came out last year, and I've been adamant about this too, is you can't make, publish the report that came out last year, and I've been adamant about this too, is you can't make, publish the report they put out last year and then do nothing. So I'm not surprised to see something happening.

I really truly believe that there was a change that, when that report came out last year, that things had to change after that. What changed today? And correct me if I'm wrong, the way I understand it, there are three rule proposals being made currently and six areas of interest and those are two separate things the rule proposals being much further along in

the you know, whatever you know Maybe you can help me kind of just define what that means, but those three rule proposals are the availability of a model local rule restricting club link to 46 inches, which I think, you know, we can talk about, I think is an issue, but not the biggest issue, but no, no, no, for the golf ball, the use of optimized launch conditions within the overall distance standard. So basically testing of golf balls, new submission and re-submissions using revised conditions for listing.

Hope you can help me make sense of that. And then the last one being reduction on testing tolerance within pendulum test protocol from 18 to six microseconds. That's in the minutiae. You can help me kind of understand what that means. Yeah, I think if you read the distance inside this report, which most people didn't know I don't blame them because it's not worth their time, but for those of us who follow

it, it is interesting. And if you read that report, you felt like they were going to do something about the ball aerodynamics in some way, whether that's a change in size or dimples, that was very clear. They made the case in that. And then they made the case that the driver faces is probably a little too spring-like for their taste. They had tabled the discussion of club length. I think that just simply came back on the table because of Bryson. I think it's also a great thing to throw out there because the deadline for comments on that is March 4th.

That's, it's February 2nd, Groundhog Day. So I don't, I feel like that is a test case to see what they get in the way of feedback. It will not impact this year's masters, but I'm going to guess that the idea of the narrative going into the masters being Will Brice and Go with a 48 inch driver, really bothered some people. And it's a great way for them to see what they get in the way of pushback and then a year from now, that'll be over with.

I just don't think that would impact many people at all. Especially if they start addressing the other stuff, the 48 might be more fun to see how off the planet they go. I know, I know, and it's let them do it. I've never understood things like that, or somebody wants to use a 64 degree wedge, go for it, it's really hard to hit.

But I think it's for their purposes, it's a great way to test the waters, see how much Bryson makes his think of it, or other people or manufacturers or if they kind of go quietly on that. Or it may also just be a simple distraction play. I mean, look at the headlines. The first few I've seen just from the other side of the pond where the RNA had provided this last night to some writers, you see the headline is they're targeting D-shambo. So it's a great distraction play in that sense

that then they go after the things that they've decided on with the driver face and the ball. Now what's fascinating is I said, they put everything on the table in this report today that opens up the conversation to this local rule idea attacking the overall reduction of the overall distance standard, which is a big deal. The limitations on different things, including driver head size.

And again, production of spin from all clubs from all areas of the course, which sort of brings grooves into play. Again, now I get I think a lot of those things are just being thrown out there to make the R&D departments write papers and waste time. And, and I think that's great to see. I know that's it's silly that it has to come to those kinds of things, but the manufacturers have shown just to kind of an unwillingness to work with them on this and to come up with the solutions that are good for everybody. And we have this, we're stuck on bifurcation and they don't like it for marketing reasons. So I think they're playing a little more hardball with this today. And then, so the spring-like effect seems to be,

you know, an issue. And I'm wondering if you can kind of give us a timeline of, you know, when the spring-like effect was first entered as a debate in golf and kind of what, how it has potentially been mismanaged, which I don't want to put words in your mouth, what I would believe to be your opinion on that issue and how you understand that to be potentially changing.

I just think it's as simple as, it's been something they've been monitoring a while and they've had spats with the manufacturers and that's why we know that phrase. I can't remember the exact year now. I think the differences, the manufacturers are just so good at what they do and they have figured

out new ways combined with players having launch monitors and adjustability to again just sort of work around whatever rules there are in place that are probably that were probably sound at the time. And then as we've seen to the the faces are so thin, they change and

so they take it right up to the line. And then the player hits 500 balls. And it's now over the line. And so it's not unreasonable to ask that that just get modified. And to me, that's something that ultimately spring-like effect is something that people at certain swing speeds enjoy a greater advantage from. And that was a debate before. is something that people at certain swing speeds enjoy a greater advantage from. And that was a debate before.

And it's very hard to convey that to the everyday golfer for the governing bodies to say, hey, by the way, bad news, this stuff they're selling you really helps their guy. It might help you a little bit when you really, really hit one on the sweet spot, but their guys who hit a ton of balls, that face gets a little thinner and they're really good at what they do and they have great people around them fitting them and everything's

fine-tune. They're getting an exponential boost from this stuff and we have to change that rule. They don't want to make that case because then the manufacturer's line and mone because they they they there's just this this long time connection of marketing between the the tour pro and the everyday golfer that is they're addicted to. And to me it's always been irrational, but it works people believe that they'll get the same benefits from these things as as the pro. And then the downside is, the manufacturers really make clubs mostly for elite players. And the innovation on the game improvement side is kind of forgotten because of fear of crossing the line and having non-conforming equipment. So today is interesting because we may actually sort of put a wall between those two things.

And maybe the USJN RNA will be open to leaving the current specs in place, but then just tightening the specs for the pros. Now, of course, how you enforce all that and go through the bags each week and ensure people aren't aren't fudging the rules, that's going to be a very complicated thing if they get to this point. Well, say, of course, I mean, we know they're all testing all their drivers out there on the PGA tour, right? It's a they try.

They try. They try. They have to disappear from the tour trailer often right before they go into go grab them, which is a problem as well. So all right, whoa. Million different ways we could go with this. What is a bifurcation world look like? And today did today clear that up at all?

And is it any different than maybe how you pictured that world potentially looking? Oh, no, today, money did more because they put so many things on the table. But again, I don't think that's because they don't know what is right. I think they do know exactly what they want to do. But they put all these things out there, I think, to one in sort of a cat and mouse game

to mess with the manufacturers. But I also think they are emboldened by some of the things they reported in their survey, which was a very extensive survey of golfers and people in the industry. And I think they feel like they have more people on their side to open the door to maybe explore some things that they wouldn't have thought about

exploring a year ago, like bringing back the length of the driver or throwing out something about grooves. You know, I've mentioned it on many things. I'm always blown away. How much when I go out to an alternative venue after play or right before play and I read on social people are going, oh, these greens are pin cushions. And I don't blame them for taking that position when you watch the broadcast, and you go out there and go, this green's a brick. How are these guys stopping the ball that well? I mean, I know they're good. I know they make clean contact and they hit it high, but you talk to players and you say, yeah, the grooves are amazing today. So I feel like they've been emboldened to

to go back and reevaluate some of these things. I don't see them changing the driver head size that just seems tough to do, but they threw it out there today. And I think they feel that enough people are watching the way the game is played, the professional game. And now understand how much the everyday game kind of takes its cues from that, too much so. It's not healthy, and it's not making the professional game healthier of takes its cues from that too much so it's not healthy and it's

not making the professional game healthier or better to watch. It's pretty tedious at times because of the way it's played. So they're trying to to kind of reenter that debate and discussion about what's best for everybody. They'll just have to fight a lot of forces that I mean, I just read golf digest. It just sounds like, you know, they're coming for your guns kind of language. It's just sort of embarrassing at this point that people take those kinds of stances. When you know that their intentions, they're not bad. It's just that those care tactics work. So they're going to have to deal with that.

Well, I'm going to weave in some questions here as we go. And I'm going to, I'm going to, I got a list of like six or seven common arguments I hear the most. And I just want to hear your answers to all those here. But the first question I have from Jackson Fuller, how will this impact or will it impact the amateur high handy cap golfer? Well, to our earlier discussion, I just think that, let's say somehow, change the driver head size, change the size of the ball, although I believe a slightly larger ball like the Calloway Magna, which I've had some friends test, would actually help a lot of amateurs

and actually take some good yardage off those long drives. That might impact the average golfer might help them. But I don't see any of the things they're discussing impacting a high handicap golfer unless it's somebody who has a very high handicap but has amazing clubhead speed and that there are people out there like that. but I don't see even them really getting their enjoyment of the game taking away based on the things that they're throwing out. I think the things that, and that's, Chris, that's one of the things

that's so tough to deal with in this is that, for me, words like rollback and these scare tactics, they work, and the case that I don't understand that they never make is that we're just, these are really small things that will affect these amazing players at this high level, just enough to maybe make them alter their strategies back to where we feel like the game was more interesting to play and more interesting to watch, and

healthier for the long-term good of the sport to be about play, golf played on a footprint of a reasonable size. They won't make that that nuance case and that's always been frustrating in this. A quick break here to check in with our friends at woop.that's woop.com WH-O-O-P. You've heard us talk about this. You've seen us wear them. Basically, all of our videos, whoop, if you don't know what it is, fitness wearable, you see a lot of, basically all the PGA tourpliers,

I think they have to wear it for COVID reasons. It's a fitness wearable, it tracks your sleep, it tracks the daily strain that you're putting on your body, it tracks how many times you're getting up during the night, your heart rate overnight, your heart rate variability, all kinds of body stats that are great to have. You can trek so many different things and how it affects your sleep routines.

If you use CBD, if you drink alcohol, if you wear a sleep mask or you can do all kinds of things, and it'll show you trends of saying you sleep this much better when you take CBD or magnesium or you wear a sleep mask or any of those. If you're having any trouble sleeping, or if you just wanna hold yourself a little bit more accountable, whoop is where it's at, whop.com. You can use promo code no laying up. That's all one word, promo code no laying up on whoop.com.

You can get 15% off your purchase. I have loved using this thing for the past six months or so, I've really changed some of my daily habits, and I would encourage you all to do the same. Woop.com promo code no-link up for 15% off at checkout. Let's get back to Jeff Shackleford. I think for the high handicap golfer, it makes golf easier in a way for you, right? Because a lot of golf course design over the years has gone, you know, has trended

towards the understanding and the challenge and the test of top level players. Even if top level players aren't playing your course, you know, there's a back, back set of teas, there's teas added to so many golf courses. And it is, it has a way of affecting either the do's you're paying, the greens fee you're paying, or, you know, where they're putting bunkers on your course. If they're thinking, you know, are the bunkers all out of place because they're trying to challenge the low handicap player and all this. If we are bridging the gap, even if it's a little bit between, from trending the opposite

way of the gap between the top player and the high handicap or getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, if we can at least put a stop to that, the trend towards the little trickle down things that are going to contribute step by step to, I don't know if I'm saying that right, but I think it does have an effect, even if it's not something you're going to notice in year one. Yeah, and just little stuff like insurance costs for safety issues that weren't there before, driving range fence expansions. How many golf courses have you played

where there are a bunch of range balls in the fairway and even though they've added a huge fence and the danger that comes from that. I mean, Riviera, the very first time I hit balls at Riviera on the range, which would have been 1987. It was a normal 10 foot high chain length fence. They now have a

75-foot fence that they before the Genesis Invitational also the LA open they now have to extend another 70 feet or so Now the extension is probably about 50 feet in the weeks before the tournament for the tournament And you know just things like that where or or people complaining about they have to hit limited range, limited flight balls on the range. And just little stuff like that too, that's just silly. And then it gets sillier as you see where the game has seen

a real spike this year for unfortunate reasons because of the pandemic, but because people have more time. And it had nothing to do with the technological innovation. It had nothing to do with the greatest thing ever has just come out and that made people rush to dig sporting goods to buy it and go play. They went to go play because they had more time. And we've been sold that bill of goods for a long time

that if you, this innovation is what's key to growing the game and taking that away from people would be the end of the world. And then you add in how much more, since I started doing this stuff, people appreciate fun and the fun factor. And yeah, people still look at the course rating and the yardage and some of their, whatever you want to call it, buying decisions and where they choose to play. But more and more people are about kind of the atmosphere,

the vibe, the fun factor is a course in good shape. Do they treat you well? And do we go out and have a fun time there? And that has changed. And I think that's another thing that the R&N, USDA, should use to their advantage more. Just, you've been very kind to Rustic Canyon, the course, Gill and I design,

and when we open that in 2003, the comment was always, oh, it's a fun course. And it was always like a condescending sort of, it's not championship level, but it is fun. And now, of course, the courses that were the championship courses, one of them's gone completely in the neighborhood. The other one is and reduced to an executive course and it's awful still and rustic goes along doing well. And nobody ever says that to anymore like in that that little bit of kind of that little bit of kind of douchey way. Oh, it's fun, but it's, yeah, it won't host the US Open. But that used to be a prevailing notion.

And I feel like now that's less so. It's still there because we still know there are golf courses who kind of take their cues. But it's changing and they should capitalize on that. And I kind of feel like they did with the way they've come out swinging on this. All right, well, I'm going to throw a couple. I would consider bad arguments out there and I don't think I'm very good at answering them. I'm hoping you can help me answer them better than I can. But okay, why don't they just grow the rough up? Yeah, Web actually now is adding today at Phoenix,

he added planning sort of branches and trees got one like I can't I don't even want to repeat it. It's 30 yards off the tee and it's situated a certain way. Well, this is the problem. Rough is sort of is strictly something that came into the game, cultivated intentional rough to offset distance. And you you know as we saw last week I did not want to go into the Patrick Reed this is really all about the ball going too far but the rough at Torrey is Ridiculous and part of it's because they have the US open part of it's because they have amazing An amazing superintendent. They have a new irrigation system and they're able to harvest this crop of

Stuff that seems to be an embedded. I've never seen so much turf in bed a ball, but anyway, and that is not fun to play. It's not interesting to watch. It's not there's not great skill in recovering from rough. It requires a lot of water, fertilization. It's just not something that we want. Maybe for the US Open, it's part of their identity. It's just look at the old course, the things the RNA has to do with rough and gorse or that they leave that do not improve

the enjoyability factor of the course. So it's a cost thing, it's a skill thing, and it's a, I mean, a gust to add more rough this year, it was ugly. It's like having a great painting, but it's, it just covers it in sort of a, a dust or bad lighting. And it's like, why, why, why, you know, we could get this stuff off. It's, it's a barnacle on a, on a whale kind of thing. And I think also it, it, people think it has the effect of punishing

the bombers. No, well, yeah, we learned that this year, didn't we? That's not working. It punishes the shorter hit No, well, yeah. We learned that this year, didn't we? That's not working. It punishes the shorter hitters, especially when it's narrow, because you can be long and in the rough, and be able to generate enough speed with a nine iron or wedge out of there

to stop a ball in the rough, whereas Jordan's speed can't generate the same with a six or seven iron out of the rough. And it's taken me a long time to really understand the inverse effect of that. But I think I'm finally wrapping my head around that. And that's where I'm at with like, the way I've always phrased it is the scale of golf has just been thrown out.

It just like watching Tori and watching these super long holes, like the 12th hole is just a dead straight long par 4. And just watching guys just like try to hit this little narrow fairway, but hit it get really far when they miss in the rough is just kind of oh I mean it's not that big a deal with an open you know an opening in front of the green for them to just kind of chase something up there with whatever yardage they have left in because I hit it's a damn far off the tee and I don't I don't know if I remember a time that was you know what different than that but I feel like

there's something else there that is more interesting than what is currently going on. Remember, Galth grew or this sport that started on Link's land and expanded. It started as sort of a random cross-country, totally natural experience. And it was sort of, you find your ball, and you deal with this circumstance in front of you. And the game exploded on that, or at least grew off of that notion. And so anytime you introduce man-made elements,

like cultivated rough, it just takes away from that spirit of fun and and surprise and exploration and it takes away shots from you that you'd like to be able to hit and it's all done because a certain group of people hit it so far it's not done to pick on the average person or the shorter hitter and and it just kind of takes away the essence of what made the sport grow and that just had people kind of addicted to it from the get go with much less enjoyable equipment to hit. Yeah.

Well, all right, why can't we just move the bunkers? Yeah, it's expensive. And that's it's hard to do. And it's one of those things where when tour pros, they love to throw that out. And you go, okay, well, if we provide you with the bill for it, they just absolutely scream and cry. Well, we shouldn't have to pay for it. We're doing you a favor coming to your course and that kind of nonsense.

It's just very hard to, I mean, at LA Country Club, where the US Open's gonna be, we've now moved a bunker a second time since 2000, or we moved it in 2010, we've moved it again. And it's very hard to do. It just doesn't look right. It's a pain in the ass, it costs money. And why is that? Why do we have to do that? Is that so that we don't have to tell a company

that we're tweaking rules that are already in place, by the way? And that's something the other, the manufacturer, or excuse me, the governing bodies don't do very well. Say, hey, look, we have rules in place already. We may just tweak these a little because frankly we've been outsmarted or these people are very talented and they worked around it and you know that's their right but we need to kind of refine the rules we have to protect courses and to not have these kinds of silly jumps all the time. And some people get that and then some people just believe it's anti-capitalism and and you should just be allowed to do whatever you want. But then when you say, okay, well then why don't why aren't you advocating for getting rid of all the rules entirely? Oh no, no, no, no, they're fine

the way they are now. And that just doesn't that just doesn't really make sense to me. It's not consistent. And there's been big rule changes in golf in the last 20 years. The square-groove thing was not small, and I wasn't covering golf as a career at that point, but I don't remember it being much of a stink nearly. I know it's different, but everyone just kind of got used to it, and everyone had needed new clubs after that. Yeah, the differences that now, all the major manufacturers are publicly traded companies, and so their attitude is just different. They're trying to deliver shareholder value, and so they have a different mindset that

is not always going to be what's in the best interest of the game. They have to be pretty aggressive about defending their position. And that's really the biggest change since previous brujaha's over the rules. You know, the R&A, you played a different ball over there versus here. Of course, the players adjusted very quickly. Now they say they can't adjust. It would be a burden. It would be cruelty to the children blah, blah, blah, even though we have launch monitors and all these We have all these people are so good at fitting

And so many ways to to get your equipment suited to you better and the idea that these things would be a hardship on people When when golf pros go down to the Mexico City in 15, 20 minutes on the launch monitor, they and their caddy takes a pulls out a piece of paper and writes down their their their numbers and their clubs and they go out on the course and and life is just fine. And I will why can't you do that the other direction and make that adjustment is is a little bit of a guess. We'll be asked for worry about it a couple of years ago. And he said, yeah, take me two weeks to figure out a new golf course.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Why can't we just move T's back? Same thing. Very, very hard to, when you have a footprint of a course to, to go backwards, you know, for the housing development, obviously, you have a home in the way.

You bring in other dimensions of a golf course. One of the things I think it's been interesting the last few years is how many more golf pros who have made those walks back to tees at Augusta or at Riviera or Wingfoot. Some of these places where the architect had this that lovely walk right off the green to the next tee, how much they've recognized that they will look back on their career

and realize they spent probably two weeks of their life walking to back tees. And it's just a waste of time, it's a waste of energy, it takes away from that beautiful walk in the park element that you like to see in a design. There's just, it's sort of an intangible, but it's just nice to see in a design. There's just, I don't, it's sort of an intangible, but it's just, it's just nice to walk off a green and not have to go a long way to the next tee. There's something about that that's, that's just beautiful, especially if you're walking. And it's one of those things that this issue just, just, just has kind of blown a hole through in terms of architecture

and it does not make the game better. It kind of dawned on me, I don't know when, within the last couple years of just like, how little sense it makes just to walk 50 yards back, just to cover all of that land by air. You know what I mean? It's not like, you're not adding anything to a hole by going backwards, you know, just to hit it further. You know, if T, let's just say if T number one, you know, hypothetical T1 is hit, you know, you're using club one on T1 and T1 is right next

to the green, you know, and you're hitting it to whatever the destination A. And then yet the other option is club two with T2 and T2 is, you know, a big 460 driver, and, you know, and a 65 yard back T-box, and you're hitting it to the same spot. It just makes no sense to do that. Like, there's no great argument for the fact that you should do that. I get some of the argument of like, hey, people love to see the long ball, people love hitting it far, but blood's part of the game. But like, there's this race between equipment going

further and further and further and then just like lengthening the course, right? I mean, in a perfect ideal scenario, like you, you want to be able to hit the ball far. Everyone wants to be able to hit it far. But with that, when that goes, when you're hitting it much further, that's going to be met with distance increase, right? So why not just like regulate the distance? It's relative. Yeah, it's all relative.

Everybody buys the same things and there's, I mean, that's why the athleticism argument comes in that there's a view and there's some truth to it that some players do get more by the work they've done. But to the distance is relative topic. I always sensed it was such an important thing and I've told this before on other shows, but on State of the game and stuff. But we played before the open championship at St. Andrews at this place called King Garrick and it's it was of course brought back on in a state. It's about 20 minutes from St. Andrews and it was Jeff Ogle V Mike Clayton, Lawrence Donigan, John Huggins and Jay Townsend. So we played a we played a large group. We played

in an hour and a half and you play Hickories, they have an 1898 ball or a 1924 ball. And the thing that resonated, I believe, with, I know with Jeff and Mike, because we still talk about it to this day, we talked about it on the last pod with Jeff. The thing that resonated most was, one being able to see your ball curve and land, and then the speed with which you got to the ball, but also the scale of everything kind of came back down. So we walked together off the tee, the scatter element was reduced of where people were often on the whole.

And just the whole thing, the scale of it was just more intimate and it was more fun and it went fat. I mean, six people playing and we took our mean, you know, six people playing in, and we took our time and, you know, hit a couple of extra shots around greens, but there was just something about that, that reduced footprint that was so much more pleasant as a walk and an experience.

And you, it just made the whole thing even hit home more for us as to how dumb it is to just keep spreading everything out if you enjoy that kind of experience when you play golf. Yep. Well, it's just the athletes that are making it go further though. It's not the equipment. Why, you know, that's always, the people are just going to keep getting more and more athletic. Why is that?

Why do we need to change it? The equipment. Yeah, it's just that the athleticism suddenly changes when you put a different piece of equipment in their hand. No one can piece that together, not no one, but so many people can't like get that through their heads. Well, here's why Chris, I get it. So look, golf is a weird game. Strange people play it.

It's a strange looking game. It's a people where, you know, pastels. It's a soft sport in a world that wants everything to be tough and gritty. And so there's kind of an insecurity there. And so the athlete narrative pushed by various entities is a smart marketing ploy to make people feel like, well, if they're athletes, I'm an athlete because I play golf too. And it feeds a certain ego thing that I understand.

But again, as you say, when you just take somebody who's very talented and athletic and you put a slightly different club in their hand and suddenly they're not as athletic, that people still dig in that it is this workout stuff that's driven the whole thing. It just looks ridiculous. Obviously, there are people who are in better shape. They're more flexible. They're just, they are stronger, but they're also given clubs that they're, you know, allowed to do things with that accentuate the athleticism. You know, Hale Irwin was a two-time all-conference safety at Colorado. And, and, and let me tell you, I watched Hale Irwin a little bit in his prime and then quite a bit in those, well, he was, his prime was late in life. And I saw him a lot in person. And I even saw him last year at the Champions event here.

He's a thick man. He hit it nowhere by the way. But he had this beautiful little in up and over kind of cut that just was just repeated. And it was beautiful for the US open and beautiful way to play to get it around. And it worked. and by the way Yeah, there were other people who could it a lot longer, but he he was a he was an athlete

He was he was a legitimate crossover athlete And so this idea that and I guarantee you if he came into the game now built the way he was Yes, he would not swing the way he did he has tools now to To shape a swing and that's did. He has tools now to to shape a swing. And that's great. That's this progress. Things happen. But it's just it's gotten a little out of control. And all these people want to do is bring it back just a little bit to restore a little sanity. Keep the footprint where it is. You know, the thing also that you miss is you just miss the variety of players and people and personalities that the game has had and with this shift you're losing and that's something that is hard again for elements to it that that people get emotional over for

for for somewhat understandable reasons, but sometimes irrational ones. Yeah, I mean, I have no doubt in my mind that track man increased flexibility, speed drill, speed routines, increased strength, all of these things contribute to the ball going a lot further. Players understanding how a ball goes further. The whole thing is like that process would look different. And I'm not necessarily suggesting, you know, we go back to persimmon headed drivers just for the record. But if you put a persimmon driver in Bryson's hands, there is, I would say next to zero chance that he would be going through what he's currently going through to try to just murder the ball because I don't think that would be the most efficient way to get the ball in the hole.

And I think that's exactly what people are trying to argue is like it's not the number of strokes to get it in the hole that we're trying to change. I get a lot of arguments of like, you know, Mary and the score was over par and it's a short course. And you know, Aaron Hills was long and they shot under par and you know, so and so, it doesn't matter to scroll the rough up

and all these things that just like prevent good scoring. That's not what I don't think anyone is really arguing. It's more so the diverse challenges that are in the game, the game has gotten out of balance in terms of what skills are required to succeed at the highest level. And we don't see that diversity of skills on display nearly enough. The certain golf courses still bring that out, but it's unrealistic to think that like a tour of professional golf courses is going to exist that challenge players like Royal Melbourne does.

Is that a fair way of putting things? It is. And it's why, you know, it's such a mystery that the PJ tour isn't more interested in trying to be a part of this discussion, thinking of their product, looking at other sports like tennis. Well really any sport that has gone all in on power has ultimately regretted it and started to kind of dial back either for infrastructure reasons or boredom reasons. And so this is an opportunity for them

and they're going the other way. They want, you know, they have a lot of people, I think, who just believe it. It's that to get more women watching or to get younger people watching if they're just jocks, that's gonna do it and that's gonna excite people. And yeah, that might bring in some people but it's also just sending so many people away

from wanting to watch. And this is a really tough one that the governing bodies can't make. But this game, the version of the sport we're getting at now, it breeds a certain kind of personality and player. And it's one that a lot of people are not attracted to. And I think the thing that made Goff has made it grow at times is that we are attracted to different players who get it in the whole somehow in different ways

with sometimes with funky swings, sometimes with beautiful, perfect, beautiful, eloquent, graceful swings swings or sometimes they're angry kind of dicks and and and sometimes they're these wonderful gentlemen sportsmen or sports ladies and they just are are people you would love to have over for dinner yeah we love that variety and and the diversity and that somebody like Calvin Pete can play at the same time as Fred couples or Corey Pave and are always examples.

And I think they're damn good examples because it was, it's just something so fun to see that kind of diversity of ways to get the ball in the hole. And it helps make up for the fact that the sport is not ever going to be as thrilling as other sports. And and that's it. By the way, that's another thing you lose to is when the distance Overwhelms the courses you do lose the thrill that we used to know of a ball just trickling and getting on the green and two You know we have it now with short part fours, but even that's starting to go so

so those things that those little intangibles that are Our vital to the product for the to put it in the PGA tours language, should be something they're worried about. I don't sense they're at all worried about it. And I think it's the opposite. They're threatened by this and Mike Want to it, the LPGA didn't like this. And yet you hear people who are more attracted to LPGA golf because it's more relatable than the tour and the people are more attracted to LPGA golf because it's more relatable than the tour

and the people are more relatable. And that's just a very complicated subject to broach with these organizations that we're breeding a very often kind of a, I can say, unlikable, but it's an unwatchable kind of person. I mean, Bryson's entertaining because he's he's kind of nuts, but a lot of people are not, they're not as enthralled as we are by the antics. They're just kind of turned off. The way people were turned off by Pete Samperous just throwing out ace after ace and tennis.

And that's where I'm just, you know, I scratched my head that they don't jump on this as a chance to tweak things. And my, you know, my case along with a lot of other people say, you know, steroid era and baseball, you made home runs less special. So a 320 yard drive isn't special anymore. So I don't, I don't tune in to see that because I don't, I'm not, you know, I'm impressed by some of the things Bryson's done because he's able to hit it 30 yards past some of the longest players in the game at times. That, you know, everyone kind of homogenized into hitting it, not everyone, of course,

I mean, but like this, the top players were homogenized and you can often throw a blanket over their balls out there in the fairway. It doesn't really impress me that much anymore. And I go back, I've done a couple podcasts in the last couple years that have just made me have to go back to watch old masters highlights. And the one that thing that sticks with me is in the final round of the 96 masters, FALDO versus Norman. FALDO is in the 13th fairway.

I think for three and a half minutes, we can talk about the slow play issue separately, but I think three and a half minutes trying to decide between a two iron and a four wood or something along those lines to hit that approach into 13 trying to figure out the wind all that and that is gone from the game. And that is a huge entertaining factor of like, can he go for it? Should he go for it? Is there a club for this shot? Is is, you know,, this was one of the greatest golf holes in the world that now is no longer played that way. I think that is like how that wasn't, you know, a Larmbell is not going off that, that being a huge issue. Watching Roy, I mean, this is a new thing. Roy has been bombarded over that corner.

JT has been bombarded over that corner. Having 177 in on that hole for, you know, for several years now. And I just go back and watch that was just like, whoa, it is, it has changed a lot in 25 years. Yeah, decision making is interesting. Yes. And it's, so as much as we want to speed up the game, those moments when it slows down are even more fascinating.

I did it, by the way, Fowl though claims that that was not an issue between clubs. I'm not sure I totally buy him. He claims it was the way the ball sat on the ground. And I mean, it may be, but I'm sorry, the way he kept going back and forth, I think that's, I think it, I did a whole thing with him and it's buried somewhere in the golf channel archives. It's one of the coolest things I've

ever seen, but because of our wonderful world of rights and things. We just sat there, we took him on the set a morning drive, it was for a feature, and just had him watch it, and just react and listen to Ken Venturi, and he just started talking back at Ken Venturi, and talking and about, and then, okay, now, this is where Fanny was really good as a caddy,

but he would not fully, he really insisted it was the way the club sat on the ground, but I think he was buying time to just think, he claims he was always gonna go for the green. I still think he was trying to buy time to go, do I really wanna do this? Do I really wanna do this? But that, and that's still,

so it's still the same beautiful dilemma that he faced in that shot. And of course it was just incredible drama. And to use Augusta to this point of this discussion, the thing at Augusta that people react to is what the ball does on the ground there. We don't really see that many T-shots that are interesting. 13 T's important. 18's important. I guess 17 is now, but not for good reasons, because it's just kind of goofy narrow, but the excitement, the roars are caused by what the ball does when it lands and hits the ground. And then what the players do in controlling the ball,

under pressure from crazy side hill stances and things like that. And I think that's why I get frustrated too, because I think the golf fan and the golf watcher or even the novice watcher is smarter than a lot of these organizations in the game give them credit for being. And that's where if they were just a little more courageous in making the point or had the cooperation of the players and the governing bodies, I think they could make this case better.

That said, Jack Nichols, Tiger Woods, Ben on the record about this, Bobby Jones, great players throughout the history of the game have tried to make this case, even though it's very hard for them to do as because it looks selfish and people just slaughter them. It's really amazing to me. Well, okay, one of the other kind of silly things I see on my list here is, you know, hey, so and so just wants the ball to go back to how it was in their heyday.

Every era hits it further, blah, blah, blah. I think there's something to that, you know, it kind of makes me think about that. It at least makes me critically think, but what's your reaction when somebody says that? Well, there's some truth to it that people saw a game a certain way and see something lost.

I think it'd be silly to deny that that's part of it. But the idea that Phil Blackmar, who writes about these things, wants to see players punished because they'll hit a banana slice now or the Jack Nicholas wants to take away your distance or the Tiger Woods is advocating this because he can't hit it a long way anymore. And by the way, I sure would last October. He was with Matthew Wolf, a good part of the rounds that I watched. But anyway, uh, he can get it out there if he needs to still.

Um, I don't know about now after the latest procedures, but he, the idea that these guys are, are, are, are, old players are, are bringing this up because they want, um, because there's almost an envy. Uh, is, I've just never sensed that from anybody. bringing this up because they want, because there's almost an envy. I've just never sensed that from anybody. It's always just like, oh, this is hard to watch. It's stupid, it's less interesting. And I mean, look at the, how many players on the PGA tour, do you feel like would go play golf for fun? I mean, I feel like it's a list of about that we know of anyway, you know, of a

Zack Blair and Kevin Kisner. And there are people who still feel Michelson still goes in place for fun. Uh, but I don't know how many of these people, um, really like the game that they play. I don't know. And I don't know how you gauge that. Jim Furek still plays a lot for fun. I will say. Yeah. He's, ironically, he's using a 47 in striber right now. And that's going to take it away from him, which brings me to my next question. Hey, aren't the shortest hitters just going to be punished the most by this?

Well, it comes down to execution. Yeah, if they execute this in a way that is too severe, yes, that could happen. I just think though if you look at the things that they have sort of hinted at with the driver face and the aerodynamics of the ball, that if that's executed properly, it's going to just take away this extreme launch condition

and the extremes of distance it's going to just take away this extreme launch condition and the extremes of distance and not really impact those players. And in fact, in theory, again, in theory, maybe restore some of the skills that they have and return some advantage to them. It's all in the execution. But don't, I mean, there's no question these organizations are very cognizant of that fact.

They do, they have to be aware that that would, the whole thing would backfire. They have to know that this is strictly about this group of about 500 people, and in that group, there's a subgroup that can do things, and then about smart at their rules rules and good for them for being creative, but that's when you just go and you tighten the screws a little bit. And they throw these people a lot of bones and it's time for them to kind of just walk back a few things. And I just don't, again, I don't know why they won't ultimately make that case, but so far they never have that this is more about just just just just tightening up a few things

that I guess it would I guess the issue is it would it would it would require admitting we got outsmarted. And that is a tough thing. Well, I think it's also if you're all right. So short air let's just even say average length players on tour have to navigate for the most part. I would say have to navigate more hazards, more things in their way than the longest hitters do because they long as they are able to hit it past so many obstacles, that if you are rolling things back and at least the longer players have to now navigate and think about and work their way around or judge the risk reward and try to hit over

a bunker or over over water or all these things. You're at least playing the same ish game like so and so still, you know, longer player might have an eight iron in versus the shorter hitter might have a six or five iron in. That might be the case, but you've at least reintroduced that challenge to those players. I remember walking with kids near at a, at a, at a, you know, like, yeah, what do you think of this course setup for you? And I was like, that's not that long. He'll probably be great for him. He's like, oh, it's or at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a rather at a Longer hit or should have an advantage, blah, blah, blah. And I think that the point of that is that drivers shouldn't be the safest club in the bag to hit. Like you shouldn't just be able to bomb it over

all the trouble and figure it out from there. And again, it's complicated to unpack all that. Well, yeah, we want the driver to actually matter more or matter in the right way, I guess, would be the way to put it. But it shouldn't be, as you say, the go-to club in that sense. It's just a less interesting game and kind of in a weird way. It's just a huge change that we've always known the great players at the top of the game in their eras generally have been long but also

areas generally have been long, but also sneaky accurate with their driver or able to use it to their advantage in a way that was not just mere length. It was shaping the shot, taking advantage of certain holes that other people wouldn't have. And just all those little things have just been eroded that and chipped away at. Well, I'd like to get a few more of these listener questions. Hope they're listening. They sent in the questions on twitter hope they're hope they're going to tune into it we may have covered some of these and you may not know the answer to some of these and that's that's okay as well but

daniel malone ask what's a realistic timeline for someone who's been watching golf to see changes and think okay this feels different now yeah i i don't know the answer that's i've actually asked the usj on that because the if you read their Paper on timing it's we're still a ways away from these things I guess the thing that's interesting with the local rule and the test run with this driver-link thing is that it might be a way That some things could get expedited a little bit But for the most part we're several years away from these rules

Taking effect because there will be another comment period after they this comment period ends but I did a little bit, but for the most part, we're several years away from these rules taking effect because there will be another comment period after this comment period ends in November for the testing and for the equipment. And then they will reach their conclusion hopefully quickly, because I think they've already reached it. And then there will be another comment period. So I don't see anything until 2024,

unless the highlighting of the local rule element today allows for something that starts to happen sooner, but you have to give the companies also time to retool things for this, and also reimagine how they're going to, although they've had many years to imagine a scenario where they sell equipment for an elite player versus a high handicap golfer or an average golfer.

Killian, at Killian, Oedris, I'm saying that right, asks, can this realistically happen as just a local rule or would it have to be standardized? Surely players can't be expected to change equipment week on week. Oh, yeah, week on week. Oh, yeah, week to week would be, would be tough. Although again, as we see with Mexico City, if you know, you go to Aaron Hills and you play today's ball, but you go to Harbour Town and you play the local rule ball or whatever you want to call it the model local rule. I don't even really not sure what that means. But yeah, that would be cumbersome and goofy. But again, with launch monitors, I don't think there's a

whole lot of excuse on that front. I think that I think that they've just decided to kind of throw it out there and see what happens. I think the best solution for all is that there are there there is equipment for elite players and if average golfers want to buy it they can buy it but then there is stuff that is made more for them. It's just somehow how do you break this addiction the manufacturers have of of marketing their things off of tour players. It's a it's a it's a tricky one. And you would like to think they would have already figured that out by now, but they are there. It's an addiction for them. Well, and yeah, I think it also the local rule wouldn't I don't think it would be weak to

weak to answer the question as well. I think it would be if PJ Tours implementing it, it's going to be at all events, right? Just like the one ball rule or something along those lines. I think the example you gave, right? So I think we may have covered some of this, but the way this was phrased was kind of jarring to me. It's from sports betting VA. Do you think Mike Davis appreciates how hard it is for the rest of us to play golf or hit the ball far? And by the rest of us, I mean, everyone not ranked and say the top 200

in the world golf rankings. He seems to be going out of his way to make golf as hard as possible for the regular non-tor person. Yeah, just I don't, I don't, the only place that I can imagine where that comes from is just in sort of the crazy stuff that's written or that people read, you know. I mean, golf digest today, Mike Stature wrote that, you know, stuff about, it just just language, it was, it was kind of sad, sort of funny, that this, they could, you know, they're gonna just take things away from you. And Mike Davis does not want to make the game harder

for everybody and make everybody miserable. It's just not, it's just not how he's wired. He's thinking of the bigger picture and the people in the USGA are thinking of the bigger picture and the people in the USGA are thinking of the bigger picture and they've seen and they have data. They've gone to a lot of trouble to back these things up and a lot of people won't read them.

But the scare tactics do work with some people and why bifurcation will probably be the solution because if you're just that addicted to buying more distance and there is a group out there that will buy things every time they come out, they're going to give you that opportunity. But if you want to play elite events, you're going to have to play by a little different set of rules. And now how all that's enforced again is interesting and confusing to me and why I think ultimately

The driver face and and then a tournament type ball will be the the solutions because those are the two easiest things I mean the driver face would just be the club that sold to everybody and and they're just gonna have to make the case that That high-handy cap golfer. you're not getting the spring like effect that price is getting or the dust and johns is getting. And I don't know why they can't say it. I guess it's just a it's going to be it's going to be a kind of the core of the battle over this is is will they eventually just sort of call the manufacturers bluff and say, look, stop claiming these things

are helping those people. Other things you're doing are helping them. The clubs never been easier to hit, but they're not getting, they're not at a speed that they're getting this advantage. And you just get a half to say it. So, but even then, I don't know if people will buy it. Right. Nick Rodin 23, if you were to draw the line for where bifurcation should start, where do you draw it?

State Ames and opens USGA USDA Championships, mini-tour. I, this is a fascinating question and then one that I struggled to answer and I think one of the best questions, you know, challenges to bifurcation there is. But thankfully, it's not up to me or you to decide it, but where do you think that line should be? It is a tough one.

I just think that they believe, and this is just pure speculation, that ultimately those good players who play in the state amateur are, and they think like a pro, and they're going to want to play the things that the elite game plays. A lot of people get a lot of free equipment now. So I don't, so the economic argument for some is ridiculous. But for those who do pay for their equipment still and do compete in Amateur events, it is a legitimate concern and question.

And then again, how you regulate it at those levels. My hunch is they're just gonna try and put it out there and they have some idea of which levels they would kind of cut it off at. But I've never been able to find out the answer to that question. And it is the trickiest component of this, I think in terms of the convincing that core golfer

that sees themselves as a player. But I think you could also flip it and kind of play to there, you go and go, well, if you're a player, if you're serious about the game, you should be playing players equipment. And there's nothing wrong, by the way, with not playing that stuff, because it's a hard game. But this is where we just get into protecting handicapping at one set of rules. And it's problematic. But every other sport has has rules for the professional competition

version of the sport versus the the recreational version. This one's from at Bruce Cupcake. Why only now take action? Not 10, 15 years ago when driver and ball manufacturers were pushing the boundaries with technology. How much of this is oversight slash incompetence on the US GAs part? Oh, they're definitely playing catch up. Yeah. I mean, look at the statement of principles from 2002. They drew the line there and then they've, they've just, they've passed on a lot of opportunity since. And I know some of those people who were part of that regret that. I just don't think they anticipate how much that the manufacturers could outsmart them. You couldn't anticipate launch monitors and the little things that happen.

Bryson uses a 4-inch T and he's done a lot of testing as I understand it between the two, three and four-inch T and gets huge advantages from going to four inches. And so I wrote David Fey. I said, yeah, how did four inches come from? And he told me it was a fairly random selection, but it was, that decision was made before launch monitors. So you need to go back and revisit that. That number was really picked probably to just kind of cut off the number of crazy,

weird things that people were sending them. But it wasn't, it was a decision made before new things came in and they were just slow to, they are slow and now they're getting less slow. And, but there's no question that they've let all sorts of things get away from them. And I think that's part of this process. They need to admit that.

Yep. A few more here, and we will let you let you go here. I know again, there's a lot of great questions that we're sending that I think we've kind of answered a lot of them along the way. But at Till Daddy, what specific courses would you be most excited to see playable for pros again? Well, I would love to see Augusta National first no longer

mowing their fairways towards the tee getting the fairway really a tight cut. They're probably the worst fairways they play all year, getting it back to the width, playing firmer and faster, letting that ball run, not walking back forever to a new 13th tee and the 11th hole is just a mess. Just to see that place get to be, if they would, they would make those accommodations. I don't know if they would, but they should.

So that would be obviously one of them because we go there every year. But it would just also be great to see driver hit at a whole lot of other places that in a way that could be where that long hitter is legitimately using it to just get that little extra edge around the bunker, not to try to drive as close as possible to the green. So a Royal Melbourne or these places where they just hit almost no drivers would be fantastic to see played that

way. Or the places that can't get us firm and fast as Ronald Melbourne to actually be able to do some things. Gosh, I mean, part of the problem too is you start thinking of places you'd love to see a tournament, but then they just don't work because of modern needs and infrastructure. And that's sort of as a different animal there. It is. And it kind of complicates the discussion as well. You know, I meant to mention this with I meant to mention this with your, the last thing you mentioned about the 2002 report. Do you notice in the 2020 distance report, which we just saw today, the very last page is, and I don't know why this is thrown in, and I'm hoping, I'm,

I want to conspiracy theory had throw this out there. The last page is summary of the PGA Tours position on equipment July 1, 2003, and it basically says the PGA Tours position on equipment July 1, 2003. And it basically says the PGA Tours committed to partner with the USGA to, you know, to do all these things. Why did they throw that in the end of the 2020 report? Is that a way of saying like, hey, wait a second here, you guys said you'd support us on all this. If you think you're gonna challenge us on it,

you said that you would in 2003. Yeah, that's all it is. Yeah, that's it. Well, they know that, I mean, Jay, Monahan has been openly hostile to, to change. And so they know they have a fight with them. And that's where, where Jay's just different than, than Tim Finchum, Tim Finchum recognized. And I wrote about this after the, Reed thing in my newsletter that he recognized that, and we mocked him for it, and I mocked him for it, and some of it was ridiculous,

that the money they were making and the sport he was selling was built on a certain sportsmanship and obeying the, and guiding, at least believing in the rules of golf. And that has changed now at the tour that there's sort of hostility to the rules. And it's the players, I think, get emotional over bad core setups or they don't like where the locker room is. And so they kind of turn on the USJ and RNA. And Jay has, you know, Finchham was kind of like Sodom Hussein in Iraq. He kept all these factions in line. And now that he's gone, Jay doesn't seem to be able to keep the factions educated

or in line with kind of what the big picture idea is. And they again, are their marketing messages distance. So they're trying to remind them that at one time, your organization, and certainly under Dean Beaman, at one time, your organization really believed that this kind of cooperation and synergy between the everyday game and the pro game

and the rules was a positive for you. And it's clearly a reminder that that wasn wasn't that long ago, you felt this way. Yeah, that's well said. All right. Last one, Jeremy Ellis will the equipment companies sue the USGA and PGA to where if they implement the local rule? I don't think so. They have plenty of case studies of companies that took on the USGA and took huge publicity hits, ping and and Callaway were not viewed favorably for taking on the USGA and took huge publicity hits, ping, and Calloway, where we're not viewed favorably for taking on the governing bodies. None of these companies will sell non-conforming equipment. You know, when they complain about some of these rules, you just say, well,

why don't you sell game improvement, non-conforming equipment for those, for that market that you say will be hurt by your, or by new regulations. Why don't you just go and do it? You're a company. You're supposed to, you're supposed to maximize a shareholder value. So why are you holding that back? And the reason they're holding it back is they know that I assume they have data to back it up that, or they just look at those case studies that the majority of the golfing public will look down on them for challenging the kind of the rules of golf. And even in kind of this day and age we're in, I think that view still persists.

I think the title is well aware of that as well. And that'll be the ones that'll be most likely to do something and to possibly threaten lawsuits. But in their case, they have, I've always really never understood why the governing body is just say, okay, you sue us because your brand, besides your brand's built on a great product,

number one, number two, you have the market share, the loyalty. So if we tweak this, you're almost more likely to have more loyalty because people trust you to adjust to this rule change and still sell the great product. And, by the way, your brand is largely built on catering to the person who views themselves and is at their core a traditionalist that loves the sport and loves the values and they're the do sweepers, you know the ads. So, a lot of people are always shocked at when I tell them how hostile a cushioned entitlest is to these kinds of efforts by the governing bodies to preserve certain traditions in the way of skills, certain values of the sport.

And those loyal, titleist lovers have been shocked to hear that as the case. So it's going to be an interesting little battle there to see if they go, okay fine, you sue us, go ahead and see how that goes over with your customers. Get your popcorn ready, there's gonna be, it's gonna be interesting. We got some content to discuss over the next few years, it sounds like so.

Yeah, I know a lot of people find it painful, but I think that it more and more people since I started doing this I mean I was just a leper when I started throwing this stuff out there like what are you doing and now more people watch the game and They do know they're missing something and they do see that the the the it's breeding a little less likable player or way the games played and I think they have enough people that that are willing to kind of hear it out. It's I think it's a fascinating discussion if nothing else because it's a chance to really question what what makes golf interesting and and then you throw in what's happened in the last year, more people playing. And it's definitely, I'm glad they finally, because I wasn't anticipating this until March.

So I'm glad they're just saying, you know, enough is enough. It's time to go down. We know what we want to do. Let's have this discussion. And it's just going to be very hard for them because there are a lot of publications that will still try to paint the governing bodies as evil because they're trying to cater to mentality even. I don't even know if the advertisers even say anything, but they just feel like they have to try to protect their interest. I think it's shortsighted

by all parties. I have to say, our society in general needs to be way better about normalizing how okay it is to change your opinion on something. Yeah. In 2014, when we started knowing up, I remember specifically Ricky Fowler, maybe I don't remember that well because I might have the details wrong,

but the way I remember it is, I think it was a 12th hole or something about Valhalla, 2014 PGA. Ricky had 198 yards in out of the rough and he had a nine iron and I remember being like that He's so cool like look how far Ricky could hit a nine iron. This is amazing This is so good for the game. I don't understand what anyone's talking about with anything and it was like indicative of my like Very surface level understanding of the game and like the more time went by them where else like oh very surface level understanding of the game. And like the more time went by,

the more I was like, oh man, we have an issue here. Like once you people are receptive to more information, it is okay to change your opinion on something. I've not been close to changing my opinion on the fact that it should roll back and change, but I don't know if you listened to our podcast with Keith Mitchell. I thought he made a lot of great points

as to why it hasn't changed. It wasn't necessarily like this is the best way forward. It was more like, okay, well, why change this small amount when in five minutes on Track Man, I can get a shaft. It's going to help me launch it this, do this, blah, blah, blah. And I was like, you know what, that's a great point. Like that's, I don't necessarily agree that we should not change anything. But hey, that's a great point as to why you wouldn't change

from the current setup. Well, then you get into the general discussion of, do people watch or play golf because they want to hit numbers? And it's a technical, it's a pursuit of technical perfection, or is it a, is there an art to it that is worth saving and maybe even restoring. Given what built the sport and what grew the sport at the beginning, there are just, I think, more people who miss. I love the technical pursuit and watching what people do to outsmart or to try and get

better. But when it reaches a point where you feel like it's not a fair fight and it's not very interesting to watch, then I think that's when you have to say, what if we found some place that combines a little bit of both? And, you know, I'm a big baseball fan and it just pains me to see things that are lost in that sport and then to see how people react when occasionally somebody lays down a surprise bunch or somebody steals a base when you didn't expect it and the beauty of the analytics just being thrown right out the window and the gut instinct and the artistry brought back and how much people who don't even never even saw those versions of the

game react just like what you go out to a golf tournament, you watch people react. They don't they they might react to a hard golf swing and laugh. And they can't see the ball once it gets to about 270. But they oon awe and they get they get goose bumps when they see a player hit an amazing recovery shot or they control the ball. Are they and of course, any but I I mean people still go to the spot where Bob of Watson hit a duck hook wedge off the the pine straw. They don't go to the tea to go wow this is where he hit that way we're dried from they go to the spot to go can you believe

he did that I mean you you get goose bumps when you go down you're like there's just no way that he can do that and that's the stuff that gives you the special feeling and trying to explain that. And again, I enjoy the other side. It's entertaining to a point, but is it really all the sports should be about and piling on data? And then we have so many people now around these people

who are profiting from those things. So they're just extra hostile. And that's another thing in this debate. It's so many people just, I make no money by the way, advocating this position. Golf architects do not make more money saying something needs to be done. They could make more money by saying, no, no, no, no, no, no, we don't need these rules. We need to keep changing the courses. They go the other way.

It's the people who are who get nasty about it and angry about it are the ones who have a business interest and they need to be forced to declare that more. If nothing else, just to make people understand, that's where they may be starting from with their position. Well, I'm gonna end this with DJ Pi tweeted this earlier, but you're kind of, he called it the most succinct overview of the equipment issue and golf that he's seen in a long time

and you wrote this, it says, technology threatens domination. Parity will persist as long as misses are just a little less penalized and the ball continues to fly razor straight. Reward for a variety of skills is headed out. Long driving and putting will be the key. The major tours have not publicly supported rule changes that could conceivably help the super elite stand out to strengthen their product. Worse, the governing bodies seem more concerned with being on

the on a first-name basis with top players than tweaking the rules. Since top players generally support with their manufacturer partner, one, we face a continued stalemate helping no one. I just, yeah, I thought that was a definitive, definitive end on a extremely complicated issue that we've only really scratched the surface of today. But I know you got to probably a lot, a lot to get to today with this, this coming out and whatnot, but appreciate you spending well over an hour with us, trying to unpack it.

And I'm sure hopefully listeners learned a little bit and are open to changing their opinion if they weren't, you know, or not. Yeah, that's your choice. Now I appreciate the time, Salian, thank you for your efforts on this front and for giving the topic. I think the time it deserves because it's, it's not always the sexiest topic to, to a lot of people. Yeah, it's not always the most exactly.

That's a very good way of saying it. So all right. Thanks again, Jeff, really's not always the most exactly. That's a very good way of saying it. All right, thanks again, Jeff. Really appreciate the time. All right, thank you. Get a right club. Be the right club today. Yes.

Be the right club. That's better than most. How about in? That is better than most. Better than most. Better than most.