Ideological division is all around us. And boy-o-boy does it ever bring out interesting behaviour. Sides are digging in and preparing for battle.
When it comes to picking a side everyone pretty much defaults to an agenda that serves their principles or benefits. Every dispute has opposing perspectives and getting past any façade is key. Reservations should be held until questions have been answered that uncover any financial gains or benefits that can cloud either of the two positions.
We only need to look at our neighbours to the south to grasp the colossal mess in America where political division is deeply entrenched—neither side wants to give an inch. Not since the American Civil War has there been so much visceral hatred between a subcategory of the same people.
Divisiveness is cutting into the golf industry on the issue of a possible rollback of the distance the golf ball travels based on technological advances.
The situation accelerated earlier this year when Jack Nicklaus put his dog in the fight when he met with executive director of the United States Golf Association, Mike Davis, at the 2018 Honda Classic in Florida. Nicklaus pledged to support the USGA and R&A, the game’s governing bodies that control the Rules of Golf, in combating the golf ball distance issue.
Leading a rebellious uprising against the governing body’s thinking to rollback the ball, is Wally Uihlein, the recently retired commander-in-chief of Titleist. Wally has been a major industry force for decades. Titleist began its lobby machine on this issue in the fall of 2017.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Uihlien wrote: “Is there any evidence to support this canard…the trickle down cost argument? Where is the evidence to support the argument that golf course operating costs nationwide are being escalated due to advances in equipment technology?”
Back to the Jack Nicklaus-Mike Davis meeting at the 2018 Honda Classic: “I’m happy to help you,” Nicklaus told Davis. “I’ve only been yelling at you for 40 years.” Then Jack pulled the pin and rolled in a grenade: “The golf ball is the biggest culprit and you can start with Titleist.” Nicklaus asserted. “Titleist controls the game and I don’t understand why Titleist would be against it.” Boom!
As the world turns in the golf industry, stakeholders have started to choose sides. The anti-rollback group includes the PGA of America, the PGA Tour (who doesn’t think it has a slow-play problem), TaylorMade, and the most current PGA Tour players are siding with Titleist.
The pro-rollback group includes the game’s greatest legends of the game, such as the late Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Lee Trevino and Tiger Woods. Most golf course architects are pro-rollback, as are those of us who are old school professional players.
The key factor is to determine who has the game’s best interests in mind and who is motivated by monetary gains or personal benefit.
Take a look at the leaderboard on the PGA Tour website during any PGA Tour event and note just how many Titleist insignias are beside PGA Tour players’ names. The Titleist’s influence and reach in the game is overwhelming.
Wally Uihlein’s agenda is all about the bottom line for Titleist. As a highly successful business executive this is where his conviction should be. Uihlien’s obligations are not with the interests of the game of golf, nor should they be. His obligations begin and end with his shareholders. In absolute contrast, there is no doubt in my mind, Jack Nicklaus and the pro-rollback support, who are not influenced by Titleist’s monetary gains, are far better positioned to identify what is in the best interest of the game.
This issue is causing some golf journalists to lose sight of their objectivity. From my perspective some equipment analysts are proceeding more as equipment promoters.
Ever since the Internet of things seized our world, some golf journalists started to cross a line with social media. It’s harder to keep objectivity when golf journalists are quick to buy into and promote the latest marketing schemes of equipment manufacturers.
Is there an underlying expectation for these analysts to gush? Has their objectivity been affected? When golf journalists start to do the bidding of manufacturers, it doesn’t pass the smell test, particularly if they don’t fully disclose their or their publication’s position as it relates to the equipment manufacturer.
Geoff Oglivy, the 2006 US Open champion, who happens to be a Titleist player, tactfully stated: “One problem is that the longer you make a course, the more you make longer hitting an advantage for pros, and the more you make something an advantage for a pro, the more they are going to go home and work on that,” Ogilvy said.
“We’ve been chasing so much distance because we’ve needed it, because so many people got so reactive and pumped every tee back 50 yards. So we started doing everything we could to hit the ball farther.”
Distance is not a new issue. Over 85 years ago around the time Dr. Alister MacKenzie was putting the finishing touches on Augusta National Golf Club, he wrote:
“The only objection I can see to limit the flight of the ball is a purely temporary one. Players at first sight would dislike driving an appreciable shorter distance than they had been accustomed to. They would however, soon get over this when they found their usual opponents were similarly limited, and particularly when they found they got more golf with less walking.”
Dr. Alister MacKenzie—1932
Regardless of which side is projected to win this pending battle, there is a compromise—win/win—for both sides. Détente is bifurcating equipment at the PGA Tour level. Put a governor on the ball and let technology for amateur golfers know no bounds.
