It's always sad to see this argument made comparing the golf changes to baseball wooden vs metal bats: >If it helps, think of it in baseball terms. There's a w

It's always sad to see this argument made comparing the golf changes to baseball wooden vs metal bats: >If it helps, think of it in baseball terms. There's a wooden bat used in the major leagues, and a metal bat used in college and recreational play. The wooden bats require that extra bit of skill to send the ball 300-plus feet. The reason college and recreational play doesn't use wooden bats is because they break and they'd have to travel with more bats every time, adding weight and $$$. The metal bats are changed to have the same pop as wooden ones. In fact, NPR has the story about this. [0] That said, here are some main points I about the rule change. 1) Bifurcation, where pros and amateurs play different balls, is not good. There are people who'd be playing in events one week where you can play the current ball tech, and the next have to change. Those are people who'd be screwed to have to spend more time and money on equipment. Similar to juniors, who go up in the ranks and suddenly need to change. That part can really hurt. 2) Golf distance won't increase much more than it currently is. What's happening and is going to happen is like height in the NBA. Where it became so clear that being tall is beneficial, and so the average height shot up. But it's not like humans can grow any taller. The current golf rules for drivers do put a limit on how far humans will be able to hit it. To compete on Tour, it'll become more of a prerequisite to hit the ball far, just like more of a prerequisite to be tall. 3) That distance is different than how courses were designed and the game had been played in the past. Augusta National has changed a ton over the years to lengthen the course.[1] You can look up stories after Tiger came in '97, and all the way to this year where they lengthened #13, quite a famous hole. That hole will play much more like how the hole was played back in the days pre-Tiger. a) Most courses don't have the money or land area to make these changes. That's the problem the USGA going with. That's the argument the NPR article is saying too, how public courses need to change. But do they? The argument made by the USGA is that public courses and players will _not_ need to change equipment. b) How bad is it that games are played differently than when they started? NBA is quite different with dunks and 3s, MLB changed this year with the pitch clock and no shifts, NFL has forward passing and quite needed body types to play positions meaning genetics is a huge factor in whether or not you can turn pro. The distance changes is golf advancing like all the others. 4) The USGA kind of has a bad reputation. I play in USGA events and the people who run them are kind of, well, they think they're gods and know all. This causes conflict between the guys on PGA Tour and who run PGA Tour events week after week. Should the USGA be making these decisions? I'll stop here, but there's much more to say, especially with the amount of unanswered questions. Things like, how much different equipment will be needed if you play the new ball vs the old one? Will the ball change make it even _more_ important to have length? People think length reduces the skill in the game, and that's just not true. The ability to swing hard with control is a great skill, and is trainable. Those who say they don't want to have to do it are doing it to themselves. Golf is an athletic endurance sport. It's taken much longer than others for people to understand this. [0] https://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147523340/new-baseball-bat-standard-spreads-to-high-school https://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147523340/new-baseball-bat-st... [1] https://www.golfdigest.com/story/complete-changes-to-augusta-national https://www.golfdigest.com/story/complete-changes-to-augusta...