53 by accessibility. Making the game more expensive is not growing the game. “In a world where water is becoming a scarce resource and clean drinking water even scarcer, it would be irresponsible to continue on the path we are currently on with regards to the distance the ball travels.” Christian Lundin, architect for (re)GOLF and Henrik Stenson Golf Design, doesn’t think we should try to go back in time. “That has never proven to be a good way forward,” he says, adding: “I don’t see an issue with players shooting low numbers at a tournament”. He does, however, agree that sustainability is the bigger problem. “New courses need more and more land, but these proposals do not even try to address that, as this is only for top players.” For really meaningful sustainability gains, we’d need a rolled-back ball across the whole game. This would also mean courses that haven’t had the land to extend hole length could become a worthwhile challenge for the longest hitters again. Mike Clayton, a partner at Clayton, DeVries & Pont, says: “Great championship courses the world over have been extended to their limits in order to keep up with modern technology, which has completely altered the scale of the game and how the great architects of an era long past wanted their courses to play.” British architect Adrian Stiff says: “Some courses need 15 per cent taking off the ball, others probably none,” suggesting that clubs could choose the ball that best suits their layout. Of course, a rollback across the whole game would mean taking some distance off amateurs too. “But golf is too difficult already!” you cry. Does a reduced flight ball really make the game harder? Shorter hitters might be more inclined to start using the correct tee for their game, and those of us who can’t hit it straight would get in less trouble and lose fewer balls. Courses would become safer too. “As architects, we have battled to get more land for golf courses as the further the ball goes, the further it can go off line,” says Ramsey. “So it has caused the footprint to expand not just for distance but horizontally for safety from homes, roads and other golfers. The old model in the 1970s was 150 acres for a golf course. Now it is closer to 250 acres.” A reduced flight ball doesn’t mean we lose the joy of long hitting. Because ‘long’ is a relative term. A 280 or 300yard drive would be a joy to behold, in the same way as a 350-yard drive is now – because it would still be vastly further than most of us can hit it. Ramsey says: “No other sport allows a player to hit, throw or kick a ball as far as golf does, so long hitters or big bombers will still be big bombers at the local course or on tour. “However, as an architect my interest is in the game itself and how it’s played. Bomb-and-gouge or grip-itand-rip-it are not great strategic design principles. Requiring golfers to think and strategise how they play a golf course in a risk-reward setting is a much more enjoyable experience.” Sustainability, safety, strategy – all great reasons for a big rollback, and for it to apply across the entire game. But instead, after years of research, it’s looking like being a measly 15 yards, and only for a couple of pro events. I sincerely hope that this was thought as a first step towards truly meaningful distance reductions. But given the reaction and influence of the manufacturers and pros, it seems more likely that by the start of 2026, when the proposed rule would be implemented, it’ll be scrapped altogether. For the sake of the entire game, let’s hope that doesn’t happen. GCA Toby Ingleton is the publisher of Golf Course Architecture Photo: credit The original challenge of some of golf’s classic venues – like Prestwick, the first course to host the Open – could be recaptured with a reduced flight ball Photo: Mark Alexander
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzQ1NTk=