We Don't Need To Be Scared Of The Golf Ball Rollback... And A Survey From 1990 Proves Why

Few people would disagree with the statement that human beings are suspicious of, and resistant to, change. It's simply part of a mortal's constitution. It's as much the case in 2023 and is was in 1990 and centuries before, as an extensive Golf Monthly survey from 33 years ago proves.

This survey – run in conjunction with Golf Magazine in America, Svensk Golf in Sweden and Golf Australia – was an all-encompassing look at the state of the game entitled 'technology versus tradition'. It featured numerous questions about the golf ball; questions which are being asked today after the R&A and USGA announced plans to roll the golf ball back from 2028 (you can find the arguments for and against here). Across the board, there were more than 50,000 responses.

For context, in 1974, the USGA and R&A agreed to both implement the 1.68in diameter ball, which was used at the 1974 Open Championship. However, amateurs weren't required to make the switch until 1990 (though of course many did far sooner). The new ball supposedly knocked up to 20 yards off tee shots. 

Below, we look at some answers from the survey pertaining to that change, the ball in general, technology and the future of the game. The results are fascinating...

Q: In terms of distance, how do you think today's balls compare with 10-15 years ago? 

A: From the Golf Monthly respondents, 73.2% said they were longer, while only 0.6% said shorter. Some 37.6% of Golf Monthly respondents said they were between six and ten yards longer off the tee. 

Q: Should tour events be contested with the pros all using one type of ball?

A: Here, 41.6% of Golf Monthly readers felt this would be a good idea. That number was 27.4%, 33.6% and 34.4% respectively for Golf Magazine, Svensk Golf and Golf Australia. The majority believed this to be a bad idea.

Q: If a manufacturer could create a club or ball that greatly improves the performance of average players but has no effect on the most skilled players, should the rules allow it?

A: In answer, 37.1% of American respondents said yes, as did 38.4% of Golf Svensk readers. Over 60% of Golf Monthly's replies said no.

Q: In recent years, a trend in golf course architecture has been the construction of long and difficult courses. Do you think there should be a limit on this?

A: Across the four nations, between 35% and 49% of respondents were in favour of limits. 

Q: In the future, clubs and balls should be...

A: Golf Monthly: 81.8% said same as today; Golf Magazine: 78.9% said same as today; Golf Svensk: 80% said same as today; Golf Australia: 89.2% said same as today  

Q: In the future, golf balls should travel...

A: Golf Monthly: 64.4% said same as today; Golf Magazine: 68% said same as today; Golf Svensk: 60.8% said same as today; Golf Australia: 66.7% said same as today. 

Key Takeaways

There's a lot to unpack from the survey, but the key takeaways are as follows: 

– The majority of respondents said the ball went further now, as in 1990, than 10-15 years prior. That simply cannot be the case given the move to the 1.68in diameter ball. Perhaps that answer was to do with equipment evolving, shot tracking not existing or other factors, but it's very similar to the situation we're in now. The point is, the change of ball clearly wasn't seen as a big deal or a negative several years after its adoption. 

– One of the reasons we find ourselves where we do is because most people are against bifurcation. It's simply not viable for manufacturers to create different equipment for pros and amateurs due to the cost implications for both them and the consumer. Back in 1990, most were against or indifferent to different equipment for pros and amateurs.

– People were concerned about golf courses being lengthened and becoming more difficult in 1990, even though that feels like a very modern problem. 

– Perhaps most interestingly, the vast majority of survey respondents wanted things to stay the same as they were in 1990. Fast forward 33 years and the game is in a very good place, with participation surging worldwide. What does this mean? Well, firstly, evolution and change is not something to be feared. And secondly, something that seems a big issue at the time often ends up not being so. 

Remember the uproar when the knee-height drop was introduced and hazards became penalty areas? Now, no one talks about that. Many people have rightly raised concerns about the rollback and some arguments are more than justified, but given the survey results and lessons from history, I think it's reasonable to suggest the rollback won't be seen as a significant point of contention ten years from now.