Comment: More research is needed before the Rules of Golf should be changed

LPGA Master instructor Kiran Kanwar PhD argues that, in response to the latest rule change surrounding golf balls that are used by elite golfers, more questions should be asked before amendments are made.

The Rules of Golf have evolved from the original 13 to the present 25. They also include many stipulations for golf clubs and balls and what design and performance standards they must meet. In 1952, the Rules code became, for the first time, the combined effort of the USGA (the governing body for golf in the USA) and The R&A (the governing body for golf in the rest of the world). A potted history of the more recent golf Rules states that since 1985 the two governing bodies, while ‘responding to rapid developments’, discovered that, ‘an organic pattern emerged’ which involved a ‘major update to the Rules about every 30 years’.

Every 30 years? Major updates? What constitutes ‘major’ and is that even within the mandate of The USGA and The R&A, if, indeed, such a mandate even exists?

According to a page on Olympics.com, the ‘international sports federations’ are responsible for the integrity of their sport at the international level, and, moreover, ‘have the responsibility and duty to manage and to monitor the everyday running of the world’s various sports disciplines…’ Furthermore, each federation ‘governs its sport at world level and ensures its promotion and development’ and must ‘monitor the everyday administration of their sports and guarantee the regular organisation of competitions as well as respect for the rules of fair play.’

So the key words here appear to be ‘integrity’, ‘promotion and development’ and ‘fair play’. However, the USGA itself states that :’A core function of the USGA is to write and interpret the Rules of Golf in conjunction with our worldwide partner, The R&A.’

Who, then, decides what an international sports federation really should be responsible for? And, bottom line, who do any golf Rules changes benefit? Every single golfer in the world or just a few?

Major rules changes, despite the statement on the USGA website claiming that they are made every 30 years, have become as prolific as golf balls lost in ponds on the right sides of fairways.

Remember when it was no longer allowed by the Rules to ‘anchor a putter when making a stroke’ (2016)? Or when golfers could choose between flagstick in or flagstick out while putting (2019)?

These are just two examples of the several Rules changes made in rapid succession and their main effect, regardless of their intent, was to discombobulate millions of golfers.

What rationale do the governing bodies provide for Rules changes? Most importantly, what research do they base their required changes on? According to one source: ‘The argument against anchored putters is based on the assumption that affixing the club to one’s body is an illegitimate way of gaining control of the putting stroke. The swinging motion consistent in all facets of golf is diminished.’ The questions to ask would be: a) is controlling a swing movement now also to be governed by the Rules? b) is there any research to indicate that an anchored stroke would provide any direct benefit to a golfer?

What the anchored stroke serves to do is create a lower fulcrum for the stroke than, for instance, an all arms stroke might. With a lower fulcrum or center of rotation of the putter shaft, the stroke would be more of a pendulum with a very specific bottom-of-the-arc, while with a movement in which the arms move a fairly vertical putter shaft back and through, there would be a slightly more extended low point of the arc with, presumably, a greater margin within which to err. Of course that is a hypothesis, but one which is extremely easy for the governing bodies of the world of golf to conduct meaningful inferential statistics on.

Similarly, the flagstick in or out rule was based on the rationale that it ‘should generally speed up play … When the players did not have caddies, the previous Rule could result in considerable delay.’ No research was conducted on that subject either. While there were at least three independent researchers who studied whether ‘pin in’ or ‘pin out’ was better for golfers (with differing results), no research was conducted on the basic premise of whether, indeed, leaving the flagstick in would speed up play, for which golfers, and by how much. A major Rules change that discomfited thousands was made on the basis of a mere ‘generally’ or ‘considerable’?

Now we come to the latest proposed rule change, one of many that are hurtling towards golfers at the speed of light rather than the tortoise-slow speed of ‘every 30 years’.

Some background first. The USGA and R&A jointly launched the Distance Insights project in May 2018. According to the then CEO of The USGA, Mike Davis: “The topic of increased distance and its effects on the game have been discussed for well over a century. We believe that now is the time to examine this topic through a very wide and long lens, knowing it is critical to the future of the game.”

Did such a project even make any sense? Absolutely. As global populations increase and land becomes exponentially more expensive to acquire for use by just a few, sustainable golf is vital.

According to its press release made at the time of launching the project, ‘Among the many topics to be explored, the organisations will seek distance-related data on pace of play, golf course construction and maintenance practices, the evolution of equipment, golf course design and player enjoyment and participation.’ All extremely important and laudable concerns.

So, what did the joint governing bodies do with all the data they gathered? In February 2021 they released a communication that stated they would further identify the ‘persistent increases in hitting distance over time’ and also how to ‘enhance the reward of a central impact.’ Eventually by June 2022 they fine-tuned their interest specifically to increased clubhead speed – as it applies to the longest hitters – and various characteristics of drivers.

Finally, in March 2023, the two governing bodies at a joint press conference, made a statement about – wait for it – a ‘model local rule’ about (of all things) how golf balls that would be used by elite golfers would be restricted from travelling further than an overall distance of 317 yards. Whaaat?

The Acushnet company, maker of the famous Titleist brand of golf balls, reacted with: “This bifurcation would divide golf between elite and recreational play, add confusion, and break the linkage that is part of the game’s enduring fabric.” They also stated that the course playing length as set up by the PGA Tour to suit the ever-increasing distances professional golfers hit the ball had only increased by less than 100 yards in the past two decades.

The hard questions that should have been asked (and answered through relevant research) before the golf world was thrown yet another curve ball should have been, based on their own avowed concerns, how the following might be affected:

· Pace of play

· Golf course construction and maintenance

· Golf course design

· Player enjoyment and participation

Some of the answers are obvious. Some questions have been answered through market surveys by a third party service provider. None have been analysed through actual quantitative studies which could have assessed not just the above topics but also some proposed golf balls engineered to replicate the required standards of the future. How would such balls actually travel with respect to not just overall distance but also carry distance as well as direction? Suitable studies could also have assessed how the new golf balls would affect approach shots and putts, under a variety of golf course and weather conditions.

While the overarching intentions of the two governing bodies are, indeed, important and relevant, the question always returns to their implementation.

Do they use the services of an adequate number of research-scientists? Is their Rules planning based on stakeholder discussions and qualitative market research alone? Do they conduct any evidence-based research? A research scientist would ask every possible question from the ‘ridiculous to the sublime’, with a few being:

1. What is the rationale behind any proposed change?

2. Would the change be fair?

3. For whom?

4. Does the research indicate that the above concerns are even legitimate?

5. Might there be alternative ideas that would reduce inconvenience and costs for all stakeholders?

Ultimately, a governing body of a sport must be an organisation that fosters the growth of the game it governs, the integrity and fairness that support such growth and, in the present era, the sustainability of the planet and its peoples when pertinent. All through best-practices as supported by considerable research.

LPGA Master instructor Kiran Kanwar has a PhD in kinesiology (biomechanics and anatomy) and wrote a thesis on causes of golf swing-related injuries. Kiran is also chair of Stanton University’s golf department