And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball…
That doesn't change the fact that either way there's going to be some level just below wherever the line is drawn.
Let's say you're at whatever level is just below the level where they play the MLR ball. Do you play the MLR ball, willingly giving up an advantage while others have that advantage, and forego what it could mean to advancing you in your current level… in the hopes that you will even get to the next level and are beginning to prepare for life "above" the MLR line?
Let's pretend the line is just above the collegiate level. If you're a good college player, do you play the MLR ball even if you know it's going to cost you and/or your team, because you think you can make it at the next level? Does your coach allow
you to willfully/willingly harm you and the team? If the difference is between winning a collegiate event or finishing T3… is that worth it? Competing for a national championship or not making it to the match play rounds? Etc.
There are no guarantees in life and the game is MUCH larger and much more competitive now than in 1978.
Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes?
My position all along has been: https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809
To get back to the original stuff:
1. I don’t think "they" needed to do anything for a tiny % of the game’s players. 6500 yards is enough for ~95%.
2. If they were going to do something, they should have gone further AND done it for everyone. Complete rollback, not bifurcation.
I've also said that IF they choose to disrupt the game, and the rules, then they'd better be damn sure they understand the ramifications and the end result. For example, it would have been silly to make a rules change and disrupt the game… if manufacturers and players could work around it in short order. A rules change with no actual consequence or, worse, unintended consequences would be "bad."
1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.
Are you saying that I've said these things? Also, I don't think you can "leave out the technical side of things."
It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.
I'm sure I've said something like this, but it's nothing close to my starting point or baseline.
1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.
This is accurate. The modern Pro V1 (or TP5 or whatever) is a Pinnacle from the 80s that spins a bit more with shorter clubs.
2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.
I don't generally use absolutes like that, so no.
3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.
It won't make a difference… to what? There are many things that it could make a difference in… but to strategy? Probably not. TO who are the best players? Probably not. To golf courses? No, probably not - it seems to be about a 4% reduction, and some pros may lose even less if they're swinging less than optimally.
I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment.
No. I don't really care about Titleist having to spend an extra $20M per year for the next three to five years… seeing as how they make about $670M on balls annually.