| Bifurcating balls is a contentious but ballsy move by the governing bodies  (Source: Joy Chakravarty) Like everybody else, I have been intrigued by the happenings at various financial institutions ever since the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapsed. The story of a 167-year-old banking behemoth like Credit Suisse being bought over by UBS in a fire sale is equally spectacular. As this situation continues to evolve, golf’s world governing bodies – the R&A and the USGA – proposed last week that the golf ball should be curtailed at the elite level. There has been a maelstrom of opinions from stakeholders of the sport. Many have called it mindless, unnecessary, and even atrocious. Some have gravitated towards the other extreme and have called it timely and a lifesaver for golf. The move entails that ball manufacturers will make separate balls for elite players, which ostensibly won’t travel the same distance as the ones being used now. Starting 2026, tournament organisers will have the right to adopt a Model Local Rule (MLR), under which players will have to play the new ball. This has been done because the players are hitting the balls a long distance and turning several renowned golf courses into drive-chip-and-putt tracks. Realising that a modern-day golfer is now a strong athlete and is continuously improving his strength and agility, the R&A and the USGA want the new balls to travel a maximum distance of 317 +/- 3 yards when hit with a clubhead speed of 127 mph (at 11 degrees and 37 revolutions per second). The present balls are also allowed an Overall Distance Standard (ODS) limit of 317 yards, but these are tested at 120 mph, 10 degrees and 42rps currently. When someone like a Bryson DeChambeau or a Rory McIlroy, hits it with numbers far superior than 120mph/10degrees/42rps, the modern ball can be blasted more than 340-350 yards. The governing bodies want to maintain the ODS, but under new Actual Launch Condition (ALC). Well…one of my first thoughts on the issue is that I am glad the governing bodies have decided to do something. Is it the right decision? We will have a lot of debate on it. The original equipment manufacturers have until 14 August this year to give their feedback on the proposal, but the first reaction, as expected, was negative. Both Titleist and TaylorMade, the two biggest equipment companies, have already opposed any rollback. David Maher, Acushnet’s president and CEO, said: “Unification is a powerfully positive force in the game, and we believe that equipment bifurcation would be detrimental to golf’s long-term well-being.” So, here is the parallel between the world governing bodies and the US Federal Bank… There is never a single factor that tips over an institution, but most experts believe that SVB’s problems started with rising inflation. The Fed had to step in – just like the governing bodies have done fearing that golf courses around the world would become obsolete – and increased the interest rates to rein in inflation. They needed to do it on a regular basis over a protracted period. If they sat twiddling their thumbs, common people would have suffered badly. The billions that SVB got as deposits from tech companies and startups were put in long-term bonds with low rates. It suited the banks at the time because Fed had kept the interest rate close to zero. When the rates went up, the companies wanted better returns for their deposit. Some of them were also facing fiscal issues amidst the tech downturn. They started withdrawing deposits, which forced SVB to sell their hold-to-mature bonds at loss so that they can pay their customers who wanted out. While things were not going to rush at the breakneck speed in which the financial world changed over the past couple of weeks, it was imperative for the governing bodies to start thinking about it. And if they do eventually rule in favour of bifurcated balls, it certainly won’t be the end of Titleist and TaylorMade, but the ball manufacturers will have to change the way they conduct their business. It takes millions of R&D dollars to come out with a new ball. Why would they spend all that money if the ball is not going to generate any revenue at all? These new balls can only be played by elite golfers, and will not be mass marketed. So, to pay the players to use and endorse it (which is how most manufacturers do business), won’t make sense in the future. A bigger concern would be the fact that some tournaments will adopt the MLR, and some won’t. So, players will be playing longer balls on the PGA Tour, and will have to switch and adapt to the new balls at the Open Championship and the US Open. The governing bodies categorically said they would implement the MLR in their tournaments. My big fear is for players from smaller nations. As it is, I have heard so many stories of players still unable to access high-quality balls in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities in India, or even if they do, the cost of acquiring them is extremely high. If young amateurs are required to play with the new balls without having much practice with them – because the driving ranges are definitely not going to offer them – they are going to struggle in international competitions. I don’t buy the argument that it will impact players who are hitting it long. They will still be longer than others in the field even with the new balls because their lengths result from their swing speed. In fact, the way golfers are getting fitter and stronger, the actual launch conditions might need a revisit in the next couple of decades. A much more valid counter-argument is that professional golf is a small part of the overall sport (considering stats like percentage of players and number of rounds played), using no more than 500 different golf courses each year, and that too for a duration of one week. The average winning scores for a majority of these tournaments is still 12-15-under par. Where is the need to change things? It is only going to create confusion. There have been so many instances in other sports where extreme advantage from technological advancements has been banned. Part of 'technology doping' folklore is the aluminium bats in cricket, the use of full-length suits (specifically Speedo’s LZR Racers) in swimming, and shoes that help increase vertical jumps in basketball and running efficiency in track and field (World Athletics banning the Nike AlphaFlys at Tokyo Olympics). Compared to these, the golf ball being used now is not a breakthrough product developed overnight that has changed the paradigms of its sport. Rather, they have seen an evolution that has been in public eyes for years. It’s going to be a very interesting period for the next few months. Hopefully, this decisive action taken by the R&A and the USGA will be seen as one of their positive legacies in the future. | 
