Equipment Designers Confidential: What could USGA and R&A equipment rule changes mean for you and the pros?

Designer 1: At my company, we’re advocates for a unified game with all golfers in all countries playing by the same rules and equipment standards. This is a key component of the game’s enduring and aspirational appeal. Differing equipment standards, based on the level of skill, will sever one of the great attributes of the game, which has unified the game throughout history.

At what level would there be different equipment standards? What about juniors, college players, mid-ams and club professionals aspiring to qualify for the U.S. Open, the British Open or to play on one of the professional tours? Would those golfers be required to purchase different equipment for different calibers of play? The cost to golfers would escalate substantially, as would the complexity for the golf professional and retail community.

The design and manufacturing of equipment would become more complex and costly as products are developed on parallel paths.

Designer 2: As a company, it would likely have a small impact, with an increased number of SKUs and additional time and resources required to develop two sets of products, however it would ultimately come back on the consumer who would be charged more for everything.

The smaller quantities demanded for the “Tour” level stuff would mean higher costs due simply to the economies of scale. Additionally, the “handcuffs-off” version of traditional clubs would likely lead to new technologies, materials and manufacturing processes that would, again, drive the price to the consumer up.

Overall, the pros are the pros for a reason. They’re going to figure out exactly how to get the most out of whatever they are allowed to use. It’s important to remember as well that the PGA Tour and LPGA are ultimately about entertainment value. If everything were dialed back, so every course played as hard as a U.S. Open, viewership would go down. Once that happens, course setups would change to encourage more excitement, whether it be shorter holes or easier pins or something else. People like watching birdies and low scores. There’s a reason everyone loves the back nine at Augusta. Anyone (golfer or not) can appreciate watching the charge. If you sit a non-golfer down to watch the players chipping out sidewise and hoping to get up and down out of the rough at Shinnecock, you’re going to lose them.

Designer 3: It would be a challenge because we would have to make additional toolings for drivers, inventory those parts and manufacture them, so those are added business costs, but they are not huge. Many companies already make separate tools for tour-player products. It’s not something we don’t do already, but it could cause some confusion in the marketplace, especially at the elite amateur levels. Will college kids have to play this stuff? What about the club champions at the local clubs? Those types of players might want to have, or have to have, two sets of clubs created to different performance specifications. But we see this in other sports, like baseball, where if you are a professional player you have to use a wooden bat and at some levels of amateur play you can use an aluminum bat.

Designer 4: Bifurcation could certainly be a blessing and/or a curse. Taken in the positive, it is a chance to optimize equipment for professionals and recreational golfers separately. It’s a new challenge for the team.

However, it takes a lot of time and testing to develop new golf clubs. There would need to be a long lead time, and the R&D investment in clubs for the professionals would not be recouped directly. It would effectively double the research and development activities to design and develop two lines of clubs. There would also be uncertainty around who is using (and maybe buying) the “pro” clubs. Do some golfers need two sets of equipment? Confusion is generally not a good thing in the marketplace.