Bryson DeChambeau and Gaslighters GC Speak Out Against Rollback

The next LIV Golf rebrand should see Bryson DeChambeau’s Crushers GC become Gaslighters GC after the team’s press conference ahead of this week’s event in South Africa.

DeChambeau, Paul Casey, Anirban Lahiri, and Charles Howell III spoke with the media on Tuesday about the first-ever event in South Africa and the season so far, but it was a question about golf equipment getting out of hand that caught my attention. I won’t speak for my coworkers, but avid readers will know Fried Egg Golf is pro-rollback. We’ve answered FAQ’s on the subject, addressed enforcement, and welcomed guests like Tom Doak and Roberto Castro to talk about the rollback from both architecture and PGA Tour perspectives. Naturally, we have some thoughts on the clip.

Bryson came out swinging with his answer, arguing that drivers from 2009 and today are “relatively the same and not much has changed,” and the boom in distance in golf should be attributed to athletic ability and players “not being afraid to go after shots, swing harder, be more aggressive.” You know, things they can do because of how fargiving — a fake word used by a very real equipment company to sell its products — clubs are these days compared to, let’s say, 2009 or prior.

{{inline-article}}

Paul Casey then pointed out that players don’t get enough credit as athletes, and OEMs aren’t to blame because they’re “doing what they do” to make better-performing clubs and balls. In a vacuum, both of those statements may be true, but when it comes to the game as a whole, just because players are more athletic and governing bodies were asleep at the wheel when it came to distance doesn’t mean there isn’t a serious problem at hand.

“Remember, the architects did their thing with pushing out the golf courses, building more houses,” Casey added, without noting the reason for building new, longer courses and renovating older designs was to keep up with equipment technology.

“Some of the hardest golf courses are some of the shortest, like Valderrama every year is by far one of the hardest golf courses we play,” Anirban Lahiri chimed in, though being on LIV’s schedule sets a low bar for a test provided by a venue. “It doesn't even compare to the last 10 U.S. Open venues, but it plays like a U.S. Open.”

Does it? The U.S. Open is defined by more than just the leaderboard, but the last three winning scores at LIV Golf Andalucia – all 54-hole tournaments, mind you – were -8, -5, and -12, for an average winning score of -8.33. The average winning score of the last three U.S. Opens – a 72-hole championship – is -5.67.

“So it's not just about equipment. Like Paul said, there's so many facets, but everybody only talks about that,” Lahiri said. “It's an unfair argument.”

Opposing viewpoints don’t make for an unfair argument. Willfully avoiding the whole point, however, does. Enter again, DeChambeau.

“What are the bodies of golf trying to accomplish?” Bryson asked. “Are they trying to preserve the traditions and history of the game, or are they trying to grow the game, because those are two different things."

To suggest these two questions cannot have the same answer, create a binary, and leave zero room in the middle of the Venn diagram is simply asinine. Both these things can be pursued and achieved. Bryson is creating a false choice. It is Logical Fallacy 101 for the big-hitting YouTuber.

“They can cross over in some facets, in some regard, but when you're trying to preserve the traditions and history of the game, yeah, you're going to want to go back to a golf ball that's going shorter because players are more athletic. Yeah, you're going to want to shrink the heads,” he continued. “But if you want to grow the game, that's not how you get kids to hit the golf ball farther and enjoy it and want to be a part of this game. They're at a bit of crossroads right now and they have to answer those questions.”

Luckily for Bryson, those questions were answered, in the opening paragraph, nearly three years ago when the R&A and USGA announced the proposed plan. “The decision aims to reduce the impact increased hitting distances have on golf’s long-term sustainability while minimizing the impact on the recreational game.”

Did you fall in love with the game because you hit the ball far? I know I didn’t. Most players get hooked after hitting that first, perfect shot. It’s a feeling we chase every swing for 18 holes every time we tee it up. But if this is a concern for DeChambeau, perhaps he wants to go back to the bifurcation proposal, where the top pros can play clubs proportionate to their skills, like big leaguers switching from metal to wood bats, while the kids still chase the simple feeling of hitting it far.

The governing bodies projected that the longest hitters will see a 13- to 15-yard reduction in driving distance. Most recreational players are expected to lose five yards or less. Minimal interference. But as many have already said, including Rory McIlroy, the equipment companies will quickly recoup the yards lost and push the limits because they are excellent at what they do. These are nonsensical scare tactics. If, as Bryson suggests, this is owing to the athletes, then good on them! Because they have become so powerful and talented that we’ve seen a game de-skilled into driver wedge and courses so obsoleted that now regulation is required to contain them. So let’s play to the ego: Full credit to you, Bryson!

New courses hopefully won’t need to be as long as they are now, and established courses won’t need to be lengthened just to keep up with technology. That means less water usage and more sustainable maintenance practices in a time when both are greatly needed. Shorter driver distances could allow some forgotten Golden Age courses to host professional tournaments again.

Professional players and the equipment companies have their reasons for being anti-rollback and are entitled to those opinions. Most of them, however, are driven by competing interests, most of which are personal. That rarely exists on the other side of the debate, unless you think architects are about to get rich from a rollback. When met with facts, looking through a lens for the betterment of the overall game, how is this still a debate?