"The majority of golfers want one set of rules but may ignore a rules change, which would render their existing equipment -- which works for them -- non-conforming."

Frank Thomas conducted a not-so-scientific survey of 1500 GolfDigest.com readers on technology and its impact on the game. 

Question 1) How important is it to you that there be only one set of rules? The table shows the results on a five point scale.

Very important --------- 57%
#2 -------------------------- 16%
#3 -------------------------- 10%
#4 -------------------------- 5%
Not important ----------- 13%

I think we have a winner in that one set of rules is important. This is good for golf.

This is beautiful:

Question 2) Do you think something should be done in the equipment regulations to rein in some of the extraordinary performances exhibited by tour players and the like?

"Rein in some of the extraordinary performances." Now that's not loaded in any way. Gee, what miser wants to rein in extraordinary performances?

Yes ------- 26%
No ------- 74%

Well, 26% did.

Frank, it's more like this: would you like to see technology reined into produce extraordinary performances exhibited by tour players and the like using a combination of mental and physical skill?

Love the conclusion:

It looks like our readers don't think reining in the pros by using equipment regulations is necessary. After all, they are the best of the best and there are other means to challenge them.

That's right! Eliminate the fairway!

Question 3) If the equipment performance rules did change because of pro performance and they detrimentally affected you and/or your performance, how likely is it that you would ignore the change(s) and continue to use your existing (now non-conforming) equipment?

Very likely -------------- 47%
#2 ------------------------ 12%
#3 ------------------------ 10%
#4 ------------------------ 7%
Not at all likely -------- 24%

Thankfully, that question wasn't loaded at all!

If the equipment performance rules were to change and so detrimentally affect average golfers along with pros, it looks like about 60% of average golfers would continue to use their existing equipment and ignore the rule (this is not good for golf).

Where's the free market love?

The performance of the majority of golfers (99%) must be carefully considered before adopting a rules change.

There's a newsflash from the manufacturer talking points city! 

Question 4) Do you think that a Ten club (local) rule for elite players is a better idea than changing equipment performance standards for everybody?

Yes ---------------- 63%
No ----------------- 37%

This is a solution which costs nothing and is easy to evaluate. It will not affect current equipment specifications nor will it cause the disruption that having two sets of performance rules for equipment may. I think a reasonable conclusion is that the majority of golfers want one set of rules but may ignore a rules change, which would render their existing equipment -- which works for them -- non-conforming.

Yes, I can see the ad campaign now. "Hi, I'm (tour pro name here) and I just love the decision of whether to leave out my Taylor Made 19 degree rescue, versus my 16 degree. Ultimately they're both so good that I had to leave both out because I really need my putter and wedge."

You have to admire Frank's effort, but he concluded that the game must be played under one set of rules and then declares after the fourth question that a form of bifurcation is the solution.