Trying To Grasp McIlroy's Take On Distance Research, Endorsement Of Bifurcation

Quite a few folks have reached out to ask for clarification of Rory McIlroy’s contradictory remarks last week. As I noted at the time, say what you want about his criticism of the governing bodies, he endorsed their likely solution as well. They will take the latter and ignore the former.

But the Golf.com roundtable gang did a nice job summing up the matter for those trying to figure out McIlroy’s point.

Berhow: The study and research and time that went into this is important. Facts matter. And it’s good to see how the game evolves. Hardly a waste of money or time. I do agree with him that the game has other issues to address as well, but that doesn’t mean the USGA and R&A should give distance or any other relevant topics the cold shoulder. That would be irresponsible. 

Zak: I was seriously disappointed in Rory’s knee-jerk perspective. It surprised me. The USGA is not ruining the game for amateurs with this study. The R&A is not focused solely on professionals. They are simply trying to make sure that some of the pillars this game sits on — centuries-old courses and using all the clubs in the bag — are not bastardized and made extinct by extreme advancements in technology. If slight bifurcation is the answer that keeps Bryson occasionally using a 4-iron at St. Andrews, it would be a great success.

Sens: I think he’s right about bifurcation. It makes good sense. 

Bamberger: Oh, I got ahead of things here — yes, he makes good sense, to a point. All recreational golf, as well as club golf and after-work leagues and all the rest need rules and regulations. But we should play lost ball. drop one where you think you lost it, add a shot. The Tour can do it some other way.