There are two ways to fix a flat tire: patch the hole or buy a new car. Jon Rahm appears to favor the second option. Not literally, of course. The Spaniard walked away from a reported $100 million-plus when he left LIV Golf, and without a PGA Tour card, he has to make do with the DP World Tour. But his take on golf’s distance problem suggests he would rather take the longer route to a solution than tackle the issue at its source.

“I think there’s something that can be done with golf course design and golf course setup,” he said on Tuesday before teeing off at the DP World Tour Championship. “And it could also be something to entertain to change or limit clubs or the golf ball, but I’m not a proponent of that. I think that kind of… there’s so much freedom in design in golf that you could make golf courses that are anti-distance.”

Rahm is essentially saying that ‘smarter’ course design is enough to tackle the issue. While it might sound like a logical solution at first, it’s not really feasible. Why? 

The Economics of Architecture

Jon Rahm, of course, isn’t the only one advocating for this approach. World No. 1 Scottie Scheffler has also argued that course design plays a much bigger role in rewarding power over strategy. However, both overlook one significant obstacle: redesigning golf courses takes time, particularly on the scale they envision. Both have cited Colonial and Harbour Town to support their arguments. The reality, however, is that Colonial Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas, took a year to complete its redesign, while Harbour Town’s renovation took around six months. 

Now imagine implementing similar changes across every course hosting PGA Tour, DP World Tour, and other courses where regular people play recreationally. Doing so simultaneously could cause significant disruption to the tournaments and stop casual players for at least a year. A gradual approach would be more practical, but it could take years before every course is brought in line with their vision. 

And let’s assume time isn’t the biggest problem. Who foots the bill? Local municipalities could face the greatest challenge. Many already operate on razor-thin margins and simply don’t have millions of dollars to hire architects, reposition fairway bunkers 40 yards farther out, or plant hundreds of mature trees to counter modern driver technology. The financial strain is particularly concerning given the state of public golf in America. 

In September, MyGolfSpy reported that nearly 150 golf course projects were either under construction or in the planning stages, with more than half being private facilities. That is despite public golf experiencing record demand, with more than 29 million on-course golfers playing over 500 million rounds in 2025. Meanwhile, the US has roughly 2,000 fewer golf courses than it did during the early 2000s participation boom, with affordable facilities bearing the brunt of closures.

Rising land prices, development costs, and the greater profitability of private clubs have already made it increasingly difficult to build accessible public courses. But even established private clubs may be reluctant to spend millions renovating their layouts simply to accommodate a different philosophy of course design. 

So, if Jon Rahm and Scottie Scheffler‘s vision becomes the blueprint for tackling golf’s distance problem, the biggest losers could be everyday golfers. The regular Joe might need to take out a second mortgage just to afford a few rounds every other day.

The 6-Hour Round Guarantee

Forget the costs, the time, and the inconvenience for a moment. There is another problem to consider: just how much harder the game could become. Speaking about the drawbacks of the golf ball rollback, Scheffler said the golf ball rollback would make things difficult for the players.

“When you look at the golf ball rollback, when you start moving it back only eight yards, not only does it disproportionately affect certain players, where you have some guys who it won’t affect at all, and some guys where it will affect 15 to 20 yards, I think creates some issues within our game when you start changing the rules.”

He has a point. But redesigning courses to rein in distance could make things even more difficult for players who have grown accustomed to hitting the ball long. Tighter fairways and smaller greens might prevent professionals from covering massive distances, but they could also make already lengthy rounds even longer. These days, a round of golf can take four to five hours to complete, even in favorable weather conditions.

Now imagine adding narrower landing areas and more punishing course setups to that equation. Players would spend more time searching for balls in the woods, hacking their way out of thick rough, and recovering from missed fairways. The result could be a further slowdown of the game, with six-hour weekend rounds becoming an increasingly common reality for recreational golfers. But would redesigning golf courses actually solve the problem?  

Ben Crenshaw, a former golfer turned course designer, responded to Jon Rahm’s suggestion to tweak the courses, highlighting a major problem. 

“It’s where the hazards are. If you don’t have so many carrying hazards to make it really difficult for a short player, and still — and it has undulation and it has ground as hard as this table that spreads everything out, which it’s unusual. Not every course in the world has those capacities.”

The Free, Universal Fix

The R&A and USGA have already announced a solution to the distance problem: the golf ball rollback. While some have suggested regulating driver heads as well, limiting ball distance could be enough to address the issue. More importantly, unlike course alterations, equipment regulations could be implemented across professional golf without disrupting tournament schedules or public courses. 

But Rahm’s opposition to the idea arguably shows just how out of touch some of the best players in the world are. They would rather see golf courses spend millions of dollars on redesigns than alter the specifications of a $5 piece of urethane. Sure, manufacturers, many of whom have endorsement deals with these players, may have to bear some of the costs. But they have already made millions, if not billions, from the golf industry and stand to make plenty more even after the new regulations take effect.

Meanwhile, unlike Jon Rahm or Scheffler, Rory McIlroy appears to have a more practical take on tackling the distance problem. And despite being one of the biggest beneficiaries of modern equipment technology, the Northern Irishman is willing to sacrifice some of his own advantage for the greater good of the game.

“I’m in favor of doing anything and everything to sort of curb where we are at. Ball, club, I think the equipment at the top level needs to be regulated better than where it is right now,” he said. “… And I think if we can just get a little bit more skill and shot-making back into the game, I think that would be better for everyone. I think it would separate the best players from each other, and I think it would make the game more entertaining to watch.”