[Daniel_Wexler]

Actually, relatively speaking, the changes have been overnight.

[ForkaB]

Daniel

It depends on what and whose game we are talking about.  I think that the advances in conditioning (human and agronomic) and equipment and balls have been good for the professional game.  I enjoy the athleticism, the amazing recovery shots that are now made out of perviously hopeless lies, and the fact that the game is still subtle enough to allow the guys with the Tim Herron body types to compete.  Others disagree with me on this, and that is their right.

As for the other, more important game, our game--as far as I see, it really hasn't changed that much.  My handicap has fluctuated between 4 and 7 for 20 years, whether I be using persimmon and blades or metal and perimeter weighted clubs, soft, hard, round or lumpy balls.  I stil hit essentially the same range of shots on the same holes on the courses I have known well over that period.  There does not exist a course out there that cannot make me look like a hacker when I am off my game, and none of the great courses I have been privileged to play are in any way obsolete to me, even though I might be able to play them fairly well when I am on my game.

Even though I am a relatively good golfer and relatively long off the tee, I have always known that the pros played a different game than I do, and it has never bothered me.  It is their profession.  They are highly conditioned and trained athletes.  The fact that I have to try to hit the cut 2-iron off a sidehill donwhill lie from time to time doesn't mean that I think they should have to do it if they are equipped to avoid that shot through their skills and strategies.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Rich:

Please correct me if I'm mis-reading your words but you seem to be representing the rather popular opinion that since the Tour plays an entirely different game anyway, and since modern equipment hasn't caused revolutionary changes in the "average" guy's score, what's the big deal?  I happen to disagree-- strongly-- but that's fine.

I'll assume then (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you're not terribly concerned with layouts like Merion being rendered obsolete for Major Championship play because without reeling it all in, they surely are/will be.  But does it bother you that:

A) Many of those same clubs, with long Major Championship histories, feel pressured to make significant design changes in attempts at staying viable?

B) Virtually all Golden Age designs lose a (large) element of their strategic appeal for any competent ball-striker (because hitting eight and nine irons into green complexes built to receive fours and fives, for example, thoroughly alters the hole's balance and playabilty)?

C)The cost of building, maintaining and PLAYING courses skyrockets as increasingly more land must be purchased, more property taxes paid, etc.?

D)We lose all ability to compare the performances of today’s stars with those of the past?

E) The "average" player must purchase expensive new equipment more frequently to avoid being left in the dust?

Also-- and this will obviously be a matter of opinion-- I'm not aware of the recovery games of today's players being better than the past.  Indeed I think that most observers with a long-term perspective would suggest just the opposite: that today's players (with one or two of obvious exceptions) have a lot LESS imagination and scrambling ability than those of yesteryear.  I'd love to see any of them (including Tiger or Mickelson) try and keep up with Walter Hagen....

Finally, I have absolutely no problem with the professional never having that tough two-iron shot IF it's due strictly to their superior technique or course management.  I have a major problem, however, when they avoid it simply because their oversize titanium driver and Pro V1 allow them to comfortably airmail trouble spots that used to be integral.

[ForkaB]

Daniel

I am still learning and thinking as I engage in this dialogue.  My current thoughts are as follows:

--I believe that the professionals have always played different game than you and I.  What is different is that the difference has become much greater as the pros have worked harder at their game and their fitness, and fine tuned their games with the latest trechnology (customized launch angles, etc.).
--I also beleive that the current pros are FAR better than our oldies but goodies.  IMO, if Hagen were alive today, playing the game he was playing in the 20's, he wouldn't be able to get a Buy-com tour card.  I also beleieve that the ability of the top players today to hit recovery shots is VASTLY superior to the oldies.
--I too, would love to have an Open at Merion, and have stated so numerous times in this forum.  Putting aside the issues of space and corporate tents and USGA greed, if you want to do so, it seems there are three options:

1.  Try to change the course to make it tougher (lengthen it, put in new bunkers and other hazards, etc.)
2.  Keep the course as it is, but gear down the equipment (competition ball)
3.  Let them play the course as it is (with a fast and firm set up as at the Wilson) and see what happens.  If Tiger shoots -25, so be it.

I'm arguing for #3.

--When Hagen won his British Opens he was shooting between 290 and 300.  50 years later, his counterparts were shooting 270-280, on lengthened courses.  Given that, it doesn't really bother me that somebody might shoot 250-260 some day.  Life goes on.

In regard to your quesoins:

A.  If clubs like Merion feel "pressured" to toughen up their courses that is not my problem, it is theirs, and indicates to me that their members are suffering from a form of anthropomorphic penis envy which is laughable to most outsiders.

B.  The way that the pros hit their irons these days, it does not make a difference to them if a green is designed for a Wedge or a 3-iron.  They will hit is high, soft and close if they are on their game, with every iron in their bag.

C.  Why do people build these bigger courses?  For us?  Or, for their warped egos (see A. above)?  I've argued many times for smaller and more compact courses.  Who has the balls to build them, except maybe Doak and Keiser?

D.  I don't really care about comparisons, except in a relative sense.  It is impossible to equalize the conditions, and I see no need to do so.

E.  Ever since I have played golf (45 years and counting) players have been sheep in following the latest technologies and swing theories.  People with more money than sense will always shell out money for the latest and greatest idea.

Finally, 99% of the players in the world can enjoy Merion as Hogan saw it.  Even those in the top 1%, like JamieS, do not find it an easy course at all, even if they can hit an 8-iron into 18.  If they played an Open at Merion, as it was set up for the Wilson, would not hte winner be a worthy one, no matter what was his score?  Isn't that all we should care about when the pros play their game?

Still Learning....

Rich

[aclayman]

Rich-I'm learning to love the way you think and write  
There is no way for me to have said it better. Literally, No way.

Now, Daniel - Tom Macwood- perhaps you could share your feelings and why you have them?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Rich:

If you genuinely believe that:

-- Walter Hagen "wouldn't be able to get a Buy.com Tour card" today

-- The scrambling ability of modern players is "VASTLY superior" to Hagen, etc.

-- That professionals can regularly hit 3 irons as close as wedges

-- That comparisons with great players of the past aren't worth caring about

What can I possibly say?

Also, at the risk of sounding high-handed (which is not the intention), I'm curious: With regard to Walter Hagen, have you read/researched much about his game, style, specific shots and results or is your opinion of him based simply upon gut feeling?

[T_MacWood]

Golf is a resilient game. There have been warnings about the evils of equipment advancements for 100 years or more. And yet the game may be more popular today than it has ever been.

This arguement over who would have done what in this era or that is a difficult one, and we all ultimately fall back on our own game. Having played golf at OSU for most of my life, I've seen where Nicklaus hit it and where Weiskopf hit it, and where Irwin, Watson, Wadkins, Crenshaw, Strange, Duval and Woods hit it. I play with same old clubs I bought when I was 12, I see where I hit in college when I played 3 or 4 times a week and see where I hit today, as a once week golfer. I enjoy hitting the ball farther.

You often here complaints from baseball purists, about all the home runs, the recording setting farce and the juiced ball. I think its exciting, God knows the game was in very bad shape and needed something. I really don't see the harm, the only harm I can see is for those who like to compare records from different eras -  a difficult arguement.

I love the game of golf, but my interest are more specialized. I am part of smaller niche who is focused the artistic side of the sport -- its most wonderful venues and the men who created these great works. I suspect men like Horace Hutchinson, Bernard Darwin, Simpson, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Flynn etc., had similar interests when they voiced concerns decades ago, just like Nicklaus and Crenshaw today.

I can live with the record book being confusing, that really has no effect on me personally. What effects me personally is the defacing of great golf courses.  In one way or another these courses have been compromised by an attitude of modernization and strengthening in the face of modern realities. You can say their views are misguided or idiotic, but the you can not ignore the results - at least I can't. Oakland Hills, Scioto, Oak Hill, Inverness, Bel-Air, Riviera, Canton Brookside, Congressional, Augusta National, Pebble Beach, Olympic, Bethpage, Equinox, Pinehurst #4, Skokie, CC of Detroit, Camargo, Merion, Pine Valley, Cherry Hills, Southern Hills, Baltusrol, Ohio State, Greenbriar-Old White, Yale, Charlotte, Pinehurst #2, Granville, Sea Island, Timber Point, St.Georges, Cherry Hill, Essex, Lookout Point, Banff, Aronomink, Columbia, Gulph Mills, and on and on.

No architect is immune. Can you imagine going into the Louvre with a palette of fresh paint or bringing in a home improvement crew to Oak Park, Illinois. I can't, but we can all predict what the reaction might be for the guy who really isn't interested in art or architecture. That is why this arguement is futile, you can not force someone to be concerned about an issue that they have no interest in.

[ForkaB]

Daniel

I exaggerate(but just a bit) and I rely on my opinions on my knowledge and ability to integrate and interpret that knowledge.  They are opinions, not facts, obviously.

Of course, players do not hit 3-irons as close as wedges, but they hit them pretty damn near as close (relative to the past), and certainly they hit them higher and softer than any golden age architect could have ever imagined.

Re poor old Walter Hagen, whom I do NOT mean to belittle, but just use as an example (I could have used anybody from his era, including Bobby Jones), I have no specific knowledge about his skills other than the scores which he recorded in major championships.  I base my opinions about Hagen's skills relative to today's players on those facts, as well as pictures I have seen of his and others from that era's swings, which are (obviously) pre-modern and thus not as totoally effective as today's swings.  I also base it on what I know and beleive about other players in other sports, some with more convinciton than others, namely:

--that Bill Tilden could not get a game off of any of today's top tennis players.  (I played a lot of tennis, I;ve sen the films, and this one is a no-brainer).
--that Jesse Owens could not make today's Olympic teams (another no-brainer--look up the numbers)
--that Johnny Weissmuller could not make today's women's Olypmic team! (look it up, it's a no-brainer too)
--that Babe Ruth might be a struggling DHer, but not much more (harder to prove, but I am increasingly awed at the physical skill of today's baseball players, inccluding pitchers)
--that Bob Cousy probably couldn't play NBA ball these days (again hard to prove, but I'n not sure his one-hand set shot would be of much use these days).

I will admit that golf always has been a sport at which the less fit and less athletically gifted can excel, and also one at which older people can continue to compete with younger ones for a longer time, due to its particular characteristics and requirements.  However, even that is changing now that better athletes are coming into the sport, and physical strength is becoming a greater element of the modern player's game.

Daniel, there is a lot of research out these days on how people learn and achieve that makes it very clear that for people of similar inherent talent, the cumulative number of repetitiions of skills determines long term performance.  Thus the chess player who starts at age 3 is more likely to become a grandmaster than the one that starts at 8.  The swimmer who starts competing and training at 5 is more likely to be an Olympic medal winner than one who starts at 11, and so forth.  All other things being equal, of course.

I would be astonished to learn that Hagen, and Jones,and Sarazen, etc. had trained any where nearly as hard, for nearly as long as have Woods, Duval, Mickelson, etc.  Including recovery shots.  I am reliably told by people who have seen him practice that Woods can do things with a golf ball that Hagen could never have dreamed of.  Also remember that 50-80 years ago the greens that the older players were recovering to stimped out at 4-5.  It's a lot easier to get a recovery shot to stick on a slow green.

......I just wonder where Sarazen's famous 4-wood would have ended up if the 15th green at Augusta were as firm and fast as it is today?  Maybe in the cup again, but maybe, just maybe, through the green into the water.........

Let me make one more caveat.  I am comparing how I imagine these older athletes played, based on slim records and old video clips, vs. what I see with my eyes today.  How those old athletes played was determined, in large part, but the amount and quality of training they undertook.  I think one of the reasons for my opinions about their relative abilities is based on the fact that they did not trian as long and as hard as today's athletes.  I am fully willing to concede that if Bobby Jones had trained as much at golf as Tiger has from age 3 onward, through his playing career, he could have been as good an athlete and golfer as Tiger was.  However, he didn't and he wasn't.  IMHO.

I marvel at the skills of all the old players, in all sports.  I am a sports junkie and I have played several sports at reasonably high levels.  I am, however, also an analyst and a realist and I do not really get anything other than bar room-level satisfaction from trying to debate whether or not Jack Johnson would beat Rocky Marciano, or Jacques Plante be able to stop Mario Lemieux one-on-one, or Walter Hagen beat Joe Durant at match play.

I've got some rose colored glasses in my desk somewhere, but I haven't worn them for some time.

Hey, here's an idea that just came to me!  Honestly.  I think as I write .

How about doing a match play comparison of Jones vs. Woods at Merion, as it was in 1930, and as Jones played on that day and as Tiger plays today?  Does anybody have the knowledge and patience to try that one?  Does anybody out there think that Jones would have had anything other than a small statistical chance in that match?

Daniel, I love the past.  I am of it and I learn a lot about it and from it, every day.  However, I am also in the present, I am also forced to deal with the future, and I try to live my life and form my opinions based on a healthy balance of those three incontrovertible facts.

All the best

Rich

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I'm not sure your Track and Field example is exactly a no brainer. In the 1935 Big Ten meet Jesse Owens jumped 26'8.25" -- a jump of 26'9.75" qualified for the 2000 US Team in the long jump. Owens' jump was over cinder run-up using less than efficient running shoes. You don't think that he could get another 1.5" on an extremely fast composite track and modern light-weight shoes? I do.

Comparing performances from one era to another is difficult because of many complex variables, but comparing great works of art is another story.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Documenting Jones' performance at Merion is a breeze.  A 1930 issue of Golf Illustrated magazine mapped out his medal play rounds, superimposed on aerial photos, exactly.  69-73, 142, tying the then-record for medal qualifying.  Would Tiger (or, for that matter Joe Durant) beat that today?  Hard to figure they wouldn't.  Would Jones also lower those numbers substantially if he could drive the ball 30-50 yards further simply by using today's equipment?  I certainly think so.

Re: recovery shots, green speeds were undoubtedly a lot slower but green countouring was a HELL of a lot more substantial.  For example, check out Augusta's greens as designed by MacKenzie/Jones versus the MUCH softer versions today.  

I have no doubt that Tiger (who can obviously hold his own with anyone historically) can do things that Walter Hagen, Bobby Jones, Harry Vardon or, for that matter, Ben Hogan never dreamed of.  The problem is that so can Joe Durant, and Tom Pernice, Jr. and Esteban Toledo.

That may not bother you too much but to me it cheapens the game.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Somehow I knew that my reference to your fellow OSU alum would send you to your encyclopedia.  Quite frankly, I thought I might have overstepped the mark (as it were) in terms of the long jump, given the worthless group of leapers that we have in the USofA today, and I was sweating bullets waiting for your response, but I am gratified to hear that I was 1.5 inches to the good in my off-the-top-of-my-head assessment!

I'm still ambivalent as to whether or not a golf course is a "work of art" but I am not ambivalent about the fact that art which also has some functional form, may lose its ability to function over time, at certain levels, for no fault of its own or of the architect.  For example, the great old Georgian buildings of Charlotte Square in Edinburgh can no longer adequately serve as offices of global financial institutions (as they did up until a few years ago), because their interior design does not accommodate modern requiremetns for telecommunications and data cabling. They can be and are being converted to less demanding uses.

Daniel

Thanks for the fascinating info about Jones at Merion and about Augusta, which I would be ashamed not to know if I were not so shameless.  Have other great courses been as "softened" as you report Augusta to have been?  If so, this is very interesting news to me.

I hear what you are saying regarding "cheapening." I feel that way too, sometimes, and can dream about a future where the Estaban Toledo's of the world can't break 75 on Merion as set up in 1930, but I don't think that is a dream that will ever come true.  Most of the time, quite frankly, I am very glad that Estaban plays as well as he does and I do, really, look forward to that day when I am in the nursing home, with my virtual reality TV, and I watch and hear and smell and taste Sergei Bubka's grandson shooting 55 in the last round to win his 3rd straight green jacket.

Cheers

Rich

[aclayman]

Tom- Thanks for that indepth post. I realize that I can be a bit of a contrairian and sympathize with the loss of the courses you love, so passionatly.
I have had zero exposure to every course on your list. But I know if I was as attached to these venues as you, I would be upset that they were being forever altered. At some point though I believe I would have to justify it someway just so it won't eat me up inside.

Cheers
adam

[Tony Ristola]

Dan W:  On the whole players today do have better technique, though Hogan stands as a quality model of both mechanical and mental efficiency.  It's like comparing the depth on the US Tour to the Telia Tour in Sweden (Men's pro tour).  Just look at Hogan's early attempts.  He wouldn't have sniffed the PGA Tour today, and probably would have been eating oranges for survival on the Telia Tour.  

Later on Hogan was perhaps the greatest ball striker (what a transformation), in the same league as Moe Norman and George Knudson. I'd have to put Tiger in there too.  You don't bash it miles, and straight if you don't have great fundamentals.  So far his mental abilities seem to rival Hogan and Nicklaus.  

Players today have it easier with video (and an erasable marker), computer generated knowledge and a host of excellent golf instructors who don't work so much from feel (which most did up to 1985) as from a solid base of common sense knowledge grounded in geometry, physics and kineseology. A combination of Jimmy Ballard, Harvey Pennick and The Golfing Machine. The swing has been dissected thoroughly (Dr. Ralph Mann, Centinela Hospital and others). It's no great mystery. On the whole players are more knowledgeable, better equipped and will continue to be so.

aclayman:  The reason to limit the distance is the game has changed through the combination of technology and superior human performance.  Great courses are becoming obsolete only due to the overall distance the ball travels.  It's that simple. As Pete Dye said in his book 5 years ago, (paraphrasing) "If Donald Ross knew they were hitting nine irons into the first at Pinehurst No.2 (where he planned it for a five iron or so), he would move the tee box back into the parking lot."  (Hey, here's another opportunity for an ASGCA remodelling school effort... new tees, regrading some landing areas to limit ball flight, etc., and another opportunity for Geoff Shackleford write another horror story, which is what it sounds like over at Augusta.)  Why is Fazio over tearing up Augusta?  The ball flies too far.  What great course do you want to see "fixed" next?

Counteracting all the improvements, (ball, human, teaching, maintenance, golf equipment)can only be achieved by rolling the ball back.  It is the only realistic way to preserve the game and the great courses. As Tom MacWood stated so well... "defacing great golf courses."  Do you guys like what is happening to Augusta?

Now what is required is the USGA and R&A jump to their feet, like a raging inferno has been called into their station, and they take drastic and quick action to eliminate the blaze before it wreaks overall destruction.  The USGA and R&A need to act like protectors, preserving the game from this technology leap, this blaze of fire.  People will still enjoy the benefits of technology when the ball is rolled back, the only difference is the ball will fly a shorter distance.

[ed_getka]

The technology being developed today is making the game less enjoyable for me in No.
Calif. due to costs and pace of play.
 As courses become longer, more land is required, and costs increase dramatically which are passed on to us in the form of higher green fees.
  The average golfers ability hasn't increased much over the years, but the pace of play suffers as these guys play longer courses. Combine that with the appalling ignorance of the etiquette of the game of most new players and golf is being diminished in my view.
  I volunteer at most US Opens just so I have an opportunity to see some of the classic courses. I go out first thing in the morning so I can photograph the holes before all the "fans" show up.

[Lou_Duran]

The notion of a golf course as a static entity doesn't make sense to me.  While some like Tom M. may enjoy a well designed golf course in much the same way as a piece of fine art, the two are radically different: a golf course is a living, dynamic thing; a painting, other than deteriorating slowly through time, is not.

Changing a golf course to meet the demands of the time and the preferences of the owners/members has been practiced since the beginning of time.  Ross and Macdonald continually "improved" their favorite courses throughout their lives.  Today, Dye and Nicklaus are known to constantly tinker with their most famous layouts.  I suspect that many of the courses that we revere on this site evolved through time and are the result of much trial and error over a period of years.

For many "Mom and Pop" operations, what they have on opening day is dramatically different than the golf course that will evolve over 10 years.  Hillcrest Golf Club on I-75 in Findlay, Ohio is a great example.  In the 1960s it was just a collection of tees and greens on a flat, uninteresting tract formerly used as a petroleum tank farm.  Two brothers, Ed and Joe Kolartcyk (sp), both PGA pros, purchased the course when it was little more than a pasture. Over the 15 years that I was familiar with the couse, they made small, incremental improvements, largely out of cash flow.  They added new tees, a grass mound or trap here and there, a couple of sand traps, a few trees, and they greatly improved the quality of the turf.  Hillcrest is not a great course, not even a very good course by the standards that many of us have on this website.  But it has evolved through time into an extremely successful operation, a very important part of that community, and a place that many average, public golfers are proud to call their home course.

I don't worry a great deal about the defacing of "our" cherished courses.  Most of these have owners and other stakeholders who understand what they have, and sufficient financial resources to make reasoned improvements.  I would be concerned if the CPs, NGLAs, and PVs of the world were undergoing major reconstruction to accomodate the longer pro game.  But since many of the classic golf courses do not hold professional tournaments, I don't believe there is an impetus for the negative change that some fear.

Having said all this, I believe that a standard tournament ball is a good idea, much like in other sports.  I would have to think about requiring the ball for every day play, but I suspect that if a standard ball rule is enacted for pro and major amateur tournaments, that at least the low handicap amateurs would follow suit in their weekend games.  If there are many on this site who believe that a letter campaign to the USGA favoring a performance restriction on the ball would be effective, let's coordinate it and get it started.  Personally, I have tried to get the USGA more involved in the mandatory riding issue, but Mr. Fay has been totally unresponsive.

[Tony Ristola]

Lou:  Well we couldn't agree on everything  I don't concur with the Tour ball idea.  One for the public, one for better players.  What should be done is an ERCization of the golf ball.  Make one new USGA & R&A standard for golf balls (a shorter ball) for handicap rounds and tournaments, and let the manufacturers continue producing the current balls (actually nobody could stop them), but list them as non-conforming.  

Actually women should have their own ball.  The average 21 year-old woman has the physical strength of a 65 year-old man. The average woman's handicap in the US is 36.  The average woman hits the ball about 110 yards, the average man 200 yards and the ball flight of the average woman is lower with less spin.  

A 300 yard hole is usually two woods and an approach for women.  If anything, shouldn't woman have a "hot ball" which flies 35% further?  One added benefit if such a ball could be manufactured; we could reduce the number of tees built per hole.
 
Back to the Tour ball.  The game was fine 30 years ago with wood woods, weaker lofted butter knives for blades, shorter unfrequency matched steel shafts, no scoring wedge systems, and shorter flying, lower quality balls.  250 yards was a good drive, 285 a monster.  I remember a stat from the 198? Tournament of Champions.  Tom Kite won, and Scott Simpson was second (or the other way around).  Neither long ball hitters.  Golf World posted their driving distances for the week and they were an almost identical 243.? yards (if I remember correctly).  243 yards of driving distance would make it tremendously difficult to win on Tour today even in difficult conditions and Tiger out of the field.  
 
Oversize Ti heads are easier to hit and make the game more enjoyable for everyone.  With those bigger, perfectly weighted heads there is more confidence, allowing players to take a good swipe at it, a more significant advantage for better players.  A lot of players unable to hit the old wood drivers now use the lighter, longer shafted monster heads with success, gaining yards in the process.  All these game improvement benefits would still exist, only the "new" ball would fly shorter.

Looking at my collection of vintage Tommy Armour woods (1950 to 1965 and in the bag until 1994), 1964 Wilson blades (used in 1980-81!)and 1986 MacGregor blades (used until 1988), and my Wilson R-90 sand wedge, I can only laugh at how much easier the driving game has become, and how much less club I hit into greens. How drastically the game has changed indeed.    

There will most likely be a market for the old non-conforming balls, so why not let the public decide if they want to use them, just like the ERC?  Whatever drives the game, sells green fees, hotdogs and beer, makes profits for the pro and investors and provides exercise, health and enjoyment.

Non-conforming equipment in the hands of recreational golfers isn't going to destroy the game. Hell, men could even use the Lady's "hot balls", perhaps improving the speed of play.

If the ball is rolled back it should be rolled back for everyone, but other non-conforming options should exist if there is a market. You know Callaway would be there exploiting it all the way, which they have every right to do.

Lou, I looked for your email address with no success.  Would you be so kind as to post it.

[T_MacWood]

Art goes beyond painting. There is sculpture, there is music, dance, the theater, architecture, landscape design and so on. For every artistic discipline there are artists. The performance of a musician, chef, dancer and actor is not static. The great works of Repton, Capability Brown and Fredrick Law Olmsted are not static. You would not consider the gardens of Kyoto art?The shingle structures of Stanford White are not static, not are the redwood homes of Bernard Maybeck.

No one said golf courses do not change. Only that one must recognize the work of a great artist and protect the integrity of that work. But there is a difference between allowing a golf course to mature and age gracefully, and pulling up the heavy eqipment and ravaging a great design. The reason the course I have sited have been altered is due to a lack of appreciation for the art.  Golf course architecture is a form of art, but not all courses and not all course designers are great works of art or great artists.

[Lou_Duran]

Tony:

My email address is gcadrei@home.com

Your suggestion on the ball would work.  Whether a solution to the problem is one standard ball or modified performance standards which any number of manufacturers could meet, some action is clearly indicated.
A standard ball would allow for more uniform control and would place all competitors at the same starting point.  Imposing revised maximum performance standards is probably more in keeping with the individualism of the game and the free enterprise system.  I guess I too would prefer the latter.

Tom:

Your points are well taken.  While I don't have your level of appreciation for the various art forms that you mentioned, I certainly share your concern for the well being of the classical courses.  My only direct experience on this issue was at Inverness, where I found the three new holes totally out of place.  By the way, what is happening with Scarlet?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()