Is the idea of architects leading or even jumping on the anti-technology bandwagon somewhat contradictory? Excluding the equipment manufacturers themselves, don’t architects stand the most to gain from bigger, better and longer equipment and ball technology?
Sure it’s a shame that some of our classic courses might become obsolete, but the need for bigger and longer courses sure does generate some work for the modern golf course architect.
Take away the 400cc driver and the proV1, and a lot of architects probably won’t have a job any more.