Geoff:
Thanks for bringng the Faxon article to our attention.
Much of the discussion and confusion on the distance issue involves Augusta National and, to a lesser extent Tiger Woods.
Augusta challenges our thinking because we want to associate it with values Alister Mackenzie stood for (i.e., an interesting and fun course for all classes of players) when in reality it is really a "tournament players" course.
Augusta exists to host one of golf's major championships. Yes, it is a club. Members and fortunate guests do play and probably enjoy the course. But, changes to the course are driven by the Masters Tournament, by the desire of the club to host a major event.
Other clubs have gone in a different direction. Good old Prestwick long ago ceased to be part of a technology arms race and gave up hosting the Open. Clubs like Cypress Point and Crystal Downs never really got into the fray and come much closer to preserving Mackenzie's original work.
But, not Augusta. It wants the Masters to continue right where it is at.
Thus, contrary to what Brad Faxon suggested, it is perfectly reasonable to focus on the distance/technology issue specifically as it pertains to influencing major championship events and venues.
Let's be more clear: at the heart of the argument for a tournament ball is recognition that for the vast majority of people who play the game, distance or technology is not really a big issue. The case for the tournament ball really comes down to:
a) what kind of contest to we want major championships to be?
b) what is the best way to achieve this?
Major championships should test and reward the ability to play the Driver. However, the game should not be reduced to a series of Drivers off the tee and short irons, especially wedges, in to the greens. Instead, the ability to hit mid irons and long irons in to greens should be tested as much if not more.
Rolling back the overall distance of the ball might not change the relative advantage long hitters such as Tiger Woods have. Indeed, that should not even be thought of as the objective.
Rather, the intent is to force the entire field to hit a greater variety of clubs and to hit "more club".
Why?
Because that would make for a better overall chanpionship test.
The alternative to a tournament ball seems to be simply building courses ever longer just to accomodate tournament quality players.
But, how long do we go in this direction? Why is an arms race between equipment manufacturers and course designers a benefit to the game of golf?
If length is always relative, why not just leave Augusta at its current length and roll back the ball? Why spend more money to add length to the course only to have manufacturers come back a few years later with a ball that goes even further?
The case for a tournament ball boils down to this: it is the most effecient, most economical way to preserve the quality of major championships events without disrupting or burdening the John Q golfing public.