There is all sorts of talk about what is causing the added length of the elite players. Better equipment such as balls and clubs certainly have an effect. Fitness, diet and other measures under the control of players has an effect - though less quantifiable than equipment. Course maintenance has an effect. I am sure there are other reasons for added length as well.
Most talk about the "distance problem" centers around elite players. I take exception that the average golfer is rarely considered in these debates. Furthermore, I find it laughable that members of golden age clubs would complain that distance is ruining the character of their courses when it is the members themselves who make the changes.
I have not been outspoken about equipment advances ruining the game mostly because I don't think I am terribly effected. It is probably true that golf is more expensive directly due to length and as most of you know, there is nothing I detest more than being ripped off by (what I judge to be) high green fees. However, it is obvious to me that the courses which really take people to town do so because first, the consumer allows it, and second, because of higher costs of which maintenance is part of. Against this, I am sure that hitting the ball further is more fun than not having the ability to do so. Taken that I can avoid the courses which really rip me off, the price of maintenance compared to the fun of hitting the ball further probably equals out.
The idea of this rant is to introduce what I think are three key questions which need to be addressed if any meaningful headway is to be made towaard resolving the distance question.
My suggestion toward the "distance problem" has been more toward limiting the number of clubs to under 10 for sure. While this doesn't solve the problem of distance, I do think it gets to the heart of the matter of which "distance" is used as the scapegoat. Elite golf is boring to watch because the variety of shots is being reduced. People often cite distance as the reason for the reduction in variety and thus the reduction of challenge. Maybe this is true, but the governing bodies are struggling to come to grips with this issue because the balance of power between manufacturing and golf's ruling bodies is no longer in harmony.
This means, given the current state of affairs, the problem has gone more or less unchecked and there doesn't appear to be anything on the horizon to stop equipmanr advances. Some say that the we have just about reached our limit of what can be achieved under the current guidelines. I don't buy this for a minute. I see no reason why we can't expect the distance problem to continue for perhaps another 10, 20 or 30 more yards. This raises an interesting question for people such as myself. WHAT IF MANUFACTURERS ANNOUNCED THEY WERE GOING TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE A BALL COULD BE HIT BY 20, 40 OR 50 YARDS? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR (MY) REACTION? Of course, companies don't do this sort of thing because it would significantly increase the risk of reduced profits.
The quick reaction is to blame the ruling bodies for inaction/incompetence. It may be that it is a combination of reasons which have halted any real movement toward reducing distance. It may be more difficult than most of us can imagine to take on an industry which is far more powerful (in the cosumers' eyes) than any ruling body. The easy way out is to create a tournament ball, but the powers that be have been reluctant to do so. There is another possible solution which is often given little time.
IMO, reducing the number of clubs resolves the problem of shot variety and still leaves the mega power game as an option. More often than not, this argument of reducing clubs is countered with "scores will not be effected by an elite player carrying less clubs". This may or may not be true, but it is my impression that the need to reduce length is to re-introduce some lost challenges, not reduce scores.
It is often assumed that re-introducing some previous challenges will automatically increase scores and thus create a better balance with par being more meaningful to a winning score. Perhaps this is a false assumption, but in any case, WHAT DOES THE WINNING SCORE AS IT RELATES TO PAR HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF OUTRAGEOUS LENGTH? This is a fundamental question that has not been properly addressed.
It is my contention that many people are more against the idea of par being broken with ease on many classic courses then they are concerned about how its done. As has been pointed out by many on this site, par has a mental effect on people and their thought processes are (unduly imo) influenced by the concept of par. Because par is completely artificial, it is as changeable as courses themselves. Is it not conceivable that par for many courses could be dropped to 65-68? One thing is clear to me, if we are to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "distance problem", people need to start thinking about ways in which the balance of challenge, entertainment (in the case of spectating) and fun can be achieved. Stating that reducing the ball by X% will do the trick is the thinking of a simpleton. The problem of distance has reportedly been with us since the Haskell. If this is the case, WHEN DID THE BALANCE OF GOLF'S CHALLENGES AND THE EQUIPMENT USED BECOME UNEQUAL? Is there an answer to this question? I don't know, but to solve the distance problem I think this question needs a concensus between manufacturers, consumers and golfing bodies.
Ciao