Disappointing Golf Digest Articles

[JakaB]

The difficulty of modern forged blades is a myth that was started by Ping and continued by the other club manufacturers due to the high profit margin of cast irons.  Sadly I fell pray to the propaganda and played cast irons for over 15 years mainly because I was told cast cavity backs were better.  Thanks to a parlayed hard 6 that hit twice I turned $5 into $900 and was able to see the light....blades have better feel...blades are like a good woman, they only give back what you put in....blades make a lazy swing think.   If you think equipment manufacturers are ruining the game...hurt them where it counts and buy some blades.

[Richard_Goodale]

Very well said, Jeff.

Those who argue against your point of view remind me of the head of the US Patent Office in 1900, who proposed that Congress abolish his position and his department because "There was nothing left to be invented."

Cheers

Rich

[Rick Shefchik]

Jeff:

I think it needs to be pointed out that I (and probably a number of others here) are emphatically NOT opposed to changes in golf course design. In an earlier post you wrote:

"I look at the old photos, and see some amazing architecture, but I also see lots of bland architecture, and more importantly poor maintenance.  I doubt many of us would go back to 1938 turf conditions, even if there are a few top courses out there that overdo maintenance right now.  Those, including ANGC, are few and far between."

I certainly don't disagree with anything in that paragraph, but nothing in that paragraph addresses the very narrow issue of length, either. I believe it's possible to embrace all kinds of improvements an innovations in the game of golf without pushing the length of the course well past 7,000 yards -- assuming we can agree on ball flight restrictions.

You (and Rich) are creating a straw man by suggesting that those of us who want to solve the problem of the ever-lengthening golf course are opposed to change of any kind. I'm just opposed to that particular change.

[Dan Kelly]

I wrote this in a private message to Jeff Brauer -- and now I see that Rick has beaten me to the punch! Maybe still worthwhile:

My colleague Rick Shefchik can (and will, I suspect) speak for himself -- but I do think you're misrepresenting his position.

He's not saying that the peak of architectural achievement was reached many years ago, or that nothing better can or will be produced. Look at his two favorites on his list of 5 Favorites: The Old Course and Sand Hills!

I think he's saying that the proper DIMENSIONS of the playing field (in baseball and in golf) have been found -- and that we shouldn't mess with them ... and that the modern golf architect's job is to create something new and better within that framework ... sort of the way a sonneteer's challenge is to write something new within a 14-line structure or a haiku-ist must write in a syllable pattern of 5-7-5.

Oh, hell. I'll just add this to the thread. Others might enjoy the analogies.

[Or not.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick,

I'm glad you are not against change, and most of my comments probably presumed more homogenous points of view than really exist here.

Perhaps I did skirt the narrow issue of length around the edges.  My implied point is that the assumption of 8000 yards of length is getting to be standard is not true in my experience.  It occurs on a handful of collegiate courses and tournanment courses.  it is not an industry wide trend IMHO.  For anyone to imply that it is, is just wrong.For anyone to get worked up about it based on Augusta is typical.  

For most of the year, this group absolutely thrashses ANGC for its extravagance and the overall effect it has on golf.  On this thread, it seems we want to preserve it in its oft changed state!  There is probably nothing older there than about 1983 for God sakes!  So, call me dumb, but I don't understand.  

If you are a democrat, and your speech isn't going well, you shout out "corporate greed".  A republican would shout out "welfare moms".  its easier to pick one scapegoat, imply that is the main cause of the problem, and rally the troops to action.  Here, the call "original intent" or "preserve the classics" would do the same.  I see others using Augusta to create the "straw man", quite frankly.

The real problem is multi dimensional, and pure length is not the only real problem.  On my only long course, Cobert Hills, the land was donated, and the total turf acreage was held to 90 acres, via Audubon International principals.  If there is no more turf, and no more land cost, does the course cost more to build?  I have built 7100 yard courses for under $4M, while Fazio builds 6800 yard courses for over $40M.  Does the yardage itself impose a hidden tax on golfers?  Or the extravagance?

I can't be sure if the proper dimensions have been found for hockey, baseball or golf.  I know the recent Olympics convinced many that the hockey surface should be bigger, but what NHL owner would increase the rink at the price of several hundred $200 seats?  Fans win, owners lose.  Owners don't change size of rink.

What baseball owner would put his outfield seats even further from the plate?  Fans lose, People would stay home, owner loses.  

One golf analogy is that why would any golf course owner want to build a larger course?  Fair enough.  Another is that any arbitrary change will have no true victor, just winners and losers.  Restricting ball flight for amateurs makes them losers, as the game gets tougher.  Restricting it for pros makes winners out of a few classic courses that can once again hold tournaments in their "pristine state" if that still exists.  But it deprives tournament sponsors of the casual fan ticket sales to see John Daley, Tiger Wood, et al smash it a mile.  Enough of those types of losers, and tournament golf dissapears anyway, so we still can't compare golfers of different eras. Do we all lose?

Someone could make a compelling fact based (not emotional based) case to make the classic courses the winners, and people in charge would buy into it.  They haven't!  I still haven't heard the compelling case that limiting ball length produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people compels progress.  I'll keep an open mind.  

While I don't have the answers, the doctrine of a few of us "knowing deep in our hearts what's best for everyone" so they should really listen, does not ring true for me, especially given its histroy in politics, business and society.

I believe these things work themselves out for the best.  I also believe that I as an architect will simply respond to what happens!

[Jim_Kennedy]

JakaB,
Your description of playing with blades is on the money but
it wouldn't hurt the manufacturers too much if players went back to blades. They are still the guys making them and selling them at substantially higher prices than their cast/cavity back clubs.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Don't confuse my studied opinion with facts!  Hell, I was doing pretty well there with oil industry analogies, etc.

Still, I'm sure you wouldn't argue that golf courses seeking redesign/restore services for whatever reason isn't a situation that is beneficial to architects.  I'm not quite sure the reasons why they aren't as profitable as your other work, but perhaps there are more factors outside of your control.

All,

Here's the thing that everyone seems to be forgetting when we call this "inevitable progress"....

All of these significant changes in golf ball distance has happened UNDER USGA ODS GUIDELINES!!!

Today, this very second, it is possible to develop a golf ball that would travel over 400 yards on the fly.  Illegal balls of this sort have been sold for years!!  

So, it is not that we are somehow holding back technology, akin to asking man to only use fire for heating.  Technology in golf ball construction is already leaps and bounds beyond where the USGA sets it's limits...it's just that the manufacturers have long recognized that they at least need to appear to be playing within the spirit of the rules.

The only reason that golf balls that travel 400 yards are not marketed en masse right now is that they haven't been accepted to date by a public that has largely complied with USGA rules.  THAT is what is so insidious about the present strategy of the manufacturers...they are attempted to undermine and question the whole idea OF ANY ruling body.  

If you call this progress, Rich, Ron, and Jeff, then I'm not sure how this arms race is helping the game in any measure, much less our golf courses.  The worst part is, the atomic bombs are already created....they just haven't been used yet, and are waiting for the dissolution or inpotence of the game's ruling bodies before we have all the "progress" and "fun" that the manufacturers will allow.  

[Ron_Whitten]

John McMillan -
  I received an urgent e-mail (not from you) urging  me to get back on this thread and respond to questions directed at me. Since your's is the only direct question I could find, I assume the person wanted me to answer you.

Yes, you were right and I was wrong. the 4th at Augusta National was Mackenzie's tribute to the Eden hole at St. Andrews, not the Redan at North Berwick.  The doctor's early description indicated taht he was going to pattern the present 6th (then the 15th) after the Redan, although I'm not convinced he ever did so.  However, my point in Golf Digest was simply that Augusta National could, if they wanted to, create a Redan hole instead of duplicating the present 4th hole, should they decide to shift it over to allow for expansion of the fifth. Since most on this thread apparently feel that the fifth is not in tneed of expansion, I guess the whole point is moot.

Jeff Brauer deserves support for his positions expressed here, and I heartily support what he says. 8,000 yard courses aren't commonplace, and don't seem to be a trend anytime soon. Is increased distance a "problem" that needs to be solved?  Study your history, ladies and gentlemen. Very few of what are perceived to be "classic" courses haven't been adjusted over the years by expanding to new back tees. It's not the end of the world.

What I find ironic from this whole thread is not one person - not one! - has mentioned my observation in that "disappointing" Golf Digest article, that Augusta National didn't just push tees back, they moved them left or right to force new shots out of the world's best golfers.  But since that implies that consulting golf architect Tom Fazio and crew know something about shot values, less mention of that the better, apparently.  

Competition ball?  That's Jack Nicklaus' new pet crusade. Yet when Jack was in his prime, he took advantage of the smaller British ball in the British Open to great success (until it was outlawed in the early 1970s).  I respect Jack but suggest it's just a little hypocritical for him to now espouse that all competitors be forced to play with a single ball. He played with whatever ball he found to his best advantage. Why shouldn't today's professional golfers be allowed to do the same.

What, exactly would the competition ball be today? The Pro V 1?  A ball that's one step back? Two steps back? One that would have to be specially manufactured? What manufacturer would willing do that, since they'd be no money in it, or do we believe the consuming public would willingly pay for a less-lively "competition" ball just because Freddie Couples plays it?

I agree with Jeff Brauer. I'm not convinced distance is ruining the game. You want to play a grand old classic course as it played 20 years ago, tee it up with a low compression ball and persimmon woods with steel shafts. Or go back to wooden shafts.  But Phil Mickelson & company, who make their living at the game, ain't going back, not for a minute.  Yes, that is progress.  Merion may no longer host an Open because of it, but they don't play it at Myopia anymore either.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Rick Shefchik/Dan Kelly:

I agree with your point about the straw man that Jeff Brauer set up.  Obviously, nobody is suggesting limits on the creativity of golf architects.  Frankly, I can't even imagine where Jeff got that idea.  Certainly, not from anyone who advocates a competition ball.

Tom MacWood:

Even though you are not concerned about the "average golfer", I like what you wrote and appreciate your history lesson.

Lou Duran:

With all this talk about oil operations in Alaska, perhaps I should disclose my former association with BP!  Anyway, as you know the biggest thing standing in the way of wind and/or solar power is not oil companies.  Rather, it is the long term low price of oil.  The Saudis figured that out about 25 years ago and are very reluctant to let oil prices rise to the point where other alternatives make economic sense.

I don't know how much sense it made for David Elvins to bring up regulating oil companies to shed light on the golf ball distance issue.  My industry experience has been that environmentalists have actually played a very constructive role.  Perhaps they occasionally push too hard, but overall their input really has been positive.

Who plays a similiar role when it comes to the golf ball distance issue?

The regulatory bodies (the USGA and the R&A) seem to be sitting on their hands, afraid to act.  During the Masters Tournament, I'm sure you won't hear anyone from CBS questioning what is happening at Augusta.  Ron Whitten has now shown us that the major magazines won't play a constructive role.  Golf architects have too much conflict of interest.  And, the equipment manufacturers are a big part of the problem themselves.

That's why I say the golf industry is in a "groupthink" mentality that won't be easily changed.  There is no major force in the industry thinking about consumer interests.

Hell, I hated old Howard Metzenbaum, but I'll take him over the suggestion that moving the 13th green at Augusta 50 yards is "progress"?

[Rick Shefchik]

Ron:

Obviously you're not going to be persuaded by the advocacy here for a competition ball, or the need for one, but I have to comment on part of your last post:

"He [Jack Nicklaus] played with whatever ball he found to his best advantage. Why shouldn't today's professional golfers be allowed to do the same."

For the good of the game, that's why. For a more equitable playing field. For the same reason players in other sports are not allowed to bring their own balls to the field -- because it would fundamentally alter the nature of the competition.

Two issues are involved here, of course: making the competition more about individual ability than about technology (and yes, if the next step is standard clubs in a golf tournament, I don't find that idea fundamentally appalling, though restricting the ball really ought to accomplish what needs to be accomplished); and -- here's my larger concern -- slowing the need for repeatedly stretching courses that are already just fine the way they are (lengthwise, anyway).

Denying Nicklaus the right to change his mind on this issue -- or even accepting that he may have taken advantage of rules he didn't agree with at the time -- is somewhat akin to suggesting that a reformed crack addict has no right to tell school kids they should not use crack. Hypocritical? Perhaps. True? Without question.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
In my mind, controlling and altering the water level is different than trying to duplicate its physical appearance forty yards down the line. Could you recreate that stream with technology available today? As far as I know the man upstairs is the only one capable of reproducing anything close to that stream - with Fazio a close second.

Did I say that courses do not change or improve with time? I hope I don't come across as too rigid, unreasonable or idealistic. Recognizing great works and protecting great architecture, does not translate into taking every golf course to the moment of their origin. It means taking the time to do the research to see 1) which course have been recognized over the years and which courses today are recognized as great designs (what are the great designs of all eras) 2) track the evolution of these great works to see if they have improved, regressed or stayed pretty constant 3) if they have regressed identify there architectural high point  4) if they are currently at their high point, recognize and protect them.

Research and documentation is the key in my mind. Prestwick is a good example. From monitoring this thread one would get the impression that this quirky design has remained frozen since the 1860's. But the course - from what I understand - is largely the result of efforts that took place after 1900 and much of it after WWI by Colt, Braid and others. Dornoch is another very good example of how a golf course evolves and improves over time. Cypress Point peaked early, Merion peaked later. It is easy pigeon hole those of us who are interested preserving great golf architecture as reactionary wackos. I don't consider myself reactionary or a wacko. I have however done a great deal of research on the subject - more than most who are quick to criticize. Its easy to paint those who are interested in protecting great golf architecture as unreasonable or extremely rigid, but many of those who criticize either refuse to listen what is being said or they have only casual interest in the subject in the first place - never done any homework and really don't care. I do think most golf architects do care (including yourself), with a few notable exceptions, because they want to learn, borrow ideas and improve themselves.

I think the first step should be to create a data base to help identify those great works and to assist those who are interested in restoring/protecting their great works. This would help the clubs, it would help the architects and it would help golf architecture in general.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

do we believe the consuming public would willingly pay for a less-lively "competition" ball just because Freddie Couples plays it?

Why is the Titleist PT or 970 fairway wood in demand, despite a sweet spot the size of an atom?

Why do so many double-bogey golfers sport the "LA Laker" purple and yellow Proforce shafts (low torque, high kickpoint, stiff tip) on their drivers...producing drives that go low and right?

Why are so many amateurs playing high spin balls instead of the rocks (Pinnacles, etc) that would serve them much better?

Why do bogey golfers carry 2 and 3 irons?

Why do bogey golfers carry lob wedges?

Because they want to hit the same things the pros use!

[JakaB]

Isn't the competetion ball only being pushed by over the hill pros and average amatuers....Can anybody name one golfer under forty years old in the World top 50 that wants a roll back on distance.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ron
Judging from the list of champions over the years at the Masters, do think the course was in need of new and improved shot values?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ron Whitten:

You are right.  I never mentioned anything about Tom Fazio in my original post or anything about re-positioning tees to require more shotmaking.

Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with my comments about moving and re-creating the 13th green.  That's the silly idea worth highlighting and discouraging, not any sensible re-positioning of tees.

Don't assume we are all Fazio bashers.  That is simply untrue.

Your comments about Jack Nicklaus are another case of setting up a straw man.  Jack played within the rules.  So should everyone else.  Nobody here is questioning that, nor should they.  Instead, what we would like to see is the rules changed.  We would like to see the golf technology arms race stop now so that resources are never wasted on building 8,000 yard courses.

Finally, I am amazed by your suggestion that no golf ball manufacturer would ever produce a competition ball.  You know better than that, so why make such a foolish statement?  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Can anybody name one golfer under forty years old in the World top 50 that wants a roll back on distance.

Is there any golfer that fits that profile that is not under contract from a ball manufacturer?

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

Those pros you are talking about are just caught up in the confusion over relative vs absolute length.

[JakaB]

Tim,

Swingspeed and distance are not a linear relationship...A competition ball will bring the distance all pros hit the ball into a much tighter range...thus helping the older golfer stay competitive for a longer period of time.  If you think the USGA is bad for golf...try letting the Networks call the shots...they love over the hill pros more than a celeberty murder.

[Paul Richards]

JakaB:

If that's what it takes to make Arnold Palmer competitive
again, then I'm all for it!!!!

[Geoff Shackelford]

Ron,
I'll gladly take on your assertion that the Fazio work has established that they "know something about shot values" and "less mention of that the better, apparently." Actually, I didn't realize that was one of the key points of your article, but since it was, it is definitely worth discussing.

As I understand it, Augusta National was built on the belief that options created the most interesting form of golf. And I guess I subscribe to the school that even with some weird changes, that kind of golf was still interesting and the best example for all of golf because it's playable for a higher number of golfers, yet still interesting. So with the options possible, I thought this meant you had to have width off the tee with greens and hole locations varied enough to ask the player to consider possibilities, and thanks to their shotmaking prowess, ultimately putting the player in charge of his destiny. This kind of design rewards both mental and physical skills it would seem. But now that shot values in your assertion would have something to do with the architects ability to prevent certain shots, or perhaps his ability to force the players into a certain play, that seems to focus on eliminating options. Isn't that sort of an ego based form of design? As Frank Hannigan called it in his intro to the Tillinghast fiction, that "look at me" style of modern architecture? If so, seems to be a bold step away from what made the Masters great.

Also, I always thought "shot values" had to do with the opportunity for players to face a full variety of shots, not to be forced into shots the architect wants them to hit?

If so, then I guess we just have very different takes on what kind of architecture that is, and just how difficult that is to create. Furthermore, how interesting this kind of design is to play or watch seems pretty debatable, since the track record for the MacKenzie/Jones/et. al course was pretty strong pre-Hootie/Nicholson/Fazio. I guess I don't think this new form of pre-prescribed shot values requires a great deal of mental skill to create, or to navigate as a player. Couldn't any 7th grader just chart shots and move tees and trees and bunkers  around so people can't play certain shots anymore?  

I guess all of this goes back to my original assertion, the sense that you and Jaime and Digest are taking the stance that Augusta was not a full "test" or complete design, and now is because it's tougher and it's "shot values" are clear and obvious to everyone?  Knowing what Jones sought to create and what he left us fans of the Masters, I guess I think it's a pretty presumptuous stance to take by calling it progress.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

There's just way too much to read on this thread right now but for my money the thing to concentrate on for what's happened here and what ought to happen in the future revolves around this thing called ODS (Overall Distance Standard).

I've tried to piece together for many months now what happened to the ball when there has been an ODS in effect with the USGA for many years now. I think I've largely pieced it together, as some have, but it's an incredibly long story with a lot of moving parts, as they say, on the part of a lot of the important entities.

Mike Cirba said it in his last post, that all this has happened UNDER THE USGA's ODS GUIDLINES!! How could that be?

Was all this distance increase supposed to happen under the USGA's ODS guidelines? I really don't think so! I certainly don't think the USGA expected it to. But why did it if they didn't expect it to and these pros are hitting "CONFORMING" balls as far as they are which appears to be much farther than what the USGA expected under their longtime ODS standards which these balls today CONFORM TO?

But look, the USGA's ODS was supposed to control distance regardless of new technology or progress right? Or Wrong? I think ODS was supposed to control the distance the golf ball goes better than this and most all of us expected it to!

Did the manufacturers outflank or outfox the USGA and their ODS limits somehow? You're damn right they did! How did that happen? Have the USGA's ODS test protocols been faulty somehow in either the way they've been set up and designed to test the realities of high level golfers? It would certainly appear that they have been incorrectly set up and designed right from the beginning of ODS testing many years ago!

So it appears the USGA made one enormous mistake, and some years ago and particularly a few years ago they were probably as surprised as anyone that "CONFORMING BALLS" can actually be hit this far by the pros and power hitters.

I think anyone who knows anything about golf and equipment knows that balls that are "conforming", the balls that these pros are hitting way up in the 330, 340, 350+yd range are not supposed to go more than about 292 under maximum limits! So what happened? Actually it seems what happened is pretty rudimentary and sad really.

But nobody expected that balls should go much farther than the limits envisioned by the ODS limits (the maximum distance limits), not us, not the USGA and not the manufacturers. But they are going much farther than that now. Clearly mistakes have been made in a lot of areas and everyone involved must know that by now. Isn't it possible for these entities to just admit the mistakes, and that would certainly include the USGA and the manufacturers, and just agree to take it back to reality, where all of us expected it to be and had assumed it would be?

I would hope so, because this is not just simply technology and progess! This was never intended to happen, not by anyone!

There is absolutely no analogy here to something like the Haskell Ball. In that age there were no limits on technology, there was no testing, there was no ODS, there was no expectation of a maximum limitation on the distance the golf ball should travel, as ODS later was suppose to ensure, other than just player talent and strength.

But there is now and there has been for about 25 years. It would appear it all revolves around something as rudimentary as swing speed. The USGA a set constant and maximum swing speed limit of ball testing at 109MPH! Why did they do that? Because I suppose that is the way you test something generally by using a constant. Did they think that was some sort of swing speed that contemplated really long hitters? They probably did about 25 years ago and just never thought much about it again.

I'm not in the slightest technical but I fear this mistake (109 constant swing speed) might be at the bottom of all this! I think back to that time at Pine Valley's Ryder Cup when a bunch of USGA guys saw Davis Love (a sign of the future back in the late 1980s if ever there was one) hitting the ball distances that people could not believe they were witnessing. I saw the look on the faces of those USGA peoples! It was almost like; "what the hell is this, how can this be happening, we never thought this could happen."

As I said, I'm not technical at all! Would someone please tell me I must be all wrong about this? Could the mistake made that led to all this really be that simple?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom I --

"There's just way too much to read on this thread right now"... so let me add about a thousand words! You're a classic, sir! Keep it up!  

Ron Whitten --

I'm sorry that I neglected to phrase my earlier post in the form of direct questions. I thought we were having a discussion here, not appearing on "Jeopardy!"

I say "Hear, hear!" to Rich Shefchik's basic answer to your question (or was it a statement?) about Jack Nicklaus.

Except on this point: I don't think it's the least bit hypocritical of Jack to favor a competition ball. A man has a right to change his views. Period.

It would arguably be hypocritical if Jack were favoring a Competition Ball for the purposes of reinstating himself into the thick of competition. Or if, somehow, he stood to make a financial killing from a Competition Ball. You're not suggesting that either one of those is his purpose, are you? (Note: direct question.)

And just for the record: I, for one, was not responding to your "disappointing" article in GD, because I have not yet read said "disappointing" article. I was responding to your first extremely disappointing post on this thread.

Oh, and by the way: If you will look a little more carefully at my post, you'll find at least a couple of direct questions for you.

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

The real relevance as I mentioned above to bringing up the Haskell ball is really in the way that situation reflects the nature of golfers (humans really) when presented with the variety of things being discussed on this thread. If you own Scotland's Gift--Golf, read the chapter on standardization. I will give you a quote below in case you don't have the book so that you can see that the powers-that-be were taking a fairly technical approach to the ball issue even 80 years ago.

"That on and after 1st May, 1921, the weight of the ball shall be not greater than 1.62 ounces and the size not less than 1.62 inches in diameter. The Rules of Golf Committee and the Executive Committee of the United States Golf Association will take whatever steps they think necessary to limit the power of the ball with regard to distance, should any ball of greater power be introduced, and that the Rules of Golf be amended accordingly"

The sad part as you mentioned is that the various "Committees" did not do what they set out to do--or so it seems to this group here on this website.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron Whitten,

You're correct, there have been advances in equipment throughout the ages, but.... those advances were in small increments over long periods of time and produced relatively marginal results.  As a result, golf courses were able to gradually adjust to absorb these changes, and the game remained essentially the same.

The current advances are happening very quickly, and they're happening in substantial increments, two factors which don't permit courses to adjust gradually.

Only radical adjustments, to courses, or equipment, or both
can offset the huge technological advances in the last five years, and the huge technological advances in the future.

Rapid trends, which alter the traditional play of a/the game, undermine the very fabric of a game, resulting in the diminshment of its popularity.

If equipment dilutes or eliminates the essence of the game, which is its challenge, who will want to play golf ?

If equipment dilutes or devalues the architectual merit of great golf courses, what will be left to play ?

Trends can be reversed !

Who should we follow, for profit companies, or those who want to protect the traditions and values of THE GAME ?

[Mike Cirba]

Ron Whitten,

I have a few specific questions.

How would you respond to Tom Paul's thread?  Do you see what is obviously a serious, scientific miscue by the USGA as "inevitable progress"

How would you respond to my assertion that without USGA standards and limits, it is possible (and has been for many years) to develop a golf ball-sized pellet that the average golfer can fly 300-400 yards?  This isn't about man's  evolution...it's about standards developed by the ruling bodies for the playing of a game that have not kept up with all of the technical variables affecting the flight of the ball.
 
I'm still waiting to hear how any of this "progress" is good for either the game of golf or its architecture.  Should we just accept that fact that the 30,000+ existing worldwide courses will never again play as designed?

And Ron...I know you keep up with golf course trends, especially with new designs.  If this isn't having an effect, how would you explain the very significant number of courses built in the past five years that tip out at 7,400-7,800+ yards?  From Jeff Brauer's course to Grande Dunes to many of Pete Dye's recent courses, to "The Purgatory", you can't possibly be arguing that we haven't suddenly entered the age of 480+ par fours?  Do you believe that we won't see an 8,000  yard course in the next 3 years?  

Thanks in advance for your well-respected thoughts.