Tim Weiman,
Well, one of the problems with using examples to back up a point is that it can read (both ways in this case) that there are only two extreme points of view. My point is exactly opposite - there are degrees, and in fact, much smaller degrees than we expect, simply looking at Augusta or tournament courses in general, as they are such a small part of the golf world puzzle.
And, on one hand, Augusta leaped 285 yards in one year - 4%, but it also lept 285 yards over a decade as well - .4% annually. It only lengthed dramatically this year because club officials decided to do most of the work in one phase. So, we can - and do - use statistics (as well as words, like outrage on other threads) to prove our respective points. In fact, the new Augusta is no longer than tournament courses like Firestone have been for 20 years.
Someone suggested that 10% of courses may be lengthened a year. I used statistical facts from my work to say that it isn't that much. That would be 1700 courses per year lengthened? It's not even 170. its probably more like 17, which equates to 0.1% of our courses lengthened each year. Given that, we have a bit more time to gaze into the future without rushing into anything!
I don't think I was getting emotional on the issue at all, especially compared to some others using Augusta to make their point. As Mark Fine writes, he brought up a Flynn article on "theroetical" 8000 yard courses and got little response. Bring up 8000 yards in connection with Augusta, and the replies and views go way, way, up. My point regarding the politicians using scapegoats (welfare moms or corporate greed, as the case may be) was made because I sense some similarities in the situations! Mention Augusta as a problem and let the discussions begin! We have a poster child representing all that is bad with technology!
Do I think remodelling courses makes sense when we could just introduce the competition ball? Not sure, and not smart enough to know! But I do think that it is inevitable that some city group might conjour up the idea of upgrading its local public course to lure an open for civic reasons, just as Hartford, Milwaukee, etc. did with PGA tour events. The USGA decision to use Bethpage probably promted the idea. But, does one example, or even two make a trend?
And, while I was perhaps a bit overdramatic on the end of the tour, I still think casual fan ticket sales and even TV interest would go down if players started hitting it shorter. Only a few non golfers (hell even golfers) really understand the intracite shotmaking skills of the players.
I have no problem with anyone looking into the future. Its both fun and instructive. I also think I have nothing to hide! Ron and I are doing it in our posts - but perhaps from a broader perspective. Geez, I hate to get bashed (if that what it is) for recognizing reality.
I think that most predictions (especially those of impending doom) have historically proven wrong. People wiser than me suggest you can predict the future by looking at the past. I see a gradual increase in distance, maintenance conditions, public access to golf, wider acceptance across society, etc. and predict all of those trends will continue, precisely because all trends provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people as it regards golf.
I don't know - and haven't heard anyone go on here to create a sound rational, as its seems just presumed, for - whether golf should take a step backwards voluntarily in clubs, balls, or maintenance, etc. any more than it should in exclusivity or public access and acceptance of non whites into the game, for instance. First, while our desire to protect a limited number of historically important courses is both understandable and laudable, this may take a back seat (if fact, it has) to other things, most listed above. Second, I can't think of a single thing off hand in the whole human experience where taking a technolgical step backwards ever worked out. its certainly against human nature.
You could argue, of course, that banishing nuclear weapons would be a good step backwards. While high technology clubs are golf's "nuclear weapons" I'm not sure they are proportionally the same scale of problems!
You are correct that this thread has "morphed" (imagine that on this site) from commentary on GD's role in promoting technology reduction to a broader discussion. I will leave that to Dan Kelly, or other jouralists who frequent here. I know the "old school" of journalism tried to report the facts, and stay out of the story.
Generally, I think GD stays out of this, realizing that any reporter has bias. Some journalists practice "advocacy" journalism, but I didn't get the sense Ron was comfortable in this. He accepted what was and wrote on whether it was working, ending up with a positive spin. In fairness, they did give a bit of a counter point, in that they assessed how it would affect a dozen prominent players.
Some here were dissapointed that he didn't, but there is a lot to be said for the old school style of reporting, whether or not we agree with conclusions. In fact, by this old line of thinking, those of you who think Ron would have set a "higher standard" by being an advocate for reigning in technology at the Masters have it exactly backwards!
Any comments Dan Kelly?