Let's return the discussion to Steve Smyers, who is unquestionably a serious, important figure in the golf world on at least two or three significant dimensions.
Here's Mr. Smyers, in a fine interview by our host Ran Morissett from a May 2002 entry to GCA's wonderful series of interviews:
Full link here:
http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/steve-smyers-may-20027. What courses impress you with how they have stood up against advances in technology? Are there lessons to be learned from any of the common characteristics of those courses?
There are only a few courses that have really stood up against advances in technology. Golf holes that once were designed to be played with a driver and a mid-iron are now being played by the accomplished players with an iron and pitch shot. The way the old courses are defending themselves are through green speed, firmness and tucking the pins. That doesn’t mean the course is not enjoyable or is not good, but I don’t believe it defines the best player, or provides the total examination.
That sounds right to me. I agree with Steve Smyers. But then, he says this, with respect to Augusta National; a quote I can scarcely believe:
In order to maintain their original design integrity, a few of the old courses have added length over the years. Because the design was fundamentally sound to begin with, only minor alterations were needed to provide that ultimate examination. A great example is Augusta National. What they did at Augusta was absolutely brilliant, inpart because they reintroduced shotmaking by making the players have to move the ball both ways. By lengthening and narrowing the course, they were able to truly identify the best. People will say the design played right into Tiger’s hand and my answer is, ‘Yes, it did, because he is simply the best.’
Other courses that have added length are: Winged Foot, Oakmont, Southern Hills, Merion, St. Andrews, Carnoustie and Royal Melbourne – just to name a few. These are all great classics and, with only slight alterations, can be great tests through the ages.
I'm unconcerned about Tiger Woods. As far as it goes, I'd have agreed with Steve Smyers about Woods in 2002. But Holy Second Cut! Steve Smyers
likes the way that Augusta was altered, "by lenghtening and narrowing the course..."? I thought that in 2010, we all understood, with the benefit of hindsight, that the lengthening of Augusta was a sad byproduct of technologically-induced distance, and that the "narrowing" of the course was now universally recognized, even by ANGC itself, to have been a failed experiment, and one that should never be repeated and if at all possible, reversed. What say the GCA cognoscenti to Steve Smyers on that one?
Ran's interview with Steve Smyers ended with this question, and a mostly-terrific answer, with a lot of insight:
19.Speaking of the game, anything in particular that you would like to see changed?
Basically, I think the game is very healthy. It is a great sport with great camaraderie and it’s very relaxing. I think we do have a few shortcomings.The equipment manufacturers have come on very strongly and led the masses to believe that by hitting the golf ball farther we will therefore enjoy the game more. Well, I disagree with that! If we all hit the golf ball 10 or 15 or 20 yards farther, we all want to hit it farther in relation to our competitors or our buddies. If my buddy hit it 20 yards farther and I hit it 20 yards farther, that doesn’t do either of us any good. All it does is make our golf courses obsolete, and it makes us play golf on bigger areas and increase the cost of golf. So, that’s one major thing we need to all understand: Hitting the golf ball farther does not make us enjoy the game better. And I don’t think we necessarily need to make it easier for everyone. No matter how easy or how difficult it is, the enjoyment of the game comes from being out with your friends, interacting with the landscape, enjoying the fresh air and exercise, and enjoying the true spirit of the game.
The other thing that troubles me a bit is the cost of playing golf. I love the game and I probably have ventured to as many golf properties around the world as anybody, and have paid a lot of money to do so. But it disturbs me when I hear of a $200 green fee to play a golf course and you have to stay on the cart paths and report at a certain time or do a certain thing.
I also think we have to get back to the simpler things in golf, where the flow of the course is more important than driving one-quarter of a mile from one green to the next tee so that we can get a big, dramatic look at a golf hole. I think we need to get back to more pleasant journeys around the golf course, with a short distance from green to tee, where golf is more in its natural state, where people can pay $20 or $30 and play a true championship-caliber, enjoyable course. If we could return to that, plus overcome the image of needing to hit the golf ball farther to enjoy the game more, I think the sport would be in a very healthy, prosperous state.
What percentage of the GCA membership would say "Amen" to all of that? 98%? More? I know I would. What I'd like to know from Steve Smyers is how he feels about that first part, that the game may be led astray by the equipment manufacturers. Does Steve Smyers still hold those views? Would it not have been better, in a 2010 interview, to have renewed that comment, along with the perfectly acceptable view that agronomy and mowing technology has inflicted changes on the game as well?
My friends, there may be no need to do any "bashing" of Steve Smyers at all, if indeed he's given a fair chance to air his views. But what I don't get is how somebody could reconcile the views espoused in the interview quotes above, with a position of importance that he holds with the USGA's Green Section and its equipment subcommittees, including the view that distance is "stable" and there is therefore no problem with equipment technology and by the way mowers have had a more "dramatic" impact on golf...