Is there a Golden Age of scoring?
I'm a bit perplexed by some of the extreme negative responses to the distance boom. I know many are concerned about courses having to be longer and longer in order to "contain" or "challenge" the long hitters of today. And I know that architecture can only be relevant for so long if players keep hitting the ball longer and longer. I do, honestly, share those concerns.
But with regard to distance as it pertains to scoring, why do some get so offended?
What are players "supposed to" shoot? Should scores by professionals have to conform to some kind of preconceived notion of what the right approximate score is for a professional? Why is low bad? Why do we care? Do we think it's somehow not challenging for a Dustin Johnson to shoot ~30-under in a four-round tournament (Souchak shot 27-under ... in 1955!)? Why is seeing players frequently saving par somehow more desirable than watching the very best make a bushel full of birdies for four consecutive days?
in the early 1900's, any professional who shot three straight 75's (or higher!) had a very good chance of winning any golf tournament contested, from the Western Open to any of golf's majors. Is that the right "era of scoring" to return to? Or how about the 1700's when golfers shot a bazillion and seven? Is it, then, the 1950's - 1980's when the course/equipment/player meld was "just right" that we should seek return to, scoring-wise?
Is scoring something we should even care about? If so, why? If not, why not?
If a pro going "ridiculously low" on an outdated 7,000 yard golf course is "bad," why don't we just make the cup a tiny bit smaller? If one wants to "challenge players" and today's equipment and ball make the game too easy to do that, seriously, why not just make the cup smaller for the pros (don't think I'm the first to suggest this).
But if one's answer is: "Of course not, that's silly. Golf is a game of tradition and the hole must remain the same size for everyone!" Then I go back to my original question: What is the "right" score range for pros, or anyone, to shoot? I recently tied the lowest round of my life and bested my previous competitive low by two shots -- at 53 years old and with a horrible back.
I'm 30 to 40 yards shorter than I was in my 30's. I drive the ball 235 to 255 and can use every single bit of technical innovation I can get -- from the golf ball to the lighter, custom-fit shafts and bigger heads. I did it on a 6,570 yard course in the final round of our club championship, and I couldn't be happier with the 1 to 2 strokes a round technology has given me from when I first took up the game in ~1990.
I can tell you that golf is still plenty challenging for me, new fangled equipment and rocket ball notwithstanding. I miss 6 to 9 greens a round, can hardly ever reach a par 5 in two, and generally play golf the way it was "intended(?)" to be played, hitting long clubs and even fairway wood into "long" (450 yard) par 4's and playing virtually all 500+ yard par 5's as three shot holes.
And I love golf today. Absolutely love it. In fact, I daresay that technology has allowed me to continue loving it for just a bit longer than I would if equipment and/or the ball had been somehow "capped." Maintaining (and even improving) one's handicap as one ages is a glorious thing. It keeps me coming back over and over and over to see if I can somehow tie or break our course record, win a club championship, or break my personal best.
I've no doubt that both advances in equipment and ball technology have helped me play as well as ever -- and I, for one, have no problem with that.