Fazio says distance increase is good for golf

[Tim_Weiman]

Cabell:

This issue has nothing to do with being “open-minded” about Tom Fazio.

Any prominent architect who made similar statements would not be well received. The reason is very simple: the comments Fazio made only add fuel to the golf technology arms race. They lead us further down a path that makes no sense. They reinforce the worst “attitudes of developers and club members”. They encourage wasteful spending on things which don’t make the game any better for the vast majority.

I’m opposed to the golf technology arms race. That has nothing to do with any bias against Fazio.

[ChasLawler]

Tim,

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. I personally don't think what Fazio said was that bad, and I agree with him somewhat - in that a lot of the golfing public like to see the pros hit the ball so far. It is a shame however, if what he said does reinforce the "longer is better" attitude with developers and club members.

BUt he comments on how course set-up can combat these excpetional technological advancements. I think that's where the PGA Tour has to look. Let the rough grow, hide the pins, tighten the fairways. By tightening fairways at the 275-300 yard mark, the tour can force players to hit shorter clubs, and deal with the hazards the rest of us face (the hazards the architec's intended for everyone to face), or let it rip and hope to clear the trouble and find the fairway. Hiding pins will force them to play for position. I understand these guys can literally stop the ball on a dime, but not out of a good thick rough.

These types of changes don't require extensive re-designs, and the courses can be returned to normal "mortal" playing conditions very easily. I think the tour should steal some ideas form the USGA when setting up there regular tour stops, or require a similar amount of effort into the respective course's set-ups as they do for the PGA Chamionship.

The fact of the matter to me is that the guys on tour are simply amazing. They play a different game than we do. There are some courses out there that these guys will tear up regardless. While I'd like to see technology stop right where it is, I don't think it's logical to ask anyone to step back. Like I said before, I'm just not sure how much further they can take it anyway.

It's my opinion that if the Tour would take steps to make these couses play longer by tightening them up and creating more penal rough, a new (or old for that matter) attitude toward course length could prevail.

[Bob_Huntley]

The easiest thing to do, is to install the fiercest pot bunkers that one could design and put them out there between 260 and 300 yards. It works on shorter course, use them on the Tour.

[Mike Hendren]

Fazio's statement is incredibly self-serving, albeit presented on an almost off-handed way.   There is no sense of stewardship of the game.  Is that asking too much of the architect?

Regards,

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Cabell:

I'm on record supporting USGA setups for the US Open. My position has always been that the US Open should be a unique event and that among the major championships the US Open is the logical event in which to place a disproportionate emphasis on accuracy.

As for the PGA Tour borrowing this concept from the USGA, it is probably a better idea than continuing to lengthen courses. If that is Fazio's view, then I'm probably in agreement.

However, I still feel a competition ball makes more sense and that the strategy of narrowing fairways with long rough week after week would probably get old.

Being more aggressive with pin locations would not bother me a bit.

If you are suggesting that some of what Fazio said may have some merit, I could be persuaded. But, my problem remains his comments about length. It is hard to interpret them as anything other than an endorsement of the golf technology arms race.

Anyway, welcome to the DG. It is nice to see someone disagreeing with the prevailing view here without resorting to anonymous personal attacks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Tommy Naccarato:

....Rather than personally attack Tom Fazio or any other architect, we need to do a better job articulating how pointless the golf technology arms race is. We need to do a better job explaining the essence of the game......

..I really wish Fazio would join Jack Nicklaus on this subject...

I agree.

Nothing is gained by attacking someone personally.

Praise or attack specific work they've done that you've seen, but getting personal doesn't elevate our stature.

Nicklaus is late to the dance, and never endorsed a competiton ball in his prime, but, better late then never.

My question to Fazio would be, at what point does he think that increased distance will become delitereous to the game ?

[McCloskey]

Why should anyone be suprised at this comment.  Fazio doesn't play golf and has no understanding of what a golf shot looks  or feels like.  Therefore, how can he know what strategy is?  There is more to strategy than just trying to make contact with the ball.  LOL

[Forrest Richardson]

First of all, those who immediately dismiss this quote owe it to themselves to re-read the entire article -- and take into account that this isn't some doctrine from Mr. Fazio, but rather it is a journalist's account of speaking with Mr. Fazio.

It is writing, not an essay. The author is relating his interpretation and selectively mentioning what he wants you to read.

I wonder if any of us had the opportunity to sit with Tom and have a cool drink if we might not come away with another viewpoint...? What do you think? Huh, Tommy? You are smart, do you feel you would recite all of the negative feelings if you had this opportunity? Think hard. Or, would you just be guessing at what you might feel after such opportunity? fact is, you can't say.

My role is not to defend. I have enough to do! But, as an ASGCA member, I take the challenge to at least stand up and point out that membership in any organization should not prevent one from speaking their mind. The ASGCA does not mandate that members subscribe to any one line of thinking.

Seriously, coluld anyone of you buy into that "ideal"? My gosh, if all ASGCA members had the same notions it would not be a positive thing. Fazio does not do what I do. I do not do what Ross did. Ross did not do what Brauer does. Brauer does not beat to the Hills drum. Hills does not perform like Jones. Jones does not stand for the same ideals as Thompson. Thompson hardly believed as does Knott. Knott was in no way like Maxwell. Need I go on?

All, by the way, are or were ASGCA members.

[Kevin_Keeley]

Mr. Richardson,

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your post. Are you saying Fazio's comments were taken out of context and are the product of the writers imagination? Are you saying Fazio has a different view?

He had an interview on NBC last weekend where similar comments were made.
KK

[Forrest Richardson]

Can't help you there, Kevin. Maybe it would be good for you to read both the article and my post once again. I did not see the TV interview, so I can't respond to your mention of it. Perhaps you might share whatever you gathered from the TV with us.

[Tim_Weiman]

Forrest:

I have the same reaction as Kevin. Are you saying Fazio has been misquoted?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
Seems to me that Fazio is being quoted. I'll take it for what it is--a quote. It even reads like all of his other interviews to other writers, which are all pretty ridiculous and where he usually contradicts himself two or three times during the interview anyway.

You are smart too, I think you know it also! Do you actually think his (Fazio's) statement is a smart one?

Pat, There comes a time where you gotta do what you gotta do. Fazio will never ever come-on this website to share his views. Especially when it is in an open forum format. But, I forget, he doesn't really read Golf Club Atlas does he?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
You ask:
I wonder if any of us had the opportunity to sit with Tom and have a cool drink if we might not come away with another viewpoint...? What do you think? Huh, Tommy? You are smart, do you feel you would recite all of the negative feelings if you had this opportunity? Think hard. Or, would you just be guessing at what you might feel after such opportunity? fact is, you can't say.

The fact of the matter Forrest, Mr Fazio more then likely doesn't know me, nor ever wants to. In fact, I don't believe he actually wants to meet anyone that he isn't actually doing business with, or at least have a blank check and a signed contract for him. Only after then, I'm sure he would make the time to meet that person, and do a "Cha-Cha" on the floor. Who could blame him? Its like going to Vegas, and winning everytime, and then leaving knowing when you come back you'e going to win again!

Now I don't disagree with you that ALL ASGCA members have their opinion, But were not talking about some ideal of design function or style, we are taking about the body politic of your representitive organization.  Don't you think you should all be close to being on the same page?

What are your views on this subject Forrest? Do you agree with Fazio's statements? What would happen if you actually posted on this site--Golf Club Atlas, something negative about Tom Fazio's remarks from this write-up? Could you say something and not get in trouble with the ASGCA?

And something from the ASGCA website-Pressroom.

Damian Pascuzzo--Past President of the ASGCA correct?

From CNN/SI-Golf On-Line February 4, 2002

I was amused by the contradiction inherent in Wally Uihlein's MY SHOT (Jan. 14). Uihlein, the CEO of Titleist's parent company, trots out the manufacturers' familiar refrain: Advances in equipment should continue unchecked so the game will be more enjoyable for the average golfer, especially now that the golf industry is, as he says, "mired in the same recession as the rest of the U.S." What Uihlein fails to mention is that golf's flagging participation rates are due primarily to cost. It's a simple equation: The farther players hit the ball, the more length and width we need for safe courses. This additional acreage means more development costs and greater maintenance budgets. These expenses are passed on to golfers in the form of higher greens fees.

The position of course architects has been consistently misstated and exaggerated -- including Titleist's over-the-top TV ads -- so that it seems as if we want the USGA to slow technology just so classic courses won't be rendered obsolete. That's a noble goal, but we're equally interested in protecting the courses the average golfer plays. We all know the pros hit it a mile. Our concern is the technologically enhanced weekend golfers for whom a 280-yard drive is now the rule, not the exception. Problem is, their hooks or slices go proportionally just as far. As architects we're no longer concerned only about protecting the people and the houses that border the fairways. Now we have to worry about the houses across the street from the houses that border the fairway.

An American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA) member recently analyzed the effects of increased distance, and the results were disturbing: To combat the hot ball and drivers, architects will have to use at least 10% more land, inflating grow-in and maintenance costs by up to 17%! Hitting the ball farther may be enjoyable, but making golf even more expensive will do irreparable harm to the game.

After reading this, do you take the content of this article to be in tune with Tom Fazio's views on Modern Golf Course Design?  

Now, lets go to the next article, which of course was taken directly from the ASGCA website.

60% of Touring Pros Favor Limits on Golf Balls To Reduce Distance

A surprising 60% of PGA Tour players recently surveyed by Sports Illustrated felt that limits should be imposed on golf balls to reduce distance, and the president of the American Society of Golf Course Architects believes that proves that players across the board recognize the impact that technology is having on the game.

ASGCA President Damian Pascuzzo said the survey of touring pros sends a strong message to the USGA and R&A, as well as manufacturers. "The Society has repeatedly outlined the impact of technology on golf courses and urged that the two governing bodies take action, although we have not singled out the ball, since obviously newer clubs also contribute to length. Manufacturers have countered that good players want additional length, but now we see that even the touring pros have reservations."

Pascuzzo notes that it's difficult and sometimes impossible, because of land restrictions, for architects to design courses that will challenge top players using high-tech golf clubs and balls. "And the challenge will grown even greater each year."


More Land; More Cost

"If players get increased distance through technology, their occasional slices and hooks will be even more pronounced," the ASGCA president states. "That means that the architect must provide at least 10% more land for safety reasons and that will increase construction, grow-in and maintenance costs up to 17%. If the owner's costs escalate because of technology, then green fees have to be raised. So technology is negatively impacting golf's growth where it most needs help--young people and families."

Pascuzzo points out that technology poses problems for every golf course in the world. Augusta National's recent changes added length to the course, but observers wonder how long that will hold off today's high-tech players. He adds that courses being lengthened today will be defenseless again in 10 to 20 years, and many don't have the land to expand.

"It used to be fun to see someone hit a ball 200 yards. Then it became 250, 300, 360, 400. Where does it stop?" the ASGCA president asks. "Even 'recreational golfers' can give it a ride when they hit the sweet spot. ASGCA architects already are designing 7,000 yard courses. What's next--8,000 or 9,000 yards? Or are architects supposed to 'trick up' a course in order to defend par? Frankly, that solution isn't good for golf."


Dye, Nicklaus Favor Tournament Ball

Pascuzzo says that fairway bunkers once were positioned about 240 yards off the back tees, then 260 and now some are out 280 yards. Several of the Society's most prominent members, including Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus, have long called for a "tournament ball."

Now that the SI survey shows even the touring pros are thinking about the consequences, Pascuzzo believes that the tournament ball probably will be considered by the governing bodies, as well as Augusta National. "After all, pro tournaments are becoming nothing more than a driving, short iron and putting contest."

The ASGCA's position is that better technology should be incorporated into clubs and balls, but that manufacturers should work closely with the USGA and R&A so that the traditions of golf--including the greatest golf courses in the world--are preserved. Pascuzzo adds, "We think a lot of people agree with us, including 60% of the touring pros participating in the recent survey."

Now Forrest, I can take this further and post more from the ASGCA website "Pressroom" which will back-up my claims of Mr. Fazio's preported* comments (*since you don't want to take them as accurately reported fact) that are far differing the ASGCA's.

The subjects include:

--English Architect Supports ASGCA in Defending the Golf Course by Donald Steel, from the ASGCA website

--Golf Course Architects Look for Help Defending Courses Against Technology by the Board of Governors the ASGCA, and features the following opening:
Golf course architects believe there should be “a line drawn in the sand soon” – at least for tournament golf – or technology could render some courses obsolete.

The Board of Governors of the American Society of Golf Course Architects stated that “it is difficult and sometimes impossible because of land restrictions for architects to design courses that will challenge top players using high-tech golf clubs and balls, and the challenge will grow even more difficult with each passing year.

And......

Patiño Calls For Tournament Golf Balls; Wants to See Full Game Played on Great Courses

Jaime Ortiz Patiño, whose Valderrama course is ranked #1 in Europe, has joined the ranks of those who believe limits should be placed on golf technology or the game we know will cease to exist.

In closing, Here I am, trying to defend the ASGCA's stance, and you as an ASGCA member are disagreeing with me just to disagree? Are you subscribing to Fazio's quotes in the article?

[ForkaB]

I’ve read the initial post and it seems that Fazio is saying 3 things:

1.      He thinks that the increased distance players are hitting the ball is attractive to the golfing public and thus good for the game.
2.      He recognizes that this increased distance is a “problem” for older golf courses, and admits that he does not know the answer to that problem (assuming from #1 above that a competition ball is not an acceptable answer to him).
3.      He believes that the way to challenge the pros in this new environment is at the green end, and he gives Pinehurst #2 as an example of one way this can be done.

One might disagree with him on the second part of #1, but he has his right to that opinion.  I think most of us would agree with #2 and #3, anodyne as they are, and I find it hard to argue with him that, overall, the public prefer to see “ball go far” than “ball go short.”

He may not be the most articulate guy in the world, but he doesn’t really deserve the flak he is getting for what he actually said on this thread, IMO.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"Nicklaus is late to the dance, and never endorsed a competiton ball in his prime, but, better late then never."

Pat;

Is he? I believe Jack Nicklaus has been talking about controlling the distance of the golf ball for about 25 years now. My recollection is that Nicklaus was just about first to the dance.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Misquoted" implies the guy doing the writing is making things up. I hardly believe this. I was pointing out that this was an article written by a third party and therefore a very limited insight into a man's thoughts. It is a limited display of sound bites.

I take everything I read (including posts on GCA) and what I see on TV with the element of knowledge that there is likely more to the story. If I was there in the room I might develop a different impression. So I process what I read, see and hear. Same as understanding a course without visiting it. Certainly changes things when you show up in person, smell the air, feel the soul, etc.

I have written about my feelings on technology -- some of it is in my book about routing. I've also moderated several panel discussions with golf architects where viewpoints were shared freely. Present in the room were many golf people, press, and architectre enthusiasts. I've also posted several times here on GCA. The points I made in the post above included a suggestion that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

At a recent conference in Phoenix five of us spoke very freely about the ball, clubs and the future of design in the coming decade. Our thoughts were varied, although we alll happened to be ASGCA members. None of us "recited" the ASGCA's position paper on the effects of technology. We commented on it, suggested new ideas, and gave our own opinions.

The position of an organization will never match exactly the position of each of its members. If this were the reality there would be no need for either.

[DJames]

I've already admitted that although I play golf, I've only recently decided to learn about course architecture (i.e., my 101 thread).  Since I've established my lack of credentials on the topic of course architecture, its only appropriate that I express my uninformed opinion that Mr. Fazio's words certainly don't sound as if they come from a creative individual.  Actually, IMHO, Fazio sounds pretty one-dimensional to me.

I guess if golf courses are designed like bowling alleys or shooting galleries, then the increasing use of real estate would be the only way to challenge pros and/or accomodate technology.  What about strategy?  To me, golf is a brain game requiring me to apply whatever skill I have to the layout and current conditions of the course.

To the folks who just want to watch Tiger and Ernie drive the ball 300+ yards, schedule occasional contests at "pro driving ranges" -- to me that isn't golf.  If golf balls are designed with GPS then the ability to rocket a ball 300+ yards will always have a favorable result, but as far as I'm concerned, that isn't the game of golf.  That's no brain game...there's no strategy...no requirement to adjust and apply different skills...finesse...  

So technology and physical conditioning may enable some persons to drive over 300 yards, if that drive puts you in another fairway, what good is it?

Obviously, I know nothing about this and better get to the store to buy the recommended books to begin my education; however, I do feel better after expressing my stupid opinion.  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

First off I apologize to all of you architecture addicts who want this site devoted solely to that purpose but I must tell redanman the sight of the French flag on your posts pisses me off and the quote that we are doing something wrong pisses me off too.  Let me just finish please before I get back to arch.  You peacekeepers had your way from 1991 to 2003.  In that time your sanctions contributed to the deaths of 100,000's if not millions of Iraqs by denying them basic needs, despite the sham of food for oil that was intended to make all you feel good about your immoral sanctions.  Most of the people you inadvertantly killed were children.  This great country must now go in and do it our way, and a lot more Iraqs will survive the next ten years once we are done.  This is one Texan that is proud of Bush, and when you say you back the troops you have to back the commander or you are a liar.  So all of you peace keepers should just stand aside for a moment, you had your chance and you failed miserably, you contributed to the suffering and death of too many people.  Fortunately for you and your French peace keepers, I think this president will let the Old Europe in on the gains from the oil fields that France is about to lose.  And Redanman, don't forget, the French are less concerned about the death of innocents, and more concerned about the documents that are in Baghdad proving they sold much of the chemical and biological technlogy to the Iragis, and they are more concerned about the diisruption to their oil contracts with Iraq.  In a few days the extent of France's involvement with Saddam will become an embarrasing issue for the French and hopefully will lead to the downfall of their government.  YOu know, 12 years ago there were parents like me today that had little kids running and playing around their feet, 12 years ago when we listened to the UN and agreed not to pursue Saddam in Baghdad.  12 years later some of those little kids are in the desert right now with chemical gear and gas masks on because of that decision.  If we listened to France and the rest of the Old Europe today as they proclaim their self righteous opposition to war it is likely that 12 years from now I would have to proudly send my kids over to clean up but this would be one parent that would not forget who caused it, not the tyrant of Baghdad, but people like you and weak and immoral countrys like France.

Okay, now to golf.  I apologize to those that came here for golf.  Tommy, you asked  for architects to go on record about the technology issue, or maybe about Fazios comments.  I have said that I like hitting the new Titlelist driver and I like providing for the big drive in my designs, you know, the option to boom one over some natural or manmade hazard as an option to attacking a hole.  Having said that, I am disappointed by what he reportedly said because the future of the game does not lie in longer and longer drives brought on by new technology.  I derived great enjoyment in my persimmon Tony Penna driver and whatever ball technology was available.  I do not think you can take the position that technology is good because people like it, and say that you want to keep the old courses relevant.  In the end, you must be consistant in all of your positions with what is good for the game.  I reject that bringing more and more players into the game is good for the game if you have to do it with better and better technology.  More people playing golf every year is good for equipment manufacturers but not necessarily good for the game.  The PGA Tour is not good for the game.  Building bigger and bigger courses is not good for the game.  Most of my projects physically could not contain a 7400 yard course.  Residential constraints eventually cause the courses to fall in the 6400 to 6700 yard range.  Recently some in the environemental community got together to promote golf and when I told them that in designing a course I must give priority to the strategic design of a hole over all else including any preceived environmental threat.  They agreed, because they could see from my presentation that other aspects of my approach try to mitigate environmental impacts. And it is not just me, there are many architects that try to work with the land, really, not just as a fad promotion.  However,consuming more and more land will more severely impact land with the type of massive dirt moving employed some architects.  Further we will face immense opposition because more and more land devoted to these big courses will probably require the complete remolding of the terrain to make these big courses fit, and this will reap huge negative environemntal impacts both in construction and in the long term. I reject Fazio's purported statement.  I would embrace any limits on equipment technology.  I pledge to make all attempts to make the course fit the land no matter what the final length and par become.  And I probably will be looking for another line of work soon if Fazio and his compatriots win out in this battle for the integrity of the game.  The are architects concerned with the land, and the game, and we look to leaders to provide inspiration.  I must say I am creatively inspired by people like Doak and Coore, and I am dumbfounded by others like Fazio who make these statements, and Jones who advocates getting rid of wooden tees.  Small minds yield small solutions.  

I think what is happening is that golf has swung to an extreme where technology is seen as the solution to all of man's problems, and the provider of all of man's enjoyment.  In other words this view has caused the golf world to be out of balance.  Balance is provided by the recognition that there is a spiritual aspect, or something to that effect, spiritual may be too strong, but there is something more to the game than just the science and technology aspect. This counterbalance to technology involves the deep regard and respect for the traditions of the game, the history, and historical places of the game, those aspects that give the deepest meanings to the goodness of the game.  That is forgotten right now, and it needs to be brought more to the forefront to bring more balance to this whole issue.  You can not have science and technology driving the game.  It is ruineous.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Nicklaus is late to the dance, and never endorsed a competiton ball in his prime, but, better late then never.

Would you tell me, when Nicklaus was playing competitive golf, in his PRIME, not when he was past it, when he advocated restricting the ball ?

Thanks

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy N:

Thanks for your long post and for sharing with us the comments of Damian Pascuzzo.

Having grown up in the New York metropolitan area (Westchester County) where land is dear, I'm especially sensitive to the relationship between land, equipment technology and the availability of affordable golf.

Making the playing field ever larger does nothing for golfers in metropolitan areas where land is both difficult to find and quite expensive to acquire. I grew up playing at a private club with a course of about 6,300 yards built on about 125 acres. I learned that the pleasures of playing golf can be found on a course of such scale. In years past I've learned that bigger really isn't better: a Whistling Straits laid out over about 500 acres isn't any more rewarding than the classic era course I grew up on.

Making it bigger, adding to land requirements and to the cost of playing golf is not a step forward. I'm happy to see Pascuzzo acknowledge this point and still very disappointed with the Fazio organization on this subject.

Rich Goodale:

I hope I've been clear that I don't support personal attacks on Tom Fazio or anyone else for that matter. However, Fazio does have a leading position in the industry and thus will be held accountable for what he says.

If properly quoted, Fazio conveys the impression that the golf technology arms race is good for golf. In so doing, Fazio invites criticism. He has only himself to blame, even if some of the comments take on more of a personal tone than is probably appropriate.

If Fazio has been misquoted, he could always join Pascuzzo, Nicklaus and Dye calling for a competition ball. Surely, he will receive considerable praise if he does.

[corey miller]

I will throw back a question to a question  Since, we have the power of hindsight, when did the length the ball travels become a serious problem?

I thought Merion was still holding US opens during Jack's prime?

[A.G._Crockett]

I think in the case of Nicklaus, his advocacy during his prime (late prime, actually) was NOT of a tournament ball.  He advocated the "Cayman" ball as a means of building shorter, less expensive golf courses.  The tournament ball advocacy did come well after his prime.  

[Steve Lang]

Redandude I echo the sentiment of ditching the french flag, you're surely a masochist

 

I remember the ball length issue developing in the mid 1960's.. not the euro vs american ball diameters, but when we got some durable whiffle balls that could be successfully hit over our two story homes from the back yard to the front yard!  This opened up tremendous hole length inflation to our game and literally lead us down the street to the school yard and across various folks' properties that didn't appreaciate our weeding skills...  The old courses just became memories, but alas good ones..

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Forrest,
Great response. I answered your questions directly, yet, you danced around mine. WHAT is your opinion on this issue; or better yet, do you agree with "preported"* Fazio's statements?

Well said Kelly. Thanks for being forward and giving us your full and truthful opinion.

Tim, If Fazio would at least--one time, try to HELP the game instead of profit from it with such stupid statements, I would totally be behind it. Instead it is the same old, same old in Hendersonville. What the Hell are they putting in the water there? ? ? ? ?

I have to ask--Is this the only arcitect that is taking this view, that, "I personally, I'm not for that," Fazio said of taking some of the steam out of balls." Forrest so you feel the same way?

[TEPaul]

Pat asked;

"Would you tell me, when Nicklaus was playing competitive golf, in his PRIME, not when he was past it, when he advocated restricting the ball?"

Pat:

I'm not sure what your point is or what you're trying to imply about Nicklaus's public advocacy for controlling the distance the ball has been going but it's my understanding that he's been proposing that something be seriously done about it for a good long time--maybe up to 20 years.

Certainly much of the context of his advocacy that I've heard has to do with the effects of ever increasing distance on architecture and the long term challenge and health of the game.

Obviously, you must be trying to imply that this is something he never would have done when he was in his competitive prime. Perhaps that's so but he's doing it now and my understanding is he has for a long time.

So that's the point, don't you think? Is Tom Fazio waiting for his competitive career to be over (a competitive career he never had) before he becomes as strong an advocate for controlling the ball has Nicklaus is and has been?

Both of them are world reknowned architects. One is strongly advocating doing something about distance and the other certainly doesn't seem to be, in fact maybe just the oppposite.

And that's the point here Pat!