Tom Doak & Mike Young,
I don't think you can blame the USGA, in the absolute, for copycat architectural changes made by local clubs.
I know they're an easy target and are often the genesis for alterations to venues hosting majors.
It's hard to quantify the infuence created by the USGA when changes are made to the venues hosting majors, but, it's the green committees and Boards that have to make architectural changes an agenda item, then vote them through and fund them.
TV would seem to be the medium that presents and announces these changes to the majority of golfers.
I blame the local clubs more than the USGA.
The idea or concept of altering a golf course is predominantly internal.
Architects don't randomly drive in through the gates and demand to meet with the President, Board and Green Committee.
They're invited in because the club has ALREADY formulated an agenda and is seeking their talent to wield the architectural scalpel.
If there was no USGA, clubs would still embark upon the same endeavor in an attempt to either keep up with the Jones's or keep ahead of the Jones's.
Golf coruses are a bit like hospitals in that they have to have the latest and best equipment, irrespective of the demand or need for that equipment. That air of competition amongst clubs is often the fuel for alterations.
In defense of clubs that make targeted changes, ie distance, "elasticity" has always been a critical, original design element.
It's certainly not the local clubs fault that some of their holes and features have been made obsolete due to hi-tech advances.
Obsolescence that can be reversed by added distance.
Exhibit "A" in my argument would be the 8th hole at NGLA.
The centerline bunker feature is a vital element in the design and play of the hole.
Hi-tech rendered that feature akin to the Maginot Line.
Golfers no longer had to interface with it, as was intended. Instead they could easily avoid it.
The ONLY solution with respect to restoring the original architectural intent of that feature was to lengthen the hole.
I myself was guilty of trying to obsolete a feature that drove me nuts (a love/hate relationship) when I acquired my Biggest Big Bertha. My first words were, now I can blow it over the centerline bunkers on # 8.
I applauded the additional lengthening of that hole because it brought those wonderful bunkers back into play for me and others.
I am critical of the USGA for letting the distance issue get out of hand so quickly.
I still hope that ANGC will introduce a competition ball for the Masters, a ball that would be adopted for all competitions.
When High School and College kids bomb it past Nicklaus in his prime, there's something rotten in Denmark and in Far Hills.
There's no denying the impact of hi-tech on many wonderful older courses.
As to softening putting surfaces, Mike Rewinski posted "The need for Speed" a thread critical of clubs racing to increase speeds at any cost.
It's the local clubs that bear the ultimate responsibilty for disfiguring their golf course.
TEPaul, our resident idiot-savant, suggested that clubs test the appropriate stimp speed on their most difficult green and apply that speed to the balance of their greens. I like that idea, it makes sense and would avoid disfiguring many wonderful putting surfaces.
So while I understand your position that the USGA is the root of all disfigurations, I blame the local clubs for any and all architectural alterations, especially those that disfigure the architecture.
I saw one of the best holes on a golf course, a hole remembered by all that played it, disfigured for all the wrong reasons, and who was to blame ? Not the architect who merely carried out the club's wishes, but, those in power who didn't understand architectural values, who contexted the hole within the framework of their games. Sometimes power and ego at local clubs trumps common sense and sound architectural values.
End of rant
