Jamie,
Nicklaus hosted a pre-tee off clinic at MV last week.
He had a number of the PGA Pros talk about and demonstrate a particular club.
Erik Stensen (sp?) was one of the first.
He was demonstrating a 9-iron.
After he hit a few shots,
Nicklaus asked him how far he hit it.
He said, 160 yards.
Nicklaus was taken back and said, that's how far I hit my 6-iron and it may be a 5-iron.
Nicklaus then presented a disertation regarding the ball, equipment, conditions and conditioning.
I came away with the feeling that Nicklaus was saying that I&B had made a quantum leap in producing unconscionable results.
I know that he lobbied for a limited ball a few years ago.
The problems I see are as follows.
The golfing universe doesn't want to see the US Open turned into a desert scoring binge where par is meaningless.
Many great courses are land locked.
If your objective is to test or present a thorough examination of the golfer's skill and execution, how do you do so on a short golf course ?
It's clearly a dilema.
Major league baseball opted NOT to have aluminum bats.
The NBA chose to keep the same ball and not develop a smaller one ala the WNBA.
Yet, golf has allowed the combination of the ball and equipment to produce what would previously be described as Herculian results.
How many of you recall Nicklaus commenting on John Daly's final round at the British Open that Daly won ?
Nicklaus was describing how to play each hole, and Daly, oblivious to Jack's comments/recommendations was playing his own game and hitting it distances Nicklaus couldn't comprehend.
If a PGA Tour Pro can drive the ball within 100 yards of a green, is there much of a chance that he won't make birdie or par ?
Is that what Jack's suggesting ?
Allow the PGA Tour Pros to shoot anything ?
Question:
Has Jack Nicklaus beefed up MV in the last decade or so in an attempt to thwart scoring ?
If so, isn't he contradicting his stated position about Merion ?
The question is why Nicklaus felt that players of 1967 were better than players of earlier generations. He is right that athletes in essentially every sport were better, to some extent that would tend to be ture of golfers as well--even if only because the game had grown and the more people you have exposed to a game the more you will have able to play it at a high level.
But of course the other reason players were better in 1967 than 1907 is because of technology. If Nicklaus was blithely overlooking that in 1967 then I don't see why it bothers him so much today. Or, rather, I understand why it bothers him, but I'm not sure it's a valid line of reasoning.