Head of the PGA Pete Bevacqua was quick to speak on behalf of his membership and to oppose any kind of roll-back/bifurcation or further technological restrictions -- I assume, at least in part, because of the frightening vision of 20 millions angry golfers staring dumb-founded at their 30,000 teaching pros as their supposedly hard-earned distance gains evaporated overnight. More interesting to me was a recent Undercover Tour Pro (and major champion), who offered a nuanced analysis of the debate and (similarly) concluded that there shouldn't be any roll-back or bifurcation. But unlike Mr. Bevaqua, he at least seemed attuned to -- and concerned about -- the impact of technology on golf course architecture:
"Courses are golf’s most valuable asset. Because they’re shown on TV, the courses we play have an undue amount of influence on other courses. Every time we add tee boxes, pinch fairways, grow rough so high that balls can barely be found, tuck pins two paces from the green’s edge — all in the name of getting us to shoot the same scores as Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus — the original intent of a golf course is distorted. What they’re doing to Shinnecock Hills this summer for the U.S. Open is grotesque. Ultimately, we showcase a sport that doesn’t look like much fun."
Again, his position is against any kind of roll-back; and so he follows up on his previous point about golf courses (to many of us, an obvious fact) with this:
"All we have to do is protect golf’s most valuable asset — its courses — and the rest will fall into place. How do we do that? I say let’s abolish par. Remember, scoring in relation to par was introduced at the Masters in 1960. Yes, it made the various standings of an array of players scattered around a golf course comprehensible, and it was a boon for TV broadcasting. But what has it wrought? Par is an arbitrary number that skews our perception of what’s a good golf course. Par at Oakmont often feels like 76, but if that’s what it was on the scorecard, the winner would shoot 20 under and the world would say it’s a crap course. The most interesting holes on the PGA Tour — and in golf generally — are the ones where par is most nakedly irrelevant anyway. The 10th at Riviera, the 18th at Torrey Pines South, the 15th at TPC River Highlands — the list goes on and on. Golf’s most exciting format, match play, also sheds par as a concept of any importance. We could play the Masters from the member tees and it would be a heck of an exciting golf tournament. Because Augusta National is a great course. Yes, we’d have a lot more wedges in—but so what? Pros are good. Seen with the right eyes, there’s more potential for nuance and shotmaking with the wedge than any other club in the bag. I know this sounds radical, but it’s actually a simple idea. Lowest score wins."