Excellent comments Tom.............I trust Steve will do a great job as he is a "fine communicator"......maybe his future involvement with the USGA will pay off (behind the scenes) in that possibly the USGA will look into having a Mid-Am or something close at Wolf Run someday.........especially now with new ownership there, and women "allowed" to join.....I am not sure if they ever had any actually join. They would have to be good players anyway..when I played there with Bob B. I told him it was one of the harder courses I'd played in 25 mph winds and 45 degree tempatures...It was October afterall.....

Anyway, that was a side comment, Smyer's does amazing work and I too am excited for his appointment!!!

Come On Sean......just board banter......I hope the USGA goes to Wolf Run for something one day.......and if you think that being involved in the USGA at that level doesn't eventually work in your favor (even if you never push your own agenda) then you are gravely mistaken or completely naive.......whichever shoe fits.......

Haven't see it, Dave, but Harborside sounds like it's in a category of its own!

I had the opportunity to play southern dunes last week and I came away very impressed at the course design and someone dissapointed by the surrounding houses..  
As mentioned in the thread, 90% of the holes are bordered on at least one side (if not both) by cookie cutter houses, all complete with in ground pool.
However, if you can ignore that distraction, it is a helluva golf course.  A number of blind or slightly uphill tee-shots.  Heavy bunkering, but not so extreme as to get in the way of the golf course (see the old International Course up the road).  Varying par-3's, a great risk/reward short par 4 on the back (16 I think)  The bunkers formed a semi-cape hole which allowed for a hero's carry to put the player a short lob wedge away (or with the right wind to get it darn close) where as hitting an iron off the tee not only brought the bunkers into play, but created an awkward second shot.

I'd definitly play Southern Dunes again if I was in the area.

If I'm not mistaken about Steve's message at that archipalooza maybe four years ago which had to do with how golf architecture could handle length in the future his thought was to give long players the driver in an architectural sense but just make them be pretty darn accurate about it. I liked that thought because it seemed to produce a nice degree of risk/reward temptation---at least in theory.

My recollection is that Steve's speech about technology at Archipalooza was about what would happen when guys with 125-mph swing speeds had the latest technology optimized for them ... and he was dead right about that.

However, he did not seem to think the equipment regulations needed to be changed or would be changed; he was resigned to having to lengthen courses to 7300 yards par 71.

Hopefully now that he is in a postion to have a stronger voice he will advocate something more than the stand-pat philosophy of the USGA for the past twenty years.  I know they have made some noises recently about new regulation, but it remains to be seen if they are prepared to use their sabres, or just rattling them hoping to scare off the enemy.

TomD:

If the USGA/R&A really does propose to do something significant with new rules and regs regarding what they've recently referred to as "spin generation" of the golf ball what will truly be interesting is to see what the manufacturers reaction will be to it through the formal "notice and comment" period (that must take place).

If the manufacturers dig in their heels on those proposals through the formal "notice and comment" period the chances are the USGA may back off on those proposals as they did on their "optimization testing" procedure.

But if the manufacturers dig in their heels on the USGA/R&A proposals and the USGA/R&A do not back down through the formal notice and comment period things could get pretty interesting.

The manufacturers may threaten to sue the USGA/R&A on the grounds of restrain of trade but the USGA/R&A will answer that in the same way they've always dealt with I&B rules and reg changes----they will give the manufacturers plenty of lead time to retool and conform to the new rules and regs and to clear out their present inventories totally.

The USGA/R&A will also "grandfather" present equipment and ball conformance for golfers for a certain amount of time (perhaps app five years) as they did with the small ball, the PING radiused grooves (EYE2) and recently COR from what it became back down to .083. They have to do that simply because something like significant "spin generation" rules and regs changes would basically in effect deem "non-conforiming" most all balls on the market and in play today! The new rules and regs would come into effect at some point like Jan 1 2010, and at that point all the former balls (or equipment) would officially be deemed "non-conforming".

It's my belief if the USGA/R&A proposed and instituted I&B rules and regs changes (particularly this interesting ball "spin generation" proposal) that way they would probably never lose a manufacturer law suit in which the manufacturers will always be the plaintiff and the regulatory bodies always the defendant. The reason they would never lose, in my opinion, is the process and the timing of it they offer is completely logical, and it would be rare and odd to find some judge who would see it otherwise. But the real key as to why the USGA/R&A would probably never lose a manufacturer law suit on the grounds of restraint of trade is because they could always claim their rules and regulations on I&B are merely VOLUNTARY for all (manufacturers and golfers alike). If they did not use that defense, in my opinion they'd be insane!

Basically, the USGA/R&A have no direct power to enforce these rules and regs except in their very few tournaments, and so that defense of VOLUNTARISM is real and truthful.

This may bring up a new phenomenon, however---basically an atmosphere where the manufacturers sort of institutionalize a form of cheating on I&B manufacturing the way stock car racing has.

There may even be a bigger problem in the way the manufacturers react in the future even if in the near term they appear to abide by new USGA/R&A rules and regs.

It's my real fear that some of the MAJOR manufacturers may openly make and market non-conforming balls and equipment in the future anyway just to continue to see what the golfing public will do about it. If the golfing public does begin to buy openly "non-conforming equipment en masse basically the USGA/R&A and their I&B rules and regs are cooked and they both will begin to devolve in this area to a point of irrelevancy just the way tennis's old "amateur" USLTA (that controlled tennis) did for other reasons a few decades ago.