Andrew,

I think many on here will contend that the new balls inherently fly straighter which provides a materially better product for the long hitter to use...a disproportionate advantage to them in the long hitter versus short hitter debate...I can't really disagree with them.

Andrew:

I think what Colt meant by no material change is that there had been no change on the championship list, period.

Thanks for the additional piece of that article, Joe.  It's interesting to hear that the new ball, while traveling farther, had drawbacks too.  I wonder if people think the same can be said about the recent equipment changes.  Regarding the comments about cross bunkers and those off to the side, Sandy sure seemed to consider getting a ball up in the air more indicative of a good shot than getting it on line.

TEPaul, do you really think that's all Colt meant?  I took it to mean no change in the way the game was played and what skills were required to score well, with the lack of change of the players at the top as evidence of that.

JES, I hadn't considered score changes but you raise a good point that Colt seemed concerned with which players were winning rather than how they were scoring.  I agree with your comments about distance -- though I don't know whether that's just me being bitter as a short hitter -- but what about putting?  Do you think putting is more important now than it used to be because it's easier to be a good ball striker with today's equipment?  Maybe not amongst the top players where everyone has always been a good ball striker, but amongst the group a cut below?

Andrew:

I took the quote to mean the same thing you said in the middle of your last post -- that players still had to possess the same range of skills to be successful.

I am not sure that I believe the same holds true today.  The importance of ball striking has fallen by the wayside, particularly with the driver -- everybody can drive it far now -- and the importance of controlling one's trajectory on approach shots has diminished, except in windy conditions.  It never hurt to be good with the driver and wedges and putter, but today that's all it takes -- I don't even know who is a good iron player on Tour.

Tom,

Have the things you've stated above done anything to change how you think about designing courses?  Or does what you've said apply to few enough players that it's not worth considering?

If you were asked to design a course used specifically to test the best hundred players in the world, what might you differently?  Aside from making it long.

But, when I do design a course for Tour players someday,

maybe a bit of a news flash there!

I can see it now:

"Vijay, you were right in the thick of things til you three-putted the short par 4 16th..."

"Yea, I nailed my tee shot, but instead of making eagle or at least two-putting for birdie I three-putted cause of the %&@# green that that guy Doak built, yada yada..."