In an effort to put some things in perspective, I thought that the views on this subject by a voice from the past might be interesting, espcially when looked at from today's perspective.
In the January, 1932, issue of Golf Illustrated, Tilly wrote an article titled, “How Ball Changes Affect a Golf Course.” He continued saying, “A very drastic change in the standard ball might make necessary a considerable remodeling of greens and an entire readjustment of distances of the holes themselves… as a builder of courses, I have had to observe closely through the years the subtle changes that have crept into shot-making and to an extent, reconcile course design to new balls…”
He went on to say that, “My profession causes me to regard the golf ball solely from the viewpoint of the designer and builder of courses, particularly the greens…” For me this is an important point because of the four words, "My profession causes me..." That is really at the root of the problem - everyone has a different agenda on this issue. The Professional Players agenda is to get an advantage so that he can earn more money. The Equipment Manufacturers is to produce a product that is both measurably and quantifiably better than the competition so that more can be sold. The Average Player wants only the pleasure of a good round that will keep him coming back for more, the Governing Bosies is to legislate the game in the aftereffects of this nonsense (after because they don't have ability to peek into the future with any accuracy), etc... The real problem is that no one is on the same page agenda-wise.
Tilly also wrote, "In these days of long flying golf balls we are forced to insure the future values of various holes against even more lively balls than those of the present.” and “The interest of the play over some courses has been sacrificed to the fetish of length…”
Actually Tilly became so concerned about this issue that in Golf Illustrated, in the March 1935 issue, he wrote an article called, “The Fetish of Length.” He began by stating that, “We regard the present tendency to stretch golf courses out to greater lengths than ever before, as an unfortunate and mistaken policy.”
“The average golfer, who cannot begin to get the prodigious lengths of the mighty ones, does like to encounter holes that are not beyond the range of two of his best efforts. When he is forced to face the necessity of covering four hundred and sixty yards to accomplish this under normal conditions, he can’t quite make it with any two shots in his bag. Yet a hole of this length and longer is plain duck soup to the great players with but few exceptions. Certainly such holes must be provided for occasions when the big fellows are competing, but for the day-in and day-out play of the modest ones, who yet delight in calling themselves ‘golfers,’ considerably less length should be offered.”
One of the things that jump out at me in the above statement is the distance he cited - 460 yards for a par-four. After all of these years and arguing over distance and technology, the fact does remain that a 460 yard Par-four is considered a long hole even in major championships as against that creature called par, and it still remains a bit beyond the average, and even the better, amateur players ability to reach in two.
I think that the most important thing that Tilly wrote about distance is, “The merit of any hole is not judged by its length but rather by its interest and its variety as elective play is apparent. It isn’t how far but how good!”
It is n't how far but how good," THAT should be the real bottom line!