What you and the others lose sight of is the damage that high tech and distance have done to wonderful classic golf courses.   Is that in the purview of the USGA?, If so, where does their charter state such? As far as ME losing sight, I'd say all the board of directors, in all eras, post Max Behr's(and others) warnings about "the problem" are the ones who lost sight. not me. I can't lose sight of something I never had. All I have ever done, on this web site, was challenge the rollback advocates argument. It should be no great task to convince 1500 GCA enthusiasts that classic courses need saving. So, what about convincing the rest of the world? How are YOU going to do that, convinceingly, with all the moral relativism around?

You cannot continue to allow technology and distance to reduce the inherent values of the playing grounds I'm not continuing to do anything but question the arrogance of those who say they know better. Personally, I feel the aftermath of the open at Shinnecock, was a lost opportunity for all of you who want to spread the word on the inherent positives found in the classic courses. IMO, the usga,PGA, gcsaa, have all evolved into a confluence of circumstance that has led to a ruination of what was supposed to be an honorable game, through attitudes and practices that were in-place, long before Ron Prichard's letters.

It's not just about the ball and the equipment, as if they exist in a vacuum.  It's the related damage they've done to classic golf courses, the cost to create new ones and renovate existing ones. Well, you're right about one thing, it isn't just the ball and club that has added distance. Maintenece is responsible for 15% of that added distance, according to Superintendent News. Did you watch the AMEX this last week? Did you see JD out drive Tiger? Did you see him 3 putt too many times, after out driving Tiger?  By focusing on the distance issue, you diminish the other aspects, which are important, to scoring well, in this multi-faceted sport. ya know, the between the ears part.

Everyone screams at how ANGC is being ruined, how the architectural values as intended by AM are being squeezed out of the golf course.  Why is ANGC making these changes ?  Because they're responding to the distance problem,  the one that you and others don't see. The good Doctor's design was disfigured well before the distance issue was front and center. In hindsight, it appears the negative impact of the Augusta syndrome has expanded beyond just lush green turf, complete with pretty flowers version of a golf course. They pioneered the art of disfiguration. Thanks Cliff Roberts  

Merion, Pine Valley and many other courses are being lengthened to combat and offset the distance brought about by hi-tech, and, it's not for the PGA Tour Pros that all courses are being lengthened.  Even my dinky, little, 6,500 yard, wonderful golf course in New Jersey is being lengthened to offset the distance brought about by hi-tech.

And, courses that can't add length due to land restrictions are moving bunkers, narrowing their rough, growing it deeper and more lush, speeding up their greens to a comical degree and losing them due to the adverse results, as are courses that can add length at the tee end.  Some courses are moving greens to add length. Besides the moral relativism, making people's problems, other people's problems, is also pervasive in our society. The only other pertinent statement was made by Dr. Klien, on the intelectual capacity of the fortunate wealthy.

And, you're worried about some marginal golfers who MAY turn tail and abandon the game because they don't hit it as far or as straight.  Are you kidding me. I'm not worried about them, the industry is catering to them. It makes no sense to me that they do cater to THEM. But that doesn't change the fact that they do. My head is not in the sand, and, it isn't slanted by the commercials of the manufactuers.

My position is, let them go and good riddance.
They're not the core of the game and they're not golfers at heart. That's what I said. I knew you'd heard it before

I recently lost 50+ yards on my drives and comparable distance on my irons and my love and enjoyment of the game didn't diminish one iota.   I just had to alter my plan of attack and navigation of the golf course.

What's all this whining and worrying about the manufacturers and marginal golfers, focus instead on the destruction and disfiguration of classic golf courses, the cost to build and maintain new golf courses and how expensive distance has made the game. Those marginal golfers are the ones who boost the margins, for those who view this game as a business. I fear there are alot more of them, who will fight the rollback, then the few of us, who at least are enthusiastic, and realize the underlying importance of GCA.
 

The health and stability of golf  is directly related to the health and stability of golf architecture (including golf architecture's greatest works from the past).

How can the architecture respond and adapt to ever increasing distances ?

The 15 % distance gain you cite vis a vis agronomy is pure BS.

I would think it would be hard to provide data as to the effect of the rule on participation, and, in fact, you do NOT provide data.  You only provide your personal seat-of-the-pants guess.  

It's simple.  Did rounds played go up or down after the rule was adopted ?[/color]

Hopefully, the USGA is acting on a bit more empirical info!

Every USGA event I tried to qualify for or played in since its adoption was played with the one ball rule in effect.[/color]

However, even if I concede all of that, the whole argument is meaningless, even though I'm not bothered in the least by your total lack of documentation for the effect of the one-ball condition on participation.

The documentation is there, you just don't want to look at it.
Did rounds played increase and continue to increase after its adoption ? [/color]  

It's meaningless because the player still got THEIR CHOICE of the ball best suited for their game, even in the rare instance that the condition was in effect.  If they want a distance ball, they use one.  If they want a control ball, they use one, and so forth.  That wouldn't change with a rollback; ALL the balls would just be shorter, so the one-ball rule is not in any way shape of form instructive.

You're wrong on two points.
First, citing the one ball rule and the increased popularity and participation is proof positive that a restraint placed on ball use didn't hurt the game.

Second, a dialed back ball would have performance constraints.  In baseball, football, soccer and basketball each team doesn't select a ball of choice, they play a spec'd ball with uniform construction and performance standards, and so should golfers.

There's currently a list of non-conforming balls.
Balls that didn't conform to the dialed back competiton ball would suffer a similar fate.[/color]

The issue here is only this:  would making the game more difficult by shortening the ball's flight help or hurt participation, or be a non-factor?  The obvious answer is "Can't help, might hurt, hope for a non-factor"; you apparently choose the last, and you may be right.  I just think the USGA's standards are higher than hoping for a non-factor outcome.

That's pure nonsense.
Did golfers abandon the game in 1990 when you alleged it to be harder ?  1980 ?  Did golfers in the UK abandon the game when it became harder in 1990 with the adoption of the 1.68 ball ?  

You conveniently forget about the damage done to existing courses, the cost to construct and maintain new, longer courses and the total loss of shot values meant to be encountered, as conceived, designed and constructed by the architect.  The game is being destroyed from the perspective of interfacing with the intent of the architecture and you're focused on the game becoming harder.
How about focusing on making it based on skill instead of technology.[/color]

Also, please remember this:  the great majority of rounds of golf are NOT played with ProVI's at private clubs.  They are played with Pinnacles and TopFlites and the like sold in 15 ball packs for $20 or less.  Those balls are significantly longer than ProVI's STILL.  If you roll back the ball to a point at which the ProV's are flying a distance that you find acceptable, then you have to roll the others back by even more.  Bigger penalties for worse golfers; no wonder the USGA is reluctant to make a hasty move.

According to you, inferior players, "worse golfers" are hitting cheaper balls far beyond the distances attained by better players with ProV's.

If I bought into that bizarre line of flawed reasoning it would be even more reason to dial back distance.
Now we don't have to worry about Tiger Woods and John Daly, it's those guys buying cheap balls at the golf outlets that are blowing it by everyone.

You may want to reread and rephrase that paragraph.
It alone would justify an immediate roll back.[/color]