G. Pazin,
I asked you because I thought you had stated somewhere that bifurcation would not work for golf and I was interested in learning why.
T. Pitner,
Did you modify your posting? Or did someone else suggest that some of us have an "agenda" for bifurcation. Personally, I can live with the status quo. I do have some symphathy for those who revere the classic courses and times past, and are seeing them substantially modified to be more challenging for a tiny percentage of golfers who very occasionally play there.
I also happen to agree with Geoff Ogilvy regarding rough and the pro game. From an spectator's perspective, I would much rather see shotmaking than the type of golf played at WFW.
As to his desire for fun, I am not sure that golf at that level is supposed to be what he would like it to be. I do suspect that he has had tons of fun as a result of his success at the US Open. Work- the process- is typically not enjoyable. However, the sense of accomplishment is much more than that. Mark Frost's "The Grand Slam" provides some great insights from Bobby Jones' grueling tournament experiences which may be relevant here.
Tom Doak's post on how he builds his courses may help to explain why his work is so well received. Jack Nicklaus has said pretty much of the same thing (designing from the standpoint of where most golfers will be playing the course, then adding some "gorilla" tees more as an afterthought). The "easy" 66 that J. Fortson shot at Stone Eagle a couple of weeks ago may suggest that Mr. Doak's courses based on this design approach are not good candidates for professional tournament play.
BTW, the context of Mr. Ogilvy's article is precisely about distance. At the courses he plays, rough is grown in to help protect par. Furthermore, you would not have the strategy and shotmaking that he terms as fun if the only thing you did was mowed the rough down. Give Lefty, Tiger, and Vijay short grass 325 - 375 yards out on 100-yard wide fairways, and the arms race will just escalate.
The Masters is probably one of the best examples because in the past, the greens alone provided that resistance to scoring. But 350 yard drives yielding wedges to the par 4s and mid-irons to the par 5s have pretty much changed that equation irreperably. Sure, wind and dry conditions can restore some balance, but only God and maybe Al Gore (if he could convince us of the evils of the internal combustion engine and those pesky CO2s) can control these. Rough and added length are the only realistic means by which the score can be kept in a historical context (and I am not suggesting that this is necessarily important).
Maybe the Tour ought to have 50 yard wide fairways up to 240 yards from the tees and bottleneck them thereafter to 20 - 25 yards. That way guys like Geoff can joyfully bunt a balata with a persimon to his favorite corner of the fairway and Lefty can swing for the fences. We couyld then discuss ad naseum the relative merits of brains vs. brawn in professional golf.
A. Butler,
I was thinking something much more nominal than that, say a beer or a diet soda. My time horizon would be at least five years, though I wouldn't doubt if the Masters may not jump the gun sooner.
A. Thompson,
Is your reference to Lefty a rebuttal to my "At the top today, many are tall, well conditioned athletes" statement? Check his stats, well over 6' and probably 200+ pounds. Not to say anything about his carrying the ball 300+ yards, you can't hit his flop shots without superior hand and arm strength. Body type and conditioning for golf are not the same as for football, basketball and other sports which are attributed a higher level of athleticism. Lumpy may have been a better rebuttal choice, but compared to the average pro golfer 30 years ago, he probably doesn't fare too badly either.