This thread identifies a basic difference in the philosophy of architecture. Those advocating tight golf courses are generally doing so because they view narrow fairways with significant penalties for missing the fairways, e.g. thick rough, trees , water, as a means of controlling scoring by elite players. Thus resistance to scoring is the primary objective for the architect under this formulation. Proponents of this position neglect to mention the values that this approach abandons, most notably strategy and choice. A tight penal golf course give the player little option but to try to drive the ball in the middle and hit the next one on the green. No decisions regarding angle of approach, position in the fairway etc. No room to adjust to strong winds or other unusual conditions. Emphasis on heavy rough reduces shot making and recovery options. Thought is reduced and replaced by an emphasis on the ability to repeat the swing and produce straight tee balls, all in the interest of combatting the long hitter and rewarding only the long straight hitter. The question is, which is the more interesting, the more fun game? I submit that this is the real problem with the new equipment. The shorter and more importantly, less correcting ball combined with driving clubs with smaller sweetspots made it more difficult for even elite players to swing full out and keep the ball in play. The benefits from the extra distance produced by hard swinging were outweighed by the lost accuracy because players, who could not hit it as far due to the lesser equipment did not have the benefit of hitting only wedges from the rough like the modern bombers. The straight hitter derived real benefit because he could best take advantage of the strategic options. The rare player who was truly long and straight such as Greg Norman in the 80's derived a tremendous advantage. Finally, the courses did not have to be stretched and the average player had a better chance to experience playing the same courses as the pro's without being totally overwhelmed. But the equipment genie is out of the bottle and efforts to put it back have not succeeded. So the question remains; under current conditions how does one design? Are designs to be intended to control the scoring for the touring pro or are they to be focused on providing a more balanced and pleasurable experience for a broader spectrum of players? How an individual answers this question is likely to depend upon the importance of resistance to scoring in their value system.