I agree on all points......fast and firm is the way to go because it provides the maximum benefits to the most aspects of golf, from architecture, turf health, playability, fun factor, increased distance for the average golfer, etc.
So is everyone on here saying that if all PGA tour stop courses make a move toward these consistant F&F conditions that demands for rollback of the ball/club will cease because the creation of F&F will negate the advantage that the pros have with their increased distance played into soft and soggy surfaces? Or does the distance problem still exist, regardless?
And if the distance problem is thought to still exist regardless of conditioning, I refer back to my original proposal: shouldn't architecture, new and rennovated, try to encourage F&F while making design adjustments that don't just involve moving tees back, but by creating more effective use of the F&F conditions (fairway tilt, better placed bunkers or high rough, more undulating and close cut surrounds, etc) in order to put more emphasis on control, as was mentioned above, to take away the option of just bombing the ball over all danger?
I think a previous poster hit the nail on the head: I don't think Tiger's win at The Open when he opted to throttle back and hardly hit driver off the tee was any less impressive than any win he had killing the driver off the tee on every hole. More set-ups on more courses that played like the Old Course at that event would do nothing but benefit the F&F cause and enlighten the golfing public to newfound joys of playing CREATIVE golf, which I think every member of this DG would love to see happen. And I think it could easily be said that is was more the architecture and placement of hazards on that course, than the lengthening, that caused Tiger to play it as he did.