Wow. Gone for 18 hours and bombarded with new questions. I can't keep track of them all. But here goes:
Competition ball: I'm not opposed to it. It's a great idea, in theory, but unworkable in practice. Even if only at Augusta National (especially if only at Augusta National.) Ignoring for the moment what specifications that ball would be, I can't imagine any ball manufacturer would willingly tool up and produce those balls that have no other market that A) PGA Tour competition or B) just the Masters. (There's no money in that. None.)
Would average golfers buy and play them? Of course not, because their buddies wouldn't be obliged to also play the shorter competition ball. What average golfer is willingly going to sacrifice yardage just to be playing "what the pros play"?
Titletist would easily pass by the opportunity to be the "official golf ball of the Masters." It's already boasting it's the most popular ball on Tour (by various tour counts). And, by the way, The Masters controls to a very large degree the use of its tournament name in advertising.
Rick - The PGA Tour does not employ players. Players are independent contractors. The tour does have certain regulations that it imposes upon licensed participants (mandatory minimum appearances; permission to play elsewhere the week of a tour event, etc.) deemed necessary for the good of all the participants. But it's not going to meddle with all these tour players' individual equipment contracts. Never. It won't even require soft spikes, even though those things are a proven blessing to the improved quality of putting surfaces. And the PGA Tour isn't particularly interested in preserving grand old courses, scoring records, etc. They're in the entertainment business, and while some of us are entertained by fantastic shotmaking, most spectators (and TV viewers) are awed by the ball bashing. Yes, John Daly and Tiger Woods would still hit the competition ball farther than others (an incredible 265 yards, perhaps), but to what end would the Tour even want a competition ball? And if a competition ball is necessary, should drivers also be regulated? Putters?
As for this whole discussion (which started this thread lo those many moons ago) about my obligation to educate readers, hey, I've accepted that and tried to do that my entire writng career. But Golf Digest is not a trade publication. It is a special interest magazine to reaches a larger audience than simply golf architecture fanatics. I've tried my very best, and will continue to do so, to get average golfers all worked up about golf design, its nuances, its pleasures, its fascination. But, as I'll say again, it is not (sad to say) the subject that most golfers care all that much about. It simply isn't. Any more than they care about the mechanics of the car they drive or the electronics of their new digital camera. The challenge of the game to my daughters, who've just taken up the game in the past five years, is simply mastering the swing mechanics, learning to read greens, playing from bunkers, etc. Course management will come later, and that's when most of us really zero in on the course design. But when I get off those top 100 courses once in a while and play at some scruffy public course in Anytown USA, I find a vastly different attitude. These guys are struggling all their lives to CURE THEIR SLICE (which is why the magazine will run such an issue every year, and it'll sell thousands upon thousands of copies).
Now, if a competition ball could cure their slice . . .