Dear Steve Smyers

[Garland Bayley]

...
Why do we have to bash brilliant people?

Facts not in evidence. (I didn't see anything brilliant in what I criticized.)

Brilliant people can make statements lacking in substance just like the rest of us.

Let's call it equal opportunity bashing, because I get a certain amount of bashing for the stands I take.

Sincerely,

The Punter 

[Mark Pearce]

Garland,

It's fine (indeed good) to engage in reasoned debate.  We should challenge statements and point out factual error.  We should test assumptions and deductions.  we can, however, do this without rudeness.  That inhibits proper debate and discourages participation.  Your response to Smyers lacked class for that reason.

[Chuck Brown]

Let's return the discussion to Steve Smyers, who is unquestionably a serious, important figure in the golf world on at least two or three significant dimensions.

Here's Mr. Smyers, in a fine interview by our host Ran Morissett from a May 2002 entry to GCA's wonderful series of interviews:
Full link here:  
http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/steve-smyers-may-2002

7. What courses impress you with how they have stood up against advances in technology? Are there lessons to be learned from any of the common characteristics of those courses?

There are only a few courses that have really stood up against advances in technology. Golf holes that once were designed to be played with a driver and a mid-iron are now being played by the accomplished players with an iron and pitch shot. The way the old courses are defending themselves are through green speed, firmness and tucking the pins. That doesn’t mean the course is not enjoyable or is not good, but I don’t believe it defines the best player, or provides the total examination.

That sounds right to me.  I agree with Steve Smyers.  But then, he says this, with respect to Augusta National; a quote I can scarcely believe:

In order to maintain their original design integrity, a few of the old courses have added length over the years. Because the design was fundamentally sound to begin with, only minor alterations were needed to provide that ultimate examination. A great example is Augusta National. What they did at Augusta was absolutely brilliant, inpart because they reintroduced shotmaking by making the players have to move the ball both ways. By lengthening and narrowing the course, they were able to truly identify the best. People will say the design played right into Tiger’s hand and my answer is, ‘Yes, it did, because he is simply the best.’

Other courses that have added length are: Winged Foot, Oakmont, Southern Hills, Merion, St. Andrews, Carnoustie and Royal Melbourne – just to name a few. These are all great classics and, with only slight alterations, can be great tests through the ages.

I'm unconcerned about Tiger Woods.  As far as it goes, I'd have agreed with Steve Smyers about Woods in 2002.  But Holy Second Cut!  Steve Smyers likes the way that Augusta was altered, "by lenghtening and narrowing the course..."?  I thought that in 2010, we all understood, with the benefit of hindsight, that the lengthening of Augusta was a sad byproduct of technologically-induced distance, and that the "narrowing" of the course was now universally recognized, even by ANGC itself, to have been a failed experiment, and one that should never be repeated and if at all possible, reversed.  What say the GCA cognoscenti to Steve Smyers on that one?

Ran's interview with Steve Smyers ended with this question, and a mostly-terrific answer, with a lot of insight:

19.Speaking of the game, anything in particular that you would like to see changed?


Basically, I think the game is very healthy. It is a great sport with great camaraderie and it’s very relaxing. I think we do have a few shortcomings.The equipment manufacturers have come on very strongly and led the masses to believe that by hitting the golf ball farther we will therefore enjoy the game more. Well, I disagree with that! If we all hit the golf ball 10 or 15 or 20 yards farther, we all want to hit it farther in relation to our competitors or our buddies. If my buddy hit it 20 yards farther and I hit it 20 yards farther, that doesn’t do either of us any good. All it does is make our golf courses obsolete, and it makes us play golf on bigger areas and increase the cost of golf. So, that’s one major thing we need to all understand: Hitting the golf ball farther does not make us enjoy the game better. And I don’t think we necessarily need to make it easier for everyone. No matter how easy or how difficult it is, the enjoyment of the game comes from being out with your friends, interacting with the landscape, enjoying the fresh air and exercise, and enjoying the true spirit of the game.

The other thing that troubles me a bit is the cost of playing golf. I love the game and I probably have ventured to as many golf properties around the world as anybody, and have paid a lot of money to do so. But it disturbs me when I hear of a $200 green fee to play a golf course and you have to stay on the cart paths and report at a certain time or do a certain thing.

I also think we have to get back to the simpler things in golf, where the flow of the course is more important than driving one-quarter of a mile from one green to the next tee so that we can get a big, dramatic look at a golf hole. I think we need to get back to more pleasant journeys around the golf course, with a short distance from green to tee, where golf is more in its natural state, where people can pay $20 or $30 and play a true championship-caliber, enjoyable course. If we could return to that, plus overcome the image of needing to hit the golf ball farther to enjoy the game more, I think the sport would be in a very healthy, prosperous state.  

What percentage of the GCA membership would say "Amen" to all of that?  98%?  More?  I know I would.  What I'd like to know from Steve Smyers is how he feels about that first part, that the game may be led astray by the equipment manufacturers.  Does Steve Smyers still hold those views?  Would it not have been better, in a 2010 interview, to have renewed that comment, along with the perfectly acceptable view that agronomy and mowing technology has inflicted changes on the game as well?

My friends, there may be no need to do any "bashing" of Steve Smyers at all, if indeed he's given a fair chance to air his views.  But what I don't get is how somebody could reconcile the views espoused in the interview quotes above, with a position of importance that he holds with the USGA's Green Section and its equipment subcommittees, including the view that distance is "stable" and there is therefore no problem with equipment technology and by the way mowers have had a more "dramatic" impact on golf...

[Scott Warren]

Chuck,

To be fair, Steve's comments about ANGC need to be viewed as at 2002. I may be wrong, but I don't believe the most major changes to the likes of 7, 11 or 17 had been carried out at that point.

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,

To be fair, Steve's comments about ANGC need to be viewed as at 2002. I may be wrong, but I don't believe the most major changes to the likes of 7, 11 or 17 had been carried out at that point.

Scott, do you suppose that some of those reprehensible changes done to ANGC were the direct and proximate result of the Pro V1, 460cc drivers, and groupthink like that expressed individually by Steve Smyers in 2002?

[David_Tepper]

"You don't have stats that can definitively say golfers were shorter than the population at large then or now. You don't have stats to say that equipment in Ben Hogan's era was more suited to short golfers like Ben Hogan. And guess what neither does Mr. Smyers. Instead, he implies that Ben was a short hitter, which most will recognize (including Geoff Shackelford who outed him on that mistake too) as not being true. He implies that equipment was better suited to short golfers like Ben. A simple reading of Ben's authorized biography would show that Ben had a hugely difficult time finding and recognizing equipment that suited him. And, it would show that the much taller Byron Nelson not only found equipment that worked for him, but put it to extremely effective use to earn an early retirement and give others a chance. Come to think of it Sam Snead was 5' 11" and did pretty well for being handicapped (according to Mr. Smyers hypothesis) by being taller than the average male."


Garland Bayley -

I have read both Sampson's and Dodson's biographies of Ben Hogan. His obsession with his equipment is legendary. However, I don't recall reading in either book that Hogan's height was in any way related whatever problems he had finding the best equipment for his game.

With the exception of George Archer, I cannot recall any pro golfer (in the steel shaft era) of significance taller than 6'1" or 6'2" prior to the last 20 years. Since then, we have seen a large number of tall golfers (Faldo, Singh, Mickelson, Els, Karlsson, Stenson, etc.) win majors and play at the highest level.

My guess is lighter weight shafts and advances in club fitting have enabled tall golfers to learn and play the game a little more easily. This could be what Steve Smyers is speaking about. If you recall, George Archer looked rather stooped and hunched over the ball at address. This may have been a function of having to play with clubs ill-suited for someone of his height.

No doubt athletes in almost all sports are bigger and  stronger than the used to be. I laugh every time I read that Tim Lincecum, at 5'11'', is too small to last as a major league pitcher.

DT

 
  

  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dear Steve,

Do you want me to hold them down while you hit them, or the other way around?

Your friend,
Jeff

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don't know that Smyers has looked at the data too closely - he says that driving distance has not gone up from 2002 to 2010.

But that is not what I see at PGAtour.com.  In 2002 one golfer averaged over 300 off the tee - John Daly.  This year ten players average over 300.

In 2002 the 100th ranked driver hit the ball 280 - today the 100th ranked driver hits the ball 287, an increase of 3% or so.  If you hit your irons farther as well that would lead to about a 1-club difference vs 2002 on most holes.  So while the recent increase is not exponential it is still happening.

[Sean_A]

Chuck,

To be fair, Steve's comments about ANGC need to be viewed as at 2002. I may be wrong, but I don't believe the most major changes to the likes of 7, 11 or 17 had been carried out at that point.

Scott, do you suppose that some of those reprehensible changes done to ANGC were the direct and proximate result of the Pro V1, 460cc drivers, and groupthink like that expressed individually by Steve Smyers in 2002?

Chuck

Almost from day one Dr Mac's course has been altered and I mean dramatically altered.  Some of the changes make sense and some don't.  To a large degree, the same can be said for loads of high profile courses.  As I said before, change HAS and WILL continue to happpen.  Recently the long ball has been blamed.  Its just one of any number of excuses that members need to stamp their mark on designs which need no further stamping.

Ciao 

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,

To be fair, Steve's comments about ANGC need to be viewed as at 2002. I may be wrong, but I don't believe the most major changes to the likes of 7, 11 or 17 had been carried out at that point.

Scott, do you suppose that some of those reprehensible changes done to ANGC were the direct and proximate result of the Pro V1, 460cc drivers, and groupthink like that expressed individually by Steve Smyers in 2002?

Chuck

Almost from day one Dr Mac's course has been altered and I mean dramatically altered.  Some of the changes make sense and some don't.  To a large degree, the same can be said for loads of high profile courses.  As I said before, change HAS and WILL continue to happpen.  Recently the long ball has been blamed.  Its just one of any number of excuses that members need to stamp their mark on designs which need no further stamping.

Ciao 

Sean; of course.  How about reversing the nines?  How about Maxwell's re-creation of 10?  And the almost unimaginable reworking of the water features around 12 and 16?  The list goes on and on; on virtually every hole.
But of course from 1934 to 2000, the course was almost always moving in the direction of wider, smoother, faster, and forcing the players to confront choices of angles to manage what would happen on the ground.
Then the Pro V arrived, and when certain holes were made as long as the property allowed (1, 10, 11, 13, 15, etc.), they then started narrowing things, to compensate and to hold scoring within a desired parameter.
There may be some ego at work in changing Augusta; but there's not a major championship course in the world that hasn't been radically altered for major championship play in the 21 st century.  There's no reason to pick on any personalities at ANGC.

Back to Steve Smyers; I don't know if he has suggested any specific changes at ANGC.  And the funny thing to me in seeing the way this thread has gone, is that I began it with little knowledge of his course designs but with great admiration of him on paper.

This is strictly a discussion of Mr. Smyers as not merely an architect, but also as a USGA man.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve Smyers is a wonderful guy, and a great golfer, though I do not agree with all of his positions re: technology.

I think his positions are attributable to politics ... His good friend the former USGA president Fred Ridley has a lot of "skin in the game" both on technology rulings AND at Augusta National, so is it surprising that Steve toes the party line on both subjects?  You can take a dim view of that, or you can rationalize that the politics of golf are too much like the U.S. Senate, where the insiders will all tell you there is no sense talking about solutions that are impossible to push through with the current occupants in place.

[Jim Nugent]

My guess is lighter weight shafts and advances in club fitting have enabled tall golfers to learn and play the game a little more easily. This could be what Steve Smyers is speaking about. If you recall, George Archer looked rather stooped and hunched over the ball at address. This may have been a function of having to play with clubs ill-suited for someone of his height.

DT
 

In the 1960's, my recollection is that a driver could be no more than 43" long.  Am I right about that? 

[Chuck Brown]

My guess is lighter weight shafts and advances in club fitting have enabled tall golfers to learn and play the game a little more easily. This could be what Steve Smyers is speaking about. If you recall, George Archer looked rather stooped and hunched over the ball at address. This may have been a function of having to play with clubs ill-suited for someone of his height.

DT
 

In the 1960's, my recollection is that a driver could be no more than 43" long.  Am I right about that? 

No.
Standard was 43.5" for all drivers, and they could be longer.  Of course with steel and solid persimmon heads, much longer turned into unGodly swingweights.  Unless you backweighted, which turned in the unGodly static weights.

[Jim Nugent]

My guess is lighter weight shafts and advances in club fitting have enabled tall golfers to learn and play the game a little more easily. This could be what Steve Smyers is speaking about. If you recall, George Archer looked rather stooped and hunched over the ball at address. This may have been a function of having to play with clubs ill-suited for someone of his height.

DT
 

In the 1960's, my recollection is that a driver could be no more than 43" long.  Am I right about that? 

No.
Standard was 43.5" for all drivers, and they could be longer.  Of course with steel and solid persimmon heads, much longer turned into unGodly swingweights.  Unless you backweighted, which turned in the unGodly static weights.

This alone might be the reason most top golfers back then were under 6', with many way under. 

[Steve Lang]

  Jack N backweighted his clubs, and i've seen his height reported as 5'-8" -  5'10"

weiskopf was 6' 3" , like ernie.. and VJ is at least 6'2" i believe as i've looked directly into their eyes  archer was reported as 6' 5 &1/2"

i'm 6'2" and fitted one inch longer than standard titleist shafts,  longer levers, more room for error swinging than little guys, 2-5 inches smaller using standard or choked up clubs..

and no i don't have anything but opinion.. this is not a courtroom

steve smyers can have whatever opinion he likes, for whatever reason.  to examine words/thoughts is one thing, to bash him personally is wholly another and I agree, not helping gca.com's image

 

[Garland Bayley]

"You don't have stats that can definitively say golfers were shorter than the population at large then or now. You don't have stats to say that equipment in Ben Hogan's era was more suited to short golfers like Ben Hogan. And guess what neither does Mr. Smyers. Instead, he implies that Ben was a short hitter, which most will recognize (including Geoff Shackelford who outed him on that mistake too) as not being true. He implies that equipment was better suited to short golfers like Ben. A simple reading of Ben's authorized biography would show that Ben had a hugely difficult time finding and recognizing equipment that suited him. And, it would show that the much taller Byron Nelson not only found equipment that worked for him, but put it to extremely effective use to earn an early retirement and give others a chance. Come to think of it Sam Snead was 5' 11" and did pretty well for being handicapped (according to Mr. Smyers hypothesis) by being taller than the average male."


Garland Bayley -

I have read both Sampson's and Dodson's biographies of Ben Hogan. His obsession with his equipment is legendary. However, I don't recall reading in either book that Hogan's height was in any way related whatever problems he had finding the best equipment for his game.

With the exception of George Archer, I cannot recall any pro golfer (in the steel shaft era) of significance taller than 6'1" or 6'2" prior to the last 20 years. Since then, we have seen a large number of tall golfers (Faldo, Singh, Mickelson, Els, Karlsson, Stenson, etc.) win majors and play at the highest level.

My guess is lighter weight shafts and advances in club fitting have enabled tall golfers to learn and play the game a little more easily. This could be what Steve Smyers is speaking about. If you recall, George Archer looked rather stooped and hunched over the ball at address. This may have been a function of having to play with clubs ill-suited for someone of his height.

No doubt athletes in almost all sports are bigger and  stronger than the used to be. I laugh every time I read that Tim Lincecum, at 5'11'', is too small to last as a major league pitcher.

DT

 
  

  

David,

Honestly, you sound like you are taking shots in the dark. Club fitters were available back in the day, and there was no need for a tall person to play with ill-fitting clubs. The interesting thing of course is that the custom fitted clubs were more expensive than the off the rack clubs. Today, with club contracts for pros, marketing hype, and obsoleting this years clubs with last years clubs, the off the rack name brand clubs are more expensive than a custom fitted set of Tom Wishon clubs for example.

Another factor you seem to be ignoring is that people were shorter back then. The reason you didn't set a lot of tall top pro golfers was because there wasn't a large pool of tall people that could become pro golfers. As was noted above, the best of the golfers of the era, Byron Nelson, was 6' 1", which I will note was tall for that era.

Also, at no point did I write or intend to imply that Ben Hogan had trouble finding equipment, because of his height. Mr. Smyers suggested that the equipment was suited to him because of his height. I pointed out that since he had trouble finding equipment that worked for him, Mr. Smyers was lacking in bringing his reasoning to a sound conclusion.

So David, Coffee is brewing, how's your sniffer?

[Garland Bayley]

...
steve smyers can have whatever opinion he likes, for whatever reason.  to examine words/thoughts is one thing, to bash him personally is wholly another and I agree, not helping gca.com's image

 

Steve,

Go read the Merion threads, and then come back and define bash personally as it relates to this thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chuck Brown (and others)

Knowing Steve as I do, and having discussed this and other issues with him, I would say that he would argue with more facts and class than anything or anyone I have seen on this forum, including his interviewer, Geoff S.

Okay, yes, I may be following in the party line a bit myself, but that is how I feel.

In reality, the narrow prism argument that "we need to preserve the classic courses as tournament venues" is opinion only, but treated as fact around these parts.  I think we could come up with a nice list of former tournament courses that are no longer used as the designs become outdated by length, logisitics, or simply other newer courses being better tests of golf for pros and top ams.  The very best designs have adapted to the new game with mostly minor changes, while others fall by the wayside.

I am not sure how many classic golden age courses really care if they have a tournament or not.  Nor am I sure that the ability or lack thereof to use any particular course for a tournament is a cross section of what is right or wrong with golf.

There are lots of perspectives on the issue of equipment, and the argument that equipment should make the game harder for the masses for some esoteric reason can, I think, be disproved by a trip to nearly any golf course on any day.  The fact that making it easier or more enjoyable for the masses somehow makes it bad if the tour pros can improve 4X in certain aspects of the game may be unavoidable.

Carry on.

[Mark Pearce]

...
steve smyers can have whatever opinion he likes, for whatever reason.  to examine words/thoughts is one thing, to bash him personally is wholly another and I agree, not helping gca.com's image

 

Steve,

Go read the Merion threads, and then come back and define bash personally as it relates to this thread.

You're joking, right? 

Those Merion threads are an embarrasment to this site (and to each of the main protagonists, if only they realised it).  They have no relevance to the standards we should seek to maintain.  Just because some people have resorted to shameful bashing (of other individuals already on the site, it should be noted) provides no justification for bashing a non-participant in the way you did.  No class, no jsutification.

So David, Coffee is brewing, how's your sniffer?

Are you turning into Matt Ward?

It seems you have grounds in the debate and have made some very relevant points.  Why ruin the debate with a mocking and Wardian schoolboy debating technique?

[Sean_A]

Chuck,

To be fair, Steve's comments about ANGC need to be viewed as at 2002. I may be wrong, but I don't believe the most major changes to the likes of 7, 11 or 17 had been carried out at that point.

Scott, do you suppose that some of those reprehensible changes done to ANGC were the direct and proximate result of the Pro V1, 460cc drivers, and groupthink like that expressed individually by Steve Smyers in 2002?

Chuck

Almost from day one Dr Mac's course has been altered and I mean dramatically altered.  Some of the changes make sense and some don't.  To a large degree, the same can be said for loads of high profile courses.  As I said before, change HAS and WILL continue to happpen.  Recently the long ball has been blamed.  Its just one of any number of excuses that members need to stamp their mark on designs which need no further stamping.

Ciao 

Sean; of course.  How about reversing the nines?  How about Maxwell's re-creation of 10?  And the almost unimaginable reworking of the water features around 12 and 16?  The list goes on and on; on virtually every hole.
But of course from 1934 to 2000, the course was almost always moving in the direction of wider, smoother, faster, and forcing the players to confront choices of angles to manage what would happen on the ground.
Then the Pro V arrived, and when certain holes were made as long as the property allowed (1, 10, 11, 13, 15, etc.), they then started narrowing things, to compensate and to hold scoring within a desired parameter.
There may be some ego at work in changing Augusta; but there's not a major championship course in the world that hasn't been radically altered for major championship play in the 21 st century.  There's no reason to pick on any personalities at ANGC.

Back to Steve Smyers; I don't know if he has suggested any specific changes at ANGC.  And the funny thing to me in seeing the way this thread has gone, is that I began it with little knowledge of his course designs but with great admiration of him on paper.

This is strictly a discussion of Mr. Smyers as not merely an architect, but also as a USGA man.

Chuck

My point is length is today's whipping boy.  Many around here seem to believe it is the answer to our prayers - I don't.  For me, the answer to our prayers (which is I believe to stop changing classic courses) is for memberships to take a much more proactive role as stewards of their courses.  There will ALWAYS be pressures to change courese for whatever reason.  Memberships need to perhaps do a better job of weighing up the the pros and cons of change and what these changes mean in the long term for their courses.  To simply point the finger at the USGA for failing to halt or reverse tech advances is both unrealistic (the industry has much more money and savy than the USGA because its their business to be so) and unreasonable. 

Ciao   

[archie_struthers]

 

Political correctness doesn't necessarily work on a discussion group , though civility is nice. Certainly it's nice if someone of achievement posts on the site, but asking to couch all comments to get them on isn't a good idea.

[Steve Lang]

...
steve smyers can have whatever opinion he likes, for whatever reason.  to examine words/thoughts is one thing, to bash him personally is wholly another and I agree, not helping gca.com's image

Steve,
Go read the Merion threads, and then come back and define bash personally as it relates to this thread.

Garland,  NO, NO, PLEASE.. ANYTHING BUT THAT!  PLEASE NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO READ THOSE 5000 POSTS.. 
i only say bashing because, frankly when I see the "Moriarty show me the evidence" routine and folks being a little too terse for a chatroom, parsing words and opinionated meaning from sentences delivered in wholly separate circumstances like an interview, to their opinions on other topics and demanding every thought be checked and  rechecked, past, present, and future tense.. its a ridiculous standard

[Melvyn Morrow]

Quote
Garland Bayley:
Come on Mr. Smyers, wake up and smell the roses.

Or, if you don't know what you are talking about, then don't talk... Perhaps you should read Pete Dye's interview on this site and learn to only speak about what you know about.

Whilever people in this discussion group make comments like this in regard to industry professionals I think many people in the industry will rightly disregard the membership of GCA.com as - and this is an actual term I was told we are referred to by one design company - "a bunch of sad tossers". Another is "GCA.com: Never unsure, often wrong". Hard to argue with that, either.

Frank discussion is one thing. Blind disrespect and insolence is something else altogether.

Incidentally, I am playing my first Smyers course tomorrow, and really looking forward to it.



Whether I agree or not with Garland he has a right to post his opinion on this site, It’s a DG, the very point is to submit ones opinions and if possible discuss them.

The problem is that people jump on the backs of others, not questioning their opinions but their basic righto submit such opinions.

It not the site that is at fault or the topic but the reaction of some who just do not like or do not want to hear such opinions, yet for the most part many of these individuals submit little if anything after being on this site for years.

Scott as for those who are in the industry and refer to free exchange of comments by many knowledgeable golf lovers on this site as “a bunch of sad tossers” deserves our total contempt. Clearly this individual feels that there is not much else he/she needs to learn when discussing GCA. Yet I have not come across any individual with that wealth of knowledge on or off this site. We the poor humble members of GCA.com are still learning, we have not quite hit the levels of this individual, our minds are still open and we I expect are more than willing to learn. 

The industry has a long way to go, I see little that is worth celebrating over the last 15 years when you compare the numbers of people who play golf. All the big design houses have been shown up by what has been achieved at Askernish not to mention the cost for the whole project. Yet has the industry sat up and learnt from it. Perhaps, we will have to wait and see. In the meantime we at GCA.com should ask the question how many design houses out there are employ  “a bunch of tossers” and who are “ Never unsure, often wrong". As you say it may be hard to argue with that, either. Makes a clear statement about you though.

This is a Discussion Group, where opinions are urgently need on the subject of GCA, not course rating or my favourite courses, but items that reflect the course architecture.

Never forget that we all have the right to our opinions that’s what this site is all about OPINIONS. Perhaps your designer friend may like to make their name  known so that we can see their contribution to GCA.

I certainly do not consider anyone on this site “a tosser”, I may not agree with them but I am interested in their opinion and I do have respect for all The Keepers of the Greens and Designers /Architects we have on this site. None of us has a monopoly on knowledge.

Melvyn

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck Brown (and others)

Knowing Steve as I do, and having discussed this and other issues with him, I would say that he would argue with more facts and class than anything or anyone I have seen on this forum, including his interviewer, Geoff S.
...

Jeff, the magazine interview that was part of my original post wasn't a Geoff Shackelford interview of Steve Smyers.  The interview was conducted by a reporter from "Greenhouse Management & Production Magazine online."  I'd really like to witness a lengthy and in-depth interview of Steve Smyers, by Geoff Shackelford, on the subject of the intersection of golf equipment technology and golf course architecture.  I'd expect that such an interview would be quite respectful, and would also be a very serious challenge for Steve Smyers.  It might be even more interesting if it were a panel discussion, and if Mr. Smyers wore his USGA blazer, and he was joined by fellow-architects  Jack Nicklaus, Ben Crenshaw and Tom Doak.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Quote
Garland Bayley:
Come on Mr. Smyers, wake up and smell the roses.

Or, if you don't know what you are talking about, then don't talk... Perhaps you should read Pete Dye's interview on this site and learn to only speak about what you know about.

Garland,

I find it odd that we endorse amateur opinions being able to be spouted off here freely, but think knowledgeable opinions ought to be discouraged if they don't agree 100% with the percieved groupthink here.

Why shouldn't Steve have the same right to an opinion as the 1500 participants here?  What makes you think he doesn't know what he is talking about?  That is a serious question.

Chuck,

As it happens, I have seen a panel discussion with Steve and Jack Nicklaus re technology and design.  It didn't appear that Steve was challenged at all in answering questions.  Now, given Geoff's bent towards preserving classic courses it might be more challenging for him, since the questions might (I emphasize might) have a one sided slant.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  Everyone can have their perspective and I understand Geoffs.  But, I understand other perspectives, too.