Paul,
From my perspective, not surprisingly, I disagree.
If I'm watching the best golfers in the world, I want to see them presented with a challenge commensurate with their abilities/game.
Scores of 25-30 under par for four rounds would indicate that the course didn't present a meaningful test, and I want to see their games tested, physically and mentally.
One of the things I've noticed is that the putting surfaces seem to be flatter and flatter.
It's rare that you see tremendous break and/or slope, so what kind of test are those greens providing, for putting, recovery and approach shots ? Not much it would seem.
I realize, when I tune in, that I'm not just watching the best golfers in the world, I"m watching that cadre of the best golfers in the world who are playing at the top of their game, so, it's the best of the best. Those that don't play their best, miss the cut and don't make it on TV.
When I began playing serious competitive golf I witnessed something that enlightened me in terms of local/regional tournaments versus National tournaments.
I was playing in the North-South Amateur at Pinehurst # 2, on the 18th hole, which was an uphill par 4 with a deep bunker on the right side of the fairway. I tended to hit a draw that wasn't howitzer like in its trajectory, thus, that bunker was a feature I couldn't ignore.
Moss Beecroft, hit the ball on a higher trajectory and had about the same or perhaps 10 more yards distance than I did, and as such that bunker did NOT present the same dilema, he could essentially ignore it. I was challenged by that bunker, he wasn't, and neither were other long drivers.
As I watched more and more nationally ranked golfers play the course, I quickly concluded that if I was going to be competitive I needed more distance and higher trajectory.
There was a fellow there named Mike Taylor who was really, really long.
His advantage was immense.
The par 4's were meaningfully shorter, as were the par 5's.
So, I quickly drew a distinction between the challenges we faced.
At the Mid-Amateur at Bellerive I watched a fellow named Malley, from California. hit the ball really long.
The challenge he faced was substantially diminished, compared to the one I faced.
Years later, Frank Hannigan and I were at the Mid-Amateur at the AAC and were discussing length off the tee.
Frank mentioned that all of the long ball hitters that he witnessed, hit the ball high, over the bunkers/features
Now this was long before anyone ever heard the words, "launch angle" or "spin rates"
The reason I bring this up is that I don't believe you can defend a course vis a vis distance.
All the pros hit it high and long, some are just longer than others.
So, having said all this, do I or will I enjoy watching the best golfers in the world using drivers and short irons to torch par ?
No, I don't think scores of 25-30 under are reflective of a balanced challenge.
By balanced I mean driving distance combined with driving accuracy.
Superior fairway wood, long iron, mid iron and short iron play.
Recovery and putting.
25-30 under par wouldn't seem to be a four round score that's reflective of a meaningful challenge.
I think golf courses today, that host PGA Tour events, have to bulk up on steroids, trick themselves up or surrender to 25-30 under par.
The ONLY salvation I can see is if Augusta comes out with a competition ball, the "Masters" ball.
Remember, in golf, with respect to the competitors, there is NO DEFENSE. Each golfer must rely upon the golf course to defend itself and today, golf courses are all but incapable of providing that defense
End of rant
