I have to wonder how many of you have actually seen a 350 yard drive that is not down hill, down wind and hard fairways?? This idea that 300 or 350 yard drives are hurting golf is such utter nonsense. With golf hurting as much as it is, you would think the USGA, R&A, PGA of America ect, ect would be encouraging a “full court press” for better technology to make the game more fun for the average golfer. Instead, the ban the long putter (for what??) and I see Jack Nicklaus railing against the golf ball too. Just because Bubba, Rory and a handful of other golfers whatever professional tour can hit their drivers over 300 yards does mean it’s bad for golf? I suggest anyone go play Philadelphia Cricket Militia Hill (longest course in Philly area where I am from that I am aware of) and pay it from the tips. Is it enjoyable to have hybrid, 4 or 5 irons in on most of the par 4’s? NO. I also don’t see anyone hitting anyone hitting persimmon drivers. I wonder has anyone hit a persimmon driver this year. I have and if I had to play a round with one I could, but the round wouldn’t be nearly as enjoyable. Golf is supposed to be an enjoyable leisurely game. If better golf balls, better driver technology and yes anchored putters makes the game more enjoyable. What is the problem?
If the classic courses from the early 20th century are becoming too short, grow the rough and speed up the greens to counter. It worked for Merion in 2013 US Open and it can work on any other course too. On a side note, the average handicap has stayed the same since the 1970's, with better everything (balls, clubs, range finers, fitness) why has it not gone down? hhhmmmm.
Russ,
Reading your post brings me back about ten years, before I joined GCA.COM and I am reminded of the saying: "you don't know what you don't know." I used to be in the camp of the "young guns" at my club and spout things like: "we have to find a way to get our greens faster and need to grow the rough, it is the course's only defense." I was thrilled with my newly acquired length off the tee (at age 48 I was finally learning how to swing; it had nothing to do with the Pro V1...
![Smiley :)](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
) Then I started hanging out here and learned so much about golf course architecture, until one day I found myself playing Royal Melbourne. The width of the course was stunning: I felt like I could not miss a fairway. But as I played the course I realized that while I was frequently in the fairway, I was often on the wrong side and had no real shot to the pin. The light bulb went off, and I realized the importance of width and playing angles in a superbly designed golf course. (It also occurred to me that Tom Doak HAD to have been profoundly influenced by Mackenzie.) Thick rough was not required to "punish" a golfer. Courses set up like that that are merely difficult slogs that test your ability to hit a straight tee ball and nice, high, lofted irons. Terrain means little, angles are irrelevant. Hit it far, hit it straight, and make putts. Be mindless, be mechanical, score well. It is a GREAT formula for any pro golfer. And pro bowlers, for that matter...
I played Merion the fall before the US Open and I was just sad. I saw incredibly narrow fairways lined by rough that covered my shoes, and thought: "THIS is what we need to do to our golf courses to test the best players???"
I don't love bowling, I love golf. Wisdom can be a drag...At the risk of sounding condescending, I hope your time on gca.com increases your appreciation for good design, and some day you think back on the sentiments that you expressed in this thread and laugh, as I do now at my previous opinions. Your words tell us that you are at the beginning of the journey. You joined the site, so we have hope!