A - who cares if the top 0.01% lose out?
B - he’s not carrying it more than 290 so that’s where the hazards need to be, which does offer value down the handicap scale.
If I were at the top .01 % I would care
and there are plenty of athletic people not in the top .01% who hit it similar distances.
Just a shame that so many classics bear no resemblance to the scale they were designed for.
That's not saying golf is too easy(for anybody), just that "original architectural intent" is a fairy tale when an athletic golfer is hitting SW to a 450 yard hole that once was driver 3, iron
In the real curmudgeon department, most recently I've decided that the three point shot has ruined basketball.
Initially, it opened up the game and kept unathletic teams from playing packed zones,(though I would argue that a well coached zone defense is a thing of beauty) but now players are so
skilled (great shooters) that there's no real reason to shoot anything but 3's or gimme layups. 3 pointers are like full wedges-they're easier than an athletic touch jumper from 12 feet.(unless you're in position to use the backboard)
I'm seeing this even at the high school level.
Coaches have figured out that shooting 33% from a full wedge 3 range with less defense is far easier than shooting 50% from anywhere else especially factoring in the extra passes could be a turnover.
and kids have adapted by practicing and getting very good at that distance.
and teamwork is just about out the window.
You almost never see great post up moves now-other than to kick it right back out
Get rid of the three point reward and let's see who has the courage to Pistol Pete it from 35 feet when the reward was equal to a layup-but devastating to the opponent.