Eric, This shouldn't devolve to a series of individual attacks although it seems that is where you tend to end up in a number of threads. Let me make it clear. I conceded that I misstated to the extent that I suggested that there were no regulations although one might concede that a meaningless or ineffective regulation is tantamount to no regulation at all. If you would like to engage in a discussion of legal matters, i invite you to enroll in my Professional Responsibility, Trial Advocacy Courses or Bankruptcy Law classes which take up the bulk of my time as I wind down my active practice. I generally leave golf instruction to PGA pros like you. But I understand the position that underscores all of your arguments. You think the game is fine as it is and attribute the increased distance to bigger and better players utilizing better equipment and benefiting from better instruction. I will concede that fields are deeper and that good instruction is more readily available. I have also observed the differences in equipment and conditioning. We simply disagree that the game, at the highest levels, is as interesting as it was when even the best players were required to hit a greater variety of shots largely because the ball did not go as far and straight. I do not believe that among the very best players, the current crop is more powerful in any meaningful way than prior generations. Certainly the fact that middle of the road players hit it as long as or longer than the longest players of only 30 or 40 years ago suggests that there is more at work here than mere improvements in technique or conditioning. Accordingly, classic tests have become less relevant absent "tricked up" conditioning or extreme weather conditions. A case in point was today's tourney at Pebble where high winds and firm greens made scoring difficult. It was interesting to see players struggle to hit long irons on holes where they usually hit short or mid irons. Incidentally, I agree that the new equipment hasn't changed the way regular players interact with classic courses in any material way. So the discussion is centered not only on how better players are impacted by the regulatory bodies inability to effectively restrict distance (is that better?) but the impact it has on other aspects of the game. Because, notwithstanding your protestations and counter anecdotal evidence, clubs that want to be viewed as "championship caliber", watch the tours and emulate the courses built or expanded to try and contain the pros. Ask the architects on this board how many clients voice these sentiments. Some of our friends like Tom Doak generally resist or are hired by enlightened owners but too many are not and the ensuing impact on costs, speed of play etc. follow. But please understand, many of us get it. You don't think there is a problem and you don't think that it is having a significant deleterious impact on architecture. We just disagree.