I suppose in many ways it boils down to how you define a better or worse game.
Geoff seems to focus on the growth of golf and the destruction of classic courses. If those are your primary criteria, it seems hard to conclude the game of golf is in good shape and has a rosy future ahead.
JakaB, on the other hand, seems to be focussing on ease of play and his own microclimate of courses. Maybe under those standards the game is doing pretty well.
For what it's worth, I took up the game 7 years ago (29 at the time). My first season's clubs were 20 year old hand me downs and I enjoyed playing with them quite a bit. Since then I've played largely with a cheap starter set I received as a Christmas present, so I guess I've always been behind the curve when it comes to purchasing technology (maybe I'm probably not the best judge, then, don't really know).
It seems to me that if you're simply looking to hit the ball farther with less practice and effort, these are indeed better times. That doesn't really equate to more fun to me. For me personally, if I were to list the ten most satisfying shots I've hit in my brief career, none of them would be 300 yard drives (and I've hit more than a couple). Of course, for Shivas,
all 10 of them would be 300+ yard drives, so he proably feels like the game's doing great today, too.
My most enjoyable rounds were also not driver-wedge rounds, either. I think that gets old, no matter how you slice it.
Playing long slog courses that I'd say are primarily the result of the desire for a "championship course" are also not tons of fun for the average golfer, IMO, especially with the concurrent championship prices.
To me, what would be best for the average golfer would be the ready availability of courses like Rustic Canyon, The Rawls Course, etc. Relatively inexpensive, interesting public layouts. The current environment of golf does not seem to be enocouraging or emphasizing this model, however. I think that's a big part of what Geoff is saying is wrong. He believes (and I agree, for the most part) that where we are now and where we are headed are largely the result of technology gone wild and the poor examples set at the highest levels of golf.
I'm kind of torn, because I'm not really someone who believes intervention fixes everything in life, sometimes you gotta just have faith the market will work things out. I think if more people built courses like RC & TRC, they'd enjoy financial success. The question is, would they have strong enough egos to laugh when "the lists" come out and their courses have been passed over by the cogniscenti in favor of the glitzy expensive long slogs with spectacular views? Probably not, but that's really more an indication of personal low self esteem than anything wrong with the game.
It's not hard for me to understand why JakaB is so happy with the state of today's game. If I played half as much as him, at a course half as nice as VN, I'd probably be a damn sight more optomistic, too.
I give Geoff a ton of credit for sticking his neck out there. He was intimately involved in building a course that is apparently very well received and very successful. He's held in high regard for his other books - for damn good reason, they are outstanding and inspiring. It'd be damn easy for him to stick his head in the ground rather than on the chopping block, but instead, I think he's looking out for guys like me, in terms of encouraging affordable, thought provoking and, most of all, FUN golf, and the members of many special places, where ill advised alterations continue to be performed.
I wonder what your opinion would be, JakaB, if you didn't have the resources for your playing situation, or if the Green Committee at VN chose to bring in someone in 5-10 years to start f-ing with the golf course and sending you the bill.
P.S. Nice post, Rich.