We don't need a golf ball rollback, nor do we need to length every course in America by 500 yards. We just need to design courses like Westchester, Merion and Harbor Town. Places with doglegs and tight driving areas and small greens. If the tour played these courses in a rotation for tour events there wouldn't be a winning score better than maybe 15 under par. None of these places are over 7000 yards. To return golf to the way it was before multilayer balls and titininum drivers all we need to do is change golf course design stragie.

Then what about the average golfer. It makes golf that much harder for them.

The biggest problem with golf today is the gap between good and bad players. Technology has just made that gap even wider. The Pro's and top amatures are receiving the most from the new technology. Sure its helping the regular Joe Blow hit the ball a little further on a good hit, and also giving him a bigger sweet spot, but they still suck. Doglegs and tight driving areas will just make the largest market in golf. Joe Blow, go crazy - and then I'll go crazy behind him because his 5 1/2 hour round just turned into 6 1/2 because he lost 6 extra balls or hit 11 more trees....

I understand that golf isn't what it use to be, but change isn't always bad. You still have to learn how to hit the ball, and get it in the hole - the guy that doesn't the most efficiently wins. So what if scoring averages drop down to 65 on tour? I'd much rather watch Phil and Tiger bomb them all day, stick a wedge, and shot 59, then watch the Larry in front of me hit every tree on the golf course. The game of golf has changed, so should others expectation.

Chris

Westchester is the only course that I have played that is listed above and it is very reasonable for the average golfer and when the rough isn't up its not a difficult test so you wouldn't be stuck behind Joe Smoe anyway. Thats the brillance of these courses they can be made tough and then be quickly weakend back down with slower greens and shortish rough.

No, thats the briliance of growing out the rough and not watering the greens. They do that to all the courses pros play.

Take the average golfer and put him on both a traditional golf course, and one of the new ones you speak of, and watch the difference. What makes these new age courses harder, is the precision off the tee. Anyway you cut it, every golfer needs more precision. What are most average golfers (18-22 handi) weak points? The tee, and feel around the green.. These new golf courses make one of the most common weaknesses an even bigger deal. These new courses force the pros to play smart, and average golfer doesn't have the understanding nor the discipline to do so.

Don't get me wrong, I see the pro's to these new golf courses. They make for a challenge, but can also be rewarding as well. They don't make the course harder by adding 2500 yards, or putting a few elephants in every green. I like these course much more then some of the new mickey mouse stuff thats being built.

My point is, golf is changing. I think we should just take the change and focus on getting the ball in the hole.

Chris

The reality is that the PGA likes winning scores between 12-15 under. Birdies make people watch and this is directly related to the average Joe-blow out there.

I play one of those old, traditional golf courses. Though it has a reputation for being short, it's 7,080 yards and a par 70. It's a pretty straight forward golf course in that if you keep the ball in the fairway, you'll shoot a good score.

The winning score at our course this year was -12. The rough was cut to 2 3/4 inches the Wednesday before play began. If the rough was left at the 5-7 inches that it was the weeks leading up to the tournament, I would have been surprised to see anyone get below -5 and maybe higher.

Now, I will say that there is a big difference between our course and most of the newer, more modern courses. When I travel to other courses, I find that I hit a great deal more fairways and greens. Of course, the reason is because those fairways are twice as wide as what I'm accustomed too. That said, my scores aren't necessarily lower at other courses because all courses have a way of leveling the playing field. That's why there are slope and course ratings for every course.

This is really true of both amatuers and pro's. And if you don't think that technology helps golfers all the way accross the board, you're fooling yourself. When a 60 year old man can hit a ball further now than he could at anytime earlier in his life, technology is the only answer for why.

I can't imagine how few fairways I'd hit if I was still hitting my old 6 screw persimmon Hogan instead of the 460cc titianium I have now.

I think the improved technology has also made the game easier to learn for new players which is a positive as well. The more people we have playing golf, the better it is for all of us.

My point is and I think I didn't get it across well is that if all courses were designed like the ones in the northeast like Westchester and Merion it would elimante a distance problem. It is because these course are so perfectly layed out that the scores stay responable despite their shortness.

I don't really think it matters how Joe Blow plays the course, pro tournaments ending with really low scores are the problem. You can move tees up for Jow Blow, or they can find an easier course to play, until their game is good enough to play a tour quality course.

Which makes more sense, creating a golf course for less then 1% of the golfing community (the pros), or making it for the majority?

Also, why are low tournament scores a problem? I cant even think of one - Many argue that its bad because golf isn't ment to be played this way.... Times change...

Technology has made the game enjoyable for many. I never said it didn't help everyone - but instead, I pointed out the Pros and top Ams are the ones seeing the most improvement. The larger sweetspot has really help the mid and low level golfers - but if your ball starts off in the tree's there is no driver that will bring it back into the fairway for you - the extra distance just puts it further into the trees.

Chris

Yeah, I like seeing PGA events ending at like -20. That shows that they're pros. They're good. Technology has helped the game, and some argue that it has hurt it. But golf is it's own type of sport. It requires things. Tools made from materials. Footballs haven't changed much, and if you've got a little open space you can play a pickup game. In golf you need about a 3/4 sq. mile, and all the equipment. Equipment develops with technology. That's just the way the game is changing.

I think we actually agree, though I may not have gotten that accross.

I understand your point and I'm telling you it's all about how the course is set-up. And, I'm not talking about the courses just in the NE, but anywhere. These players are good enough that if you cut the rough, keep the pins accessable, and move the tees up in places, they will shoot 10 or so under.

I just hate that so many clubs feel like they need to lengthen the golf course. I blame alot of this on Augusta as they have been the poster-child with their so-called "Tiger-Proofing" (which is one of the dumber terms I've heard the media use). But, Augusta is considered the mecca in the US and all the other clubs out there feel like they need to follow suit.