If there is no "problem", then why are good golf courses being forced to change?

I carry no brief for the kinds of courses that the PGA Tour selects, and I make no defense for what the USGA feels it must do to courses that host national championships.

But what neither one of you guys can deny is that courses are being forced to change, in response to what the golf balls do. That was true before the 2007 PGA Tour season, and it will be true for years to come. You want a "problem"? That's a problem.

But I'd like to further take you on, on the notion that there hasn't been a change in how far golf balls can go; there has just been a change in how far the balls that are used by the elites go. (You make the argument that some 'distance' balls have always been able to go as far as what Pro V1's can now do. I think you may be right.) But that does absolutely nothing to address the simple argument that the distances that elites can now produce with their gamer drivers and balls is excessive for the classic courses, absent any changes being made to those courses.

And of course that is the point that Nicklaus is making and that you both stubbornly and wrongly refuse to accept. That elites are the only group that has benefitted from the Pro V1 era. Recreational players have not benefitted. Few of them even use urethane balls. Those urethane balls are indeed better than anything that has been usable by the elites. And those benefits have been almost exclusively conferred upon those elites.

Jack is friggin' right!

BOMB responds: We're not saying there's been no change. We're saying the limit is the same. And what classic courses can we no longer play? I just can't get up in arms over a handful of courses. Sorry. I don't care if they never play a U.S. Open at Merion (even though they will). How many "classic courses" that hosted the Open from the early 1900s are still used? Part of the appeal of golf course architecture is finding the next great course. Like technology in equipment, golf course design can't stand still, either.

If you think the elites are the only ones who have benefited, you're wrong. True, most golfers do not use urethane balls. But a good 30 percent do. Tell me that 30 percent isn't better off with a urethance, solid-core ball than a wound balata sphere? Additionally, the technology knowledge gained from the design of these balls has trickled down in many instances to the lower-priced balls. Is a Bridgestone e5, Callaway HX Hot or Titleist NXT Tour better for the chopper than a Pinnacle or Top-Flite of yesteryear? You bet they are. Everyone has benefited.

Finally, I really get pretty tired of people claiming that courses for the everyday player are being lengthened to the detriment of the everyday player. For starters, I think its a myth. But feel free to prove me wrong by providing me a list of the courses not used for any sort of elite competition (that includes USGA qualifiers or State Ams or Opens) that have added more than 150 yards. I doubt there is that many. My home course is 6,000 yards, par 70. I once carried a plus-2 handicap some 25 years ago and now play off a 6. I would call myself a pretty decent everyday player. My best round in the last two years is 74. Who knows, maybe I suck. Or maybe 6,000 yards is plenty.

Besides, for any course that has been lengthened, I doubt theyve removed the tees that were already there. If a layout is too long from the back, I simply point you to the words of Pete Dye who once said to someone who complained that his courses were too long, I simply cant help you if you insist on playing from the wrong set of tees. Couldnt agree more.

Posted by Chuck May 16, 2007 1:03 PM

Bomb responds: Since it would be too much back and forth, Ive simply inserted my comments in brackets within your text. I appreciate your passion, much as I disagree with it, especially when it comes to golf courses. A great course does not have to be 7,000 yards, let alone 7,500. And it does not have to host a tour event to be great. Pine Valley, Seminole, Crystal Downs, Cypress Point, National Golf Links, Fishers Island, Pacific Dunesnone have hosted a tour event for ages, if ever, and all are under 7,000 yards. Chicago GC played at 6,782 yards for the Walker Cup and during last years PGA Championship both Phil Mickelson and Fred Funk played it and said they had an absolute blast. Its not the length thats the problem. Three of the most-talked about new courses in the last decadeBandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trailsare all under 6,800 yards. Anyway, heres your post along with my responses. Enjoy.

Bomb, you are the living proof of my argument. [Not so much, since you seem to have missed my point entirely]. You can play happily on a 6,500-yard course [Yes I canand so can you and 99.9% of golfers]. And you would do so whether or not there was a Pro V1, or any other urethane ball [not reallyas an equipment editor I try all the balls. Could I play with a non-urethane ball? Sure. But I can tell you from extensive experience using all kinds of golf balls that my game is much improved using a urethane-covered ball]. I doubt that your game or mine is changed a lot whether or not we use a Pro V1 versus a properly selected Surlyn ball. [Again, I would say that is incorrect. The average players game around the green benefits greatly from a urethane ball. And since most choppers dont hit many greens, that is a big plus]. Anyway, elite players cannot play a 6,500-yard course and have it be meaningful. Because they will hit solid-core urethane balls too far. [6,500 I will give you. But a well-designed 6,800-yard course can handle the big boys. See Harbour Town and Westchester]. You seem satisfied with a world in which new courses feel pressured to build longer and longer, and old courses feel pressured to expand and modify themselves. [NoI feel satisfied that they dont need to change anything. Its their ego that makes them change. Everyone points to the ruining of Augusta National. I ask, why did they change it in the first place? Could someone shoot four rounds in the 60s before changing it? No. It wasnt changed out of need. It was changed out of some delusional need to protect par that wasnt really there]. (Respectfully, Jack Nicklaus knows this better than almost anyone.) You also seem satisfied in a world in which, with further technological advances, places like Merion and St. Andrews could be unusable for championship play [Actually, I am fine with that. I dont care if Merion or St. Andrews hosts another major. I really am. It allows the Bethpages and Whistling Straits and Kiawahs a chance. You cant stay still forever. And not all the great old venues will go away. Some will and they will be replaced. Others will endure]. And in which an Augusta National is altered beyond recognition to retain championship play [see above]. I say again, I view that as a "problem."

I won't attempt to supply you with a list of recreational-play courses that have been altered to accommodate technological-induced distances. [You wont because you cantits a problem that only exists in peoples minds, not in reality]. I am sure there are many [if youre sure, give me the list], but I actually prefer the point that you make; that the Pro V1 era, while transforming the elite game, hasn't done much of anything to or for the recreational game [Chuck, are you blind? I made the point in my reply to you that EVERYONE has benefited. You might want to go re-read that].

And again, that is exactly the point that Nicklaus was doing his friggin' best to explain. [Yes, hes making it. As he always does. I just couldnt disagree more with the premise].

Posted by Chuck May 17, 2007 11:20 AM