"We move on."
In working through my issues as diagnosed by Brandy and Gin Bomb and Gouge over at GolfDigest.com, I went back to read their diagnosis and noticed that a rather spirited debate was taking place.
Since this stuff can only be read in small doses, let's start with Gouge's (Mike Stachura) reply to Chuck, who was pointing out that allowing significant distance increases to occur has the dreaded side effect of leading to unnecessary architectural changes.
GOUGE responds: It is unfortunate that some people like yourself continue to believe that journalistic integrity is dead. But so be it. I have no financial stake in the equipment debate. As for Mr. Tarde's statements in print, well, they are his, they are not always mine. That is the beauty of a public forum. That is the beauty and strength of our enterprise as a magazine. And the only thing I must admit is that the game must adapt. I have no impractical affinity for maintaining the relevance of venues of the past. If a great course from the past is no longer a sufficient test for the .0001 percent of the universe of golfers, that is not a tragedy. We move on. If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears. That leaves those majestic venues for the 99.9999 percent of us who can still appreciate their greatness. But thanks for your thoughts. The discourse shows the game itself still has meaning.
It's amazing what grown men will do to preseve their shopping privileges!
Apparently, whipping out the credit card to purchase new hope that's scientifically proven to not significantly help 99.9999 percent "of us," is more important to the game of golf than playing the Masters at Augusta National or the Open Championship at St. Andrews.
What makes it all so bizarre, is that even if the game were bifurcated or the ball rolled back to preserve these venues, people will still buy plenty of balls and clubs and the pro game might be a lot more fun to watch.
Monday, November 13, 2006 at 08:07 AM
Reader Comments (7)
On the other hand, these two morons are providing exactly what GD wants - attention. Who was it who said, "I don't care what they say about me, as long as they spell my name right"? Any attention is good, I guess.
I would suggest that the high road here is the best. There is no point getting into a battle of wits with unarmed men.
I, for one, shall now assume that B&G don't exist. They are clearly not golfers nor do they deserve the respect accorded to true journalists. They are side show barkers, nothing more. Pay them no attention, and they'll go away...
I had thought that I might give them a chance to step back from the notion of "shedding no tears" if elite golf were to bypass The Old Course and Augusta. Instead, they came right back and reiterated it. It is no careless mistake in a somehow heated excahnge. It is Gouge's considered opinion, apparently.
I do get his point -- he's not knocking Augusta or The Old Course, just saying that maybe competition will pass them by, as it has Prestwick or Maistone or some of the other old gems.
But come on; allow technology to bypass Augusta? Bomb and Gouge have jumped the shark...
Doubling the inanity of the argument: at least 2 of the vaunted courses (the aforementioned) he cites aren't going down without a fight. In the process of lengthening and growing and 'toughening' they're redefining their essential character. So that 'the great unwashed', no sorry, the '99.9999 percent of us' won't actually have a chance to experience their true nature. They'll be relics of two of the greatest venues in golf. Maybe analogous to too much plastic surgery.
Anyway, I don't want to quibble too much over the odd example, or the misplaced or ill-chosen word.
I really would like for Bomb and Gouge to answer a few questions, such as who is it that really supports the idea of unchecked driver distances. I can't honestly think of a soul, other than Mr. Uihlein and Brad Faxon. And then, what real benefit is there to a golf world in which Augusta would be rendered obsolete? is the presumption that ANGC would just buy Augusta Country Club next door, and create a new, composite golf course of 8,000 or 9,000 yards? What is the up-side to that tradeoff? What is golf gaining by obsoleting all of its most valuable real estate?
It is almost a relief in terms of the clarity of the argument to have someone take the position that, sure, if golf balls can be made to go far enough to make Augusta obsolete, then let it be obsolete. That, I think, is the logical extension of that very bad argument...