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 If Winged Foot, Augusta National and even the Old Course get left behind as outdated and irrelevant for championship golf, I cry no tears.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.