"Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks."
/The Belly and Groove Bomb and Gouge boys are still at it, arguing with Chuck about their lack of concern for throwing St. Andrews and Augusta out to the trash heap so that grown men can shop unencumbered by regulation.
From Gouge:
The game advances and we deal with it. Augusta of 41 years ago would not be a test for today's players. Well, we don't exactly know that, but let's assume that it wouldn't be a test. Big deal. It's changed to become more of a test.
I always would love to hear people argue that Augusta has "become more of a test" since the recent changes. Besides the fact it is now one-dimensional off the tee with defined fairways, I wonder if they would say this to the faces of Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Nicklaus, Palmer and Player. Or even Ballesteros, Faldo, Crenshaw and Langer. Because the insinuation is that without rough it wasn't a full test and that somehow, those old Masters are tainted.
Here's another howler:
Elite players are not afraid of distance advances. None of them are campaigning for rollbacks.
Actually, that's just simply not true. As this list attests.
The USGA has also studied the new drivers vs. the old drivers. Misses three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face travel almost 20 percent farther than they did off a mid-1990s driver. Now, in none of those cases is that distance harming the game (nor does it harm the game at the elite level, as you can't win tournaments hitting it three-quarters of an inch off the center of the face), but taking it away would remove some of that potential for someone actually getting around a golf course. You would take that away all in the name of preserving some tedious anachronism. Good job.
Today's drivers allow for someone to "actually" get around a golf course.
It's a wonder the game survived before today's equipment saved it!
For more of these profound musings go here, here, here and for my original low self-esteem diagnosis, here.
