The landscape

Frank Thomas wrote an interesting article a while back in the NY Times. http://www.franklygolf.com/nyt_april06.asp

The article suggests ways overcome the longer distances that the balls are travelling.  Oddly enough he suggests that it is better to leave the balls where they are and address the issue from a variety of other angles (I  suggest reading the article in its entirety, follow the link above.)

But I find this to be a strange series of proposals.  Let me set the scenario.  25 years ago, I went to a 400 yd par 4, where a 250 yd drive and a 7 iron to the green.  This, I assume was the design of the golf architect.  Now I can attack that hole with a 290 yd drive and a sand/attack wedge.  Obviously, to maintain the integrity of the course, the golf course architect needs to extend the course 40 yds, so that the hole will play the way he envisioned it.  The fundamental question is,”Why should we change the course to accomodate the ball manufacturers?”  But I think there is another issue as well, most of these pundits claim that the so-called “average” golfer does not benefit from this advanced ball technology.  If that is the case, then why bother having it there at all?  If it is a sales and marketing ploy, then who cares? Let us bring the game back to all the beautiful golf courses and NOT have to re-work golf courses because of the manufacturers.

LA

November 2, 2006. Golf. 1 comment.

The Ball flies too far !

I will be addressing this issue over the next few posts.

October 26, 2006. Golf. Leave a comment.