Hmmm, Files: Old Course, Carnoustie Course Records Fall During Alfred Dunhill Championship

There will be the usual hysteria after a record falls that something must be done and while I always find that shortsighted and slightly disrespectful to the players involved--but let the hysteria begin!

Ross Fisher had an amazing shot at 59 during the Alfred Dunhill final round over the Old Course, in spite of a glacial round pace caused in part by the pro-am format. But a last hole three-putt from the Valley of Sin left him with 61 and a new record. Victor Dubuisson was on a 59 watch a few groups ahead of Fisher, but settled for 63.

Fisher was gutted to have finished the way he did, but well aware of his accomplishment.

“But to go out and shoot a score like that, with no bogeys, I just saw the lines and was hitting good putts and they were going in and I didn’t want it to end.

“At the home of golf, I wanted to try and give that putt on the last a try for 59 and it just came up a bit shy and then unfortunately I didn’t hit a great (birdie) putt, so unfortunately had to settle for a 61 – but I would definitely have taken it.”

The Fisher scorecard:

A new course record on the oldest course in the world ✍🏻 Congratulations Ross Fisher! #DunhillLinks

A post shared by European Tour (@europeantour) on Oct 8, 2017 at 10:40am PDT

Why should we be hysterical when the distance situation at classic courses has been an issue for nearly two decades ago, with huge leaps since the governing bodies drew a line in the sand (2003)?

Because course records get attention, especially when it's the Home of Golf and especially on a course not using some of the absurd Open Championship tees employed by the R&A to mask distance leaps.

While most of us know modern course conditioning combines with today's instruction technology and brain power, should lead to records falling. And that's just fine. But couple that with players rarely hitting a long iron due to courses being overwhelmed, and these accomplishments should be warning signs that the importance of certain skills has been diminished to the point that such a record may need an asterisk.

Gary Player took to Twitter to remind us that the Old Course is pretty defenseless these days.

This comes on the heels of Tommy Fleetwood shooting 63 at Carnoustie to establish a new course record there.

Fleetwood was honored by the accomplishment, reports The Telegraph's James Corrigan.

“Carnoustie course record holder – it sounds good doesn’t it? It was a good day’s work by any standards,” Fleetwood said. “When you consider all the great players who have played here, in Opens and in this tournament, it is very special to have the lowest score ever recorded on this course. Yeah, I hit it in some places where you probably won’t be able to get able to hitting it when the Open comes back here next year, but I’m still very proud.”

The highlights from that epic round:

Erin Hills Fallout: Shinnecock Hills To Be Narrowed After Restoration Widening

In light of the recent brouhaha over player comments at TPC Boston's forced layup that caused driver-hugging players to go down another fairway, Jaime Diaz concludes for Golf World that recent distance gains are going to keep leading to more setup and design dramas. He says the big picture of recent course setup issues suggests "a day of reckoning is coming."

Much of that conclusion is based on this disheartening news out of Southampton.

Next year the U.S. Open is going to a Golden Age classic, Shinnecock Hills, artful in the extreme, but also shortish. It’s the kind of venue that is most at risk of being overrun by the modern game.

In the last few years, Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw restored the course. The fairways were widened (up to 60 yards), the greens expanded, and trees were removed. Visually, the result was spectacular, and the club’s members have loved the changes.

The USGA, too, initially sang the restoration’s praises, but recently officials have reconsidered their original setup plans at Shinnecock. The fairway width—done to create more strategic angles and options—was deemed too wide (perhaps in the wake of Erin Hills). Native fescue rough is now being planted on the edges of the fairway to narrow them back down. The course won’t be as narrow as it was when it held the championship in 1986, 1995 and 2004, but it will be narrower than what was originally planned on for 2018.

Why? Diaz concludes...

So that the art of Shinnecock can be brought out rather than overrun, the decision was made that long and crooked has to be punished.

In an odd way I wonder if such a high profile change to such a high profile course this late in the game is being implemented with the full knowledge that this reinforces the need for a variable distance ball?

Technophobic Media Is Getting Younger: Millennials Not Buying!

It's a wonderful thing, how these "technophobic" times have changed. The kids are increasingly on board!

As distances have spiked again and rumors of a bifurcation movement looming that might introduce a variable distance ball, our friends in Fairhaven have updated a talking points "stack" they've peddled for years with a summer 2017 update to their case against any kind of golf ball regulation.

(Note: in 50+ pages they never mention the millions spent to change golf courses or to pay for the issues arising from golf balls flying to places never before reached.)

But I can sit back, nurse a cold beverage and watch others do the heavy lifting on an issue that will keep coming up as long as folks keep telling us nothing's happening. Couple this with and increasingly sustainability-focused generation not buying the arguments for sitting still, and there is an air of inevitability to some sort of regulatory action.

Alex Myers at GolfDigest.com considered the driving distances of Champions Tour players this year compared to their PGA Tour averages at age 30 and of course, everyone has gotten longer as their waistlines have expanded, their backs tightened and their clubs have grown more powerful.

Kenny Perry ranks fourth on the PGA Tour Champions in 2017 at 295 yards per poke. In 1990, he had a driving-distance average of just 270.8 yards. That's not bad considering Tom Purtzer led the PGA Tour that season at 279.6 yards (for comparison, Rory McIlroy's 316.4 yards leads this season) but that equates to nearly a 9-percent increase in driving distance from the time Perry was 30 to his current average as a 57-year-old.

The increase is even bigger for Fred Couples, if we use his driving-distance average (a whopping 300.4 yards) from 2015, the last time he played enough rounds on the PGA Tour Champions to have official stats. In 1990, two years before Freddie won the Masters and ascended to No. 1 in the Official World Golf Ranking, he averaged a measly 272.6 yards on his tee shots. Of the players we looked at, Couples' 10.2-percent increase led the way. (It should be noted that the Callaway Big Bertha was launched in 1991, ushering in a new era where driver heads grew to the size of small microwaves, giving a boost to driving distance stats.)

But Alex, don't discount the two-a-day yoga sessions and bicep curls Fred has been doing following his 9 minute planks!

In the wake of last week's 341-yard clutch drive by Dustin Johnson, many revisited the question of distance and whether the sport is better when a top player can drive that far.  I support the long hitter right to his advantage but as we all know, the sport can't keep expanding venues to accommodate distance gains that are going to keep coming as we replace pre-Trackman, pre-watermelon-sized driver heads with those who have never known anything else but swinging hard.

Tron Carter, another young influencer from the only generation that matters, had some fun exchanges with Twitterers about distance. You can read those by clicking on the tweets at his profile or these two (here and here), which no doubt have earned ihs Twitter account top status on some sort of watch screen in Fairhaven.

Parsing The Issues Raised By DJ's 341-Yard Playoff Drive

I'm both disappointed and elated at the reaction to Dustin Johnson's heroic tee shot in the Northern Trust playoff win over Jordan Spieth.

Elated, because something about it has people thinking about the role of distance in the game and not feeling satisfied even when a player uses his skill to take such a risk and reap a reward.

Disappointed, because the reaction has been to blame the hole or the organizers or so even people who rail against the distance jump in golf.

Michael Bamberger filed a nice account of the day and excitement of having two top players going at it. Their contrasting styles added to the magic. Until, we saw the reaction!

Kyle Porter at CBSSports.com considered all of the issues and posted many of the outraged Tweets for those who want to catch up on the "controversy" here.

Spieth hit a six-iron into 18. Johnson had a 60-degree wedge. It was not a fair fight. Spieth made a 4. Johnson hit the most beautiful spinning, all-grace lob wedge you could imagine and it was nearly a kick-in 3. Set-up by that extra gear. Covering 300 hundred, no problem. The tee shot went 341. Ho-hum.

Spieth was more animated in defeat than Johnson was in victory. Just two totally different people. A reporter asked Johnson if he knew how wild it sounded to the ordinary golfer, that 300 yards was no problem to carry.

The winner kind of tilted his head, did a mini-shrug and said, "No. I mean, I'm used to it."

How nice, for him.

Alan Shipnuck answered reader emails and Tweets that were pretty consumed with the tee shot, though most were more receptive than some of the PGA Tour players who took to Twitter.

The key to understanding the beauty of the play, in my view, is to separate the tee shot number of 341 yards from the line taken, the shocking tracer lines and the huge advantage gained over Spieth. If you just see this as a long hitter taking a risk under pressure and reaping a reward, it's a beautiful thing. Even better is that the hole was part of the playoff and in a mini-match play situation allowed for this risk-taking.

I'm concerned how many players were suggesting a playoff hole should be chosen based on some sort of arbitrary design characteristics. No matter how you feel about the impact of distance gains, I would hope that when the day comes, we all agree that long drivers like Johnson get to continue to enjoy an advantage as long as their drives are accurately placed.

But obviously the 341 number is alarming and has been for some time. If you cut 10% off the drives of Johnson and Spieth, the options would have been different. In the case of many holes, things would be more interesting. It just so happens that in this case, the advantage gained was more significant than we're used to seeing in an era when there are few short hitters. That's an issue to take up with your governing bodies.

Bifurcation: R&A Chief Opens Door To The B-Word

After yesterday's press conference where he acknowledged movements in driving distance averages, R&A Chief Executive Martin Slumbers opened the door to rules bifurcation. Slumbers seems to see the wisdom in letting average golfers enjoy the benefits of technology while making changes to maintain skill in the elite game.

Alex Miceli at MorningRead.com reports:

“When we look at all the options we’ve got, it [bifurcation] will have to be one of the options we look at,” Slumbers said. “Whether that’s the right thing to do, who knows the answer. Up to date, we have had a view of one set of playing rules, one set of equipment rules, and I think that served our game extremely well, but we must make sure we get the skill and technology right, as a balance for the good of the overall game.”

Even considering another set of rules for the elite game is a milestone moment for the R&A. The organization has resisted such a concept, even when the notion was suggested to deal with anchoring.

Couple this with the USGA's Mike Davis suggesting a variable distance ball concept as a possibility and we appear to be on the road to bifurcation.

R&A Chief Concedes "Movements" Seen In '17 Driving Distance

Nice to ask a distance question and not get the usual suggestion that things have leveled off, but maybe R&A Chief Martin Slumbers knew after this year's U.S. Open's driving distances that such a stance would not fly.

From today's R&A press conference at the 146th Open Championship.

Q. Several of the players have noted that they are hitting very few drivers. Some players may not even have driver in their bag. In the context of the statement of principles from 2003 regarding skill, does it concern you that that club is not a factor this week because of the distance the players hit the ball?

MARTIN SLUMBERS: Well, you can look at it two ways, the golf course is set up 17 yards shorter than it was played in '08. The great thing about links golf, as many of you know, if you're as much an aficionado of this game as I am, course management is one of the most important things about links golf. It's pretty firm out there. It's running hard. The rough, if you run out in the wrong direction, can be pretty penal. And certainly the conversations I've had with players is that they are really enjoying the challenge of trying to work at how to get the ball in the right place. And at times that will lead them to hit irons as against drivers or woods. I think Phil was talking yesterday about maybe not putting a driver in the bag, and I think we'll see quite a few irons, especially if the wind stays in the quadrant that it's in in the moment.

The broader question on distance that you raise is we are very -- I spend a lot of my time and the R&A's time looking at distance. We are very focused on setting it up in two ways, one is around transparency, which is what we did two years ago - started to take the PGA data and take the European Tour data, put it together and publish that. Some people don't like that. Others say it's great to have the numbers.

The second thing that I'm looking at and spend probably as much time doing it is this balance between skill and technology, and whether how much the technology and skill, are they in balance, is it good for the recreational game? Is it the same for the elite game? And those two issues are what we are looking at at the moment. And if you look at the data over the last 18 months, we are seeing this year movements, only halfway through the year. We will take a full look at the end of the year, and then come back and make sure we analyse and think about it very carefully.

R&A Turning Fairway Into OB Zone Highlights Distance Issues

Here's the notice to competitors:

I opine for Golfweek.com on the many issues surrounding the bizarre idea of turning the 10th hole fairway grass into out-of-bounds. Yes the safety issue was legitimate. But the concept that anyone would think of playing down another fairway to avoid their own speaks to how narrow the course is.

This also summarizes a number of other issues including the overall lack of appetite to hit driver this week, as best summarized by Phil Mickelson's plans.

"U.S. Open [Tennis]: Why not all tennis balls are alike"

Thanks to reader PABoy for this fascinating look at small differences in the men’s and women’s tennis balls used at the U.S. Open. Longtime readers know I've felt golf could learn from tennis having different ball specs at Grand Slam stops designed to keep the different playing surfaces relevant.

Joseph Hall and Wendy Gillis explain, however, that experts within the tennis world see major differences in ball felt

Eugene Lapierre, director of the Rogers Cup tournament in Montreal, says it’s standard practice to use more felt when the men are in town and less with the women, who alternate between his city and Toronto each year.

Lapierre says men at Rogers use a ball manufactured by Penn when they’re in Montreal and Toronto because it’s part of an endorsement deal on their circuit. Women use a Wilson ball, he says, to get them ready for the U.S. Open, which typically follows hard on the heels of the Rogers event.

While Lapierre says his tournament simply employs the balls they’re told to use, it’s his understanding that the women’s version is made for clay courts to help speed up the game on that slower surface.

The full story is worth a read because on top of the insights gleaned for a tennis fan, the imagination can easily see how this concept support the idea of a variable distance ball for competition or the sexes.

Not Many Stepping Forward To Support Green Reading Books

The rules community may have the backing of top players should they target the new green-reading books.

Rex Hoggard reports from the Wells Fargo Championship on comments from Adam Scott and Lucas Glover.

“I think probably we should ban the book,” Adam Scott said. “If they feel that reading the green needs to be more of an art and it's an advantage to a player who's a creative, great green reader, then I wouldn't have a problem with that.”

Glover also took the position that putting artistry is being undermined.

“It’s more the powers that be see it as a possibility of losing the art of the game. It’s just like judging the wind or reading a lie, there’s got to be art to it. Science has already taken over enough.”

I'm still not understanding the passion for protecting artistry as the proposed new rules usher in rangefinders suggest the rules community is targeting these books selectively.

As I wrote for Golfweek, this screams of a pace issue more than a skill issue.

If you haven't seen the materials in question, Tripp Isenhour did a nice job showing what they look like and the benefits some players seen in them. Note the portion where he explains the specialized data that incorporates that days' hole location.

In advance of the Players, Justin Leonard shared this story on the Golf Channel conference call in support of banning the books.

JUSTIN LEONARD: I played last week at the Texas Open, and Steve Hulka was caddying for me, and he had one of those books with, you know, the arrows and everything. I looked at it twice and I couldn't -- it was too much information for me.

I think the reason they are looking at it -- and I'll tell you that I had a putt on Friday on No. 9 to make the cut, about a 25-footer. And Steve told me what the book said, and it did exactly what it said.

Q. Did you make it?

JUSTIN LEONARD: I made the putt. Absolutely I made it. Of course I did. I made the cut and played on the weekend.

But that being said, I think to me, it's a slow-play issue. It takes too much time. It takes the feel away from the game. I know we're in a time where technology plays such a role in all sports, and it's certainly playing a role in golf with TrackMan and everything.

But I think that there's also a – there needs to be a feel and guys using instincts and using past experience, charting putts and things like that from years past. Practice rounds are important.

I'm not a fan of these greens books. I think they slow down play and they take away a player's natural ability and need to feel and see what's going on on the golf course.

Golf Is Finally Blaming Technology...For Something

As Rex Hoggard at GolfChannel.com notes, a sport trying to modernize is suddenly acknowledging that technology might have taken things too far. But not with 340 yard drives that force the scale of the game to become bloated.

No, it's with replay and HD TV. As Hoggard notes, every other sport (for better or worse) is determined to get calls right using technology, but with this week's Lexi Decision, golf is headed backwards:

The rule makers are blazing new paths in what has been billed as a “modernization” of the Rules of Golf, but this new decision – which is entitled “limitations on use of video evidence” – feels like a step in the wrong direction.

No one is pleased with the the Thompson situation – neither the outcome nor that it took some 20 hours to unfold – and the desire to avoid similar incidents in the future is understandable, but sports have rules that must be applied no matter how much technology is needed to assure the proper outcome.

Yes, the "naked eye" test rolled out by the USGA and R&A appears to be the right thing to do. However, I'm pretty sure players whose "reasonable judgement" is relied upon over video evidence could leave them subject to integrity questions. Social media could gang up and tarnish reputations if the footage shows player judgement was possibly mistaken.

John Feinstein and I kicked around the issues on Golf Central this week:

Roundup: Polls And Promo Codes

I've been putting you all to work and really appreciate the feedback. For your efforts, I hope you've been able to enjoy the 20% off offer from Criquet, who surprised us on ShackHouse with a nice offer.

Or from Athlete's Collective, who are giving site readers a great deal (promo code: SHACK) on their Conway 1/4 zips in heather grey and a very Masters-friendly heather green. At $34 a piece they're a bargain, but for $60 in the 2-pack bundle, a true steal.

I believe we have detected a theme in the recent polling: distance in the pro game is very much on your minds.

Regarding the variable distance ball concept I discussed here, 60% of you are very much in favor of its introduction as well as seeing it make a Masters appearance.

This is in line with your views after the WGC Match Play when distance was on many minds.

Finally, on match play's renaissance that I wrote about for Golfweek, I was floored to see so many wanting the PGA Championship to return to match play. A majority 39% of you wanted to see a return of the PGA Championship to match play, with traditional stroke play/knockout just edging a best ball match play.

Thanks as always for supporting the polls and the sponsors!

Video And Poll: The Variable Distance Ball

In the coming months I'm going to start rolling out "Eye On Design" videos focusing on various design elements in golf that either interest me or need to be reconsidered. While it's not sexy to kick off with the "variable distance" ball topic, we might as well try to wrap our heads around what I anticipate will be a lively debate centered around golf course design.

To set this complicated topic up, here are my thoughts presented in digital video form. I flesh a few more thoughts out to (hopefully) better inform your votes...

For us technophobic, distance RIPer's, things have come a long way over the last decade. Just look at your reaction to the WGC Dell Match Play last week where we saw epic driving distances on fairways playing at a nice, normal firmness.

A consensus of serious golfers see that distance increases for elite players have altered the brilliance and safety of our best-designed courses. This combination of improved technology, blatant outsmarting by manufacturers and a host of other elements like Trackman and instruction, have forced the governing bodies to defend expensive and offensive alterations to works of art.

No other sport pats itself on the back more than golf for upholding its traditions and integrity. Yet no the other sport has sold its soul to protect a relationship between participation and the equipment professionals play. A relationship, which I might add, will continue even after a bifurcation of the rules.

Fast forward 22 years and the amazing synergy of athleticism, fitting, instruction and technology has produced super-human driving distances for decent golfers on up to the best. No other sport on the planet has tolerated such a dramatic change in short time, so should we see 10% taken off the modern driving distance average of an elite golfer--at certain courses and events--the sky will not fall. The players who use such a ball would restore the strategy and intrigue of most golf courses built before 1995. (That was the year, not coincidentally, when things started to change.)

Several solutions that do not fundamentally alter the sport have been offered endlessly. They've also been resisted even as the game has not grown during a technology boom that has seen golfers offered the best made and engineered equipment in the game's history. Solutions such as reducing the size of the driver head for professionals and tournament-specific golf balls have not been welcomed or even tried.

The growing sense that a first step solution is on the way arrived when the USGA’s Mike Davis suggested at the recent Innovation Symposium that a “variable distance” ball could be an alternative for select courses and select social situations.

From Mike Stachura’s Golf World report, quoting Davis:

“We don’t foresee any need to do a mandatory rollback of distance. We just don’t see it. But that’s different than saying if somebody comes to us and says I want an experience that doesn’t take as long or use as much land, can we allow for equipment to do that?”

As we know, the proposed rules of golf re-write emphasizes speeding up the game and everyone knows adding new back tees has never helped on this front. For the first time, elite golfers are suggesting they see the correlation between distance and new tees, but are also tired of walking back to such tees on golf courses where the flow of the round is fundamentally altered. 

Beyond the pace and silliness of it all, all indications suggest the USGA and R&A have also developed ways for the handicap system to address a variable distance ball that could be used in select circumstances.

Perhaps it's a club championship and is employed in lieu of extra rough or greens Stimping 13 feet. Or it's an invitational tournament played from tees other than the back. Or maybe there are golf courses experiencing pace of safety issues that will require golfers use such a ball?

On the social side, I expect the case to be made for golfers of different levels playing the same tees thanks to the variable distance ball,  Since Davis’s remarks, I have been surprised how many golfers have told me this would make their Saturday foursomes a more cohesive affair, with everyone playing the same tees and the short hitters not frightened by getting fewer shots from a scratch golfer using a shorter flying ball.

Most of all, such a ball on certain courses would return certain skills (hitting a long iron approach?) and end decades of pretending golf does not have an integrity problem.

I point all of this out because Davis’s remarks were no accident. Whether anyone likes it or not, this ball is coming. The variable ball will not be forced, just another way to play the game. The British ball did not break the sport and neither will this option. Because that's all it is, an option. Given that The Masters arrives next week featuring long fairway grain mown toward the tee to prevent roll, I believe the variable distance ball will again be on the minds of all watching.

With that in mind, your votes, please!

Question 1:

Is golf ready to add a variable distance ball?

Yes, it's time

No, it'll never be used

Maybe, depends on the rollout, quality

 

pollcode.com free polls

Question 2:

Should The Masters adopt a variable distance ball instead of adding more length to the course?

Yes

No

 

pollcode.com free polls

More Pros Embracing Variable Distance Golf Ball Idea

A few years ago if GolfChannel.com's Will Gray had surveyed PGA Tour players about something like the USGA's variable distance ball suggestion, the good soldiers would have all demanded that people pay to see them hit it as far as possible.

Of course we know that (A) most people only pay money to see a handful of players and (B) most of those paying people couldn't tell the difference between a 290 yard drive a 325 yard one.

But good news, instead of reciting talking points of manufacturers, the idea of a golf balls to suit surfaces makes sense to players who have seen what the folks in tennis have done to better suit their implements to surfaces and athletes.

Charl Schwartzel views Davis’ idea as an added opportunity to help pace of play if new tees built well beyond the course’s original design no longer have to be used.

“Now you have to walk 150 yards back and then walk this way, so you’re walking 300 yards and you’re still at the same place,” Schwartzel said. “If you can make the balls and clubs go shorter, and you can play the old courses, then the game will be 3 ½ hours again. It’s simple. But you’ve got to walk so far, how are you going to play quick? It’s impossible to play quick.”

He keeps talking like that I might even forget he killed an elephant!

After Jamie Lovemark is quoted saying folks pay to see the long ball, Augusta National comes up (as it's known to do in these discussions).

“I think if the USGA or R&A try to do it, there might be a lot of players kicking and screaming,” he said. “Somehow when it happens at Augusta, there’s a slightly different respect level there. Not sure why, it’s just something special about Augusta.”

And even better was this:

“Something’s got to happen,” McDowell said. “We’re starting to lose the integrity of some of the most beautiful courses in the world. They’re becoming outdated, which is just a little scary, really.”

Yang On AR, Other Ways Tech Start-Ups May Change Golf

While we hope the folks in Silicon Valley emphasize world-changing advancements over helping golfers, it's fun to read some of the augmented reality ideas and other concepts that ex-Yahoo CEO and start-up investor Jerry Yang sees potentially impacting the game.

From Mike Stachura's report at the USGA Innovation Symposium in Vancouver:

“If you look at the categories of things that are coming across our investment activities and how people are understanding their bodies, every element of that is applicable to golf,” he said. “Measuring brain waves, measuring all the body metrics and understanding those things, I think is all very interesting.”

Yang imagines a near future where laser-rangefinder technology is incorporated in your sunglasses, where a golf simulator in your garage “will let you play St. Andrews in a way that really feels like St. Andrews.”

But Yang thinks that sort of development is only a start. He talked about a coming “smart ball” technology that would track every shot and its launch conditions, direction and distance. He also suggested that the kind of “haptic suits” designed to help the disabled walk could “be the same suit that can make you become a super person where you can literally swing like Dustin Johnson if you wanted to.”

Or were able to. Nonetheless, keeping dreaming big. If nothing else it's fun to read about. After all, it's not our money!

USGA Head Floats Idea Of "Variable Distance" Ball

Just skip past the part where we hear about how this distance thing is cornered and flatlining for 15 years now. After all, if this belief makes them do the right thing, the game's governors are entitled to their always-correct opinions!

GolfDigest.com's Mike Stachura reports USGA Executive Director Mike Davis' suggestion at the USGA's Innovation Symposium that no rollback is happening, but there is a place for a rolled back ball that allows Dustin Johnson's to enjoy the Myopia Hunt Club's of the world.

The key line:

“We don’t foresee any need to do a mandatory rollback of distance. We just don’t see it. But that’s different than saying if somebody comes to us and says I want an experience that doesn’t take as long or use as much land, can we allow for equipment to do that?”

Yes!

Davis continued in what I would dare say are by far the most provocative comments from a governing body officer (in office, of course the late, great Frank Hannigan was long outspoken on this topic).

“Anybody is hard-pressed to say that as distance has increased in the last 100 years that that’s been good for the game,” he said. “We all want to hit the ball farther. We get that. But distance is all relative. When you think about the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent to change golf courses, and you say, Has that been good for the game?

“Is the fact that Shinnecock Hills went from 5,500 yards to 7,500 yards, what has that done good for the game? It’s increased the expenses to maintain it. It’s cost us time to walk an extra 2,000 yards. So you have to say, What has that actually done?”

Davis later even suggested golf was alone among all sports because of the way its equipment has dictated its playing field.

I feel like I have read about this classic course ball thing in a book somewhere, say, about 14 years ago it seems if memory serves. And I know PING's John Solheim has offered a proposal on this, but it sure sounds like we are headed (finally) for having a ball suited to designs of a certain vintage.

The only mystery remains, why hasn't a company gotten out of front to be the first to corner the vintage course market where purists buy golf balls too?

Anyone, anyone? How about rollback advocate Jack Nickaus, who has a golf ball line? Nope. How about Solheim's PING? Any prototypes brought to the market? Nope.

One would think this lack of urgency within companies might change given this last comment from Davis:

Would one of those options include bringing the best players in the world to a course like Myopia Hunt Club for a U.S. Open in the future with a reduced-distance ball?

“We haven’t talked about that,” Davis told GolfDigest.com, “but if we were closed-minded to that, shame on us.”