But you yourself are happy to play with the advancements made up until you decided to draw your line in the sand.
Golf was being played long, long, long before 1940 yet this is when your golden age began and it ended in 1990 according to you. You play with advancements that became available to manufacturers after WWII without any problems at all, surely your own argument defeats you?
Another thing I don’t subsribe to is the notion that golf tournaments today are boring. Anyone who watched the final round of the chevron and didn’t find it exciting needs checked for a pulse. Ditto the final day of this years Ryder Cup.
There are always going to be events that aren’t as eciting as others but for that I blame over exposure by television rather than the tournaments of yesteryear being so much more gripping in comparison.
At least these days there are more winners. If we look at the pre and post war domination by Nelson, Snead and Hogan, hardly anyone else ever won a tournament. How exciting could it be to go see a tournament when you knew one of three people would more than likely win the thing?
For the fifteen millionth time…it’s not that a FLW is a poor idea, it is instead how that condition is obtained within hitting.
[b]Creationism or Evolution[/b]
Such an odd paradox don’t 'ya think Styles…but I like the idea of talking to the"creationists" over @ LBG…but those guys would be checkmated in about 6 posts 
RR
And where’s the fun in that?
That was very clear! I guess it’s safe to say that one can choose any year to draw a line in the sand…or choose not to draw a line in the sand at all.
Surely the line in the sand should have been drawn as soon as the equipment started to affect the golf courses. The course I grew up playing on is a perfect example. Fairly well established, 5800 yards par 71 tight and tricky with the smallest greens I have ever seen. Course record is only 5 under. The county re-assessed the standard scratch a few years ago after the club added about 20 bunkers and some ponds and it was reduced from 69 to 68, they were hopping it would go up. So now guys who were 3 or 4 hcps are now playing off 6, the club champ for about the last 15 years now plays off 2, he gets back down to scratch by playing in county events. And all of this because of the inability to add length of the course cause there is nowhere for the tee boxes to go any further back. The upshot is that pretty much all of the long term members have left to keep their handicaps elsewhere, memberships are down and frankly the club is on its arse. I go there now and don’t hardly recognize anyone. Its a real shame to see the club in this state.
Styles,
It would make more sense to play hickories and featheries than to obsolete golf courses built in the 1920’s on some of the most pristine pieces of historic real estate that will never again be financially feasible to undertake golf course construction.
It would be easier to move the tees up than to be forced to move tees back, and many courses simply can’t, there just isn’t the room.
Hickory simply was not sustainable from a supply and demand standpoint. However, you can’t say that about steel shafts.
The move forcing the game into longer courses screams conspiracy from tee to green. Longer wider layouts force new courses to be built. They cost more to maintain and use more water. They slow down play. The properties tend to be way out of town which increases travel time and increases commuting costs. The land itself is usually the cheapest parcel the developers can find, rather than the most suitable for an interesting layout. Golf courses over here are built for one reason, to sell home lots. And the bigger the course, the more lots to sell. It has nothing to do with golf.
I don’t know if they have been golf course construction crazy in Ireland, but over here, if I see another 7200 yard flat golf course with ski moguls down each side of the fairway, and water surrounded by railroad ties I’d rather save the green fee for a lift ticket.
I know you love the technology, but what is the argument for leaving it unchecked?
So the R&A were again the villains allowing the ‘revolution in future club design’.
I throw your question back at you Lag - why are you happy to play with some advances in equipment but frown on advancements for others?
as a point of order, the game of golf evolved from the “cheapest parcel the developers [could] find”
Linksland was considered useless for crop growing and was mostly used for roaming sheep (the scrapes they made to shelter from wind became the first bunkers).
I’ve never heard of a golf course that was built because the land was the most expensive!
Of course most courses were outside the city, originally they were on linksland.
300 acres of coastal property surely is cheaper than a rock pile out in the desert. Agreed, you make a good point. 
The points I have made are about protecting the relevance of great historical courses in premier locations, and keeping par as a fine standard of excellent golfsmanship.
Golf is a game, and any game is defined by it’s parameters. It’s the parameters that make a game what it is.
Again…
What is the argument for leaving technology unchecked in golf?
The “answer a question with a question”… let’s save that tactic for the politicians. 
I’m sure there were cheaper parcels to build a golf course than Bandon Dunes. And no houses lining the fairways either…
so now you have heard of it. 
You ask me “What is the argument for leaving technology unchecked in golf?”, of course the question is best answered with a poll of those who play it, not me alone. You have suggested some pretty far out ideas including blue tooth and satellites, if you have any of those in production, it’d be interesting to see how they work, if you don’t have them in production you can be pretty sure no one else does either! 
You feelthat technology should have been held in check from 1990 - I disagree. Thats not to say that I won’t reach a point when I do feel enough is enough. At that point much as you have done, I will pitch my tent and shout that Golf became a poorer game when…
…until then I am very happy playing both modern and old gear (just as the vast majority on this site do) as I please. You stay stuck in the 20th Century, not me 
with regards Bandon Of course you knew I was talking about original courses but lets gloss over that right? 
You do make my point for me though because 300 years ago the notion of building a course in the desert was the dreams of fools. Now you look at the courses in the middle east and stand in awe of what they have produced from the desert.
As I’ve stated, around the time flat caps came into fashion you decided that golf reached its zenith. Its pretty normal for people to feel ‘their era was best’ but as I’ve said, Bobby Jones was shooting par with hickories 20 years earlier. You feel that it was steel shafts that ushered in the greatest era of the game but I would argue that golf would have been a far more interesting spectacle watching Young and Old Tom playing The Old Course in the 1860s. Compared to playing with steel, hickories with gutta percha must have been almost a different game and yet Young Tom shot a course record at The Old Course which stood for 20 years 
Once Persimmon and steel came along of course the Old Course record was bested easily. The game was made easier. No doubt there were people who decried the changes (they are still going strong in the Hickory Golf Society and they would hate your steel shafted monstrosities ) however the majority of golfers just humoured them, got on with the game and let the eccentrics have their own little games on their own.
How about Pinehurst #2?
Pinehurst #2 is a historic course built in 1901 by the great Donald Ross. The #2 course has been host to numerous championships including the U.S Amateur, the PGA Championship, multiple U.S. Opens, Ryder Cup, etc., and will be host once again to the U.S. Open and the U.S. Women’s Open in 2014.
Pinehurst #2 originally had square sand greens, then later oiled-down sand greens. Only in 1935 were the oiled-down sand greens converted to bermuda grass. ( upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … t_1901.png )
The #2 course had wide fairways in the early years, nearly “double” what they have been in the modern era. ( pinehurst.com/images/vintage1_large.jpg )
This 100+ year-old course remains one of the great courses in the world. ( caddybytes.com/virtualtours/ … 4_12th.jpg )
But isn’t this the notion that the best players should win?
The best golfers shone through previously when there was an actual art to playing the game.
Now we have guys who just arm slap at the ball, with little control, armed with weapons that disguise mishits, and whomever gets hot with the putter wins.
It has become a one dimensional game… in that long off the tee but anywhere you want to hit it works and putt the spots off and you get given a big cheque with lots of 000’s on the end of it
Golf should really be about the artistry of hitting the ball. The playing field for all has been leveled…because the absolute golfers have difficulty separating themselves from the pack now because crap shots are rewarded by the equipment and poor shots aren’t penalized because of the wide open courses we now have in play and your not so good a player is competitive (I am talking pro ranks) because his mishits are welcomed in today’s world of golf…
If equipment was based on skill alone then I am punting that you would have again the same 3-6 guys, (such as you pointed out with Hogan, Snead & Nelson) who would also win the majority of the events they played in because the odds would be back in their favour.
The game has been dumbed down to give the dumb a chance
You said it Styles, and when the dreams of fools come true, we end up with some foolish things. If you’re standing in awe at what they’re doing with golf courses in the middle east while people die everyday of starvation and dehydration, then so be it. I’ll stick with my disgust. One of the main issues with these monstrosities is that they’re not sustainable financially or environmentally- that may not be directly attributable to technology in the game, but it’s connected. It also depends on how far down the road you’re looking.
One of the great things about seasonal golf on basic golf courses is that the course changes during the year and you get to play a lot of different types of golf as the seasons dictate. When a course is constantly watered and fertilized it becomes an environmental hazard, as well as a bad golf course. They destroyed Royal Dublin in the 90’s by doing that, it ended up playing like a parkland course. Maybe it’s better now, I don’t know.
I can see both sides of the argument, though I’m not even sure what the argument is anymore 
Things change and life goes on, but technological progress in anything isn’t always better. There are some people spending a lot of money to shape perspectives, and then making a lot of money from those perspectives. It’s important to keep your eyes open for these things.
Nest up for discussion: vanilla or chocolate- two choices, what’s the best flavoured ice cream, and we’re not leaving until everyone agrees.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Isn’t it funny how some of the best golfers weren’t neccessarily the best shotmakers, the most accurate, or the longest…but instead were great at playing out of trouble (e.g. Seve Ballesteros) or putting (e.g. Ben Crenshaw). Isn’t it also odd that the most accurate players (e.g. Calvin Peete) don’t win all that often.
Some courses favor longer hitters, some favor accuracy, some favor being able to putt on marble slick greens that look like swells in the ocean. Grow the rough up, narrow the fairways, mow the greens down to 14 on the stimpmeter, tuck half the pins and put the other half on slopes or the edge of shelves… Make it however tricked-up you want it. Ummm, back in-the-day the fairways were much wider and the greens were pathetically slow and bumpy. Maybe they didn’t care about accuracy off the tee or putting abilities. Gene Sarazen and Ben Hogan, along with others, tried to get the size of the cup made larger because they felt putting was being over-rewarded compared to the long-game. There has, and probably aways will be, people that want to change things. Some want to move forward, some want to stop things as-is, and some want things back the way they were long ago.
Anyone know how the King feels about technology advancements?
I’m just glad I don’t have to worry about heat and humidity with hickory shafts and persimmon clubheads. I’m glad I don’t have to putt on oiled-down sand greens…or putt on grass greens that look like shag carpet. I’m glad I don’t have to worry about the seams on a feathery golf ball coming apart and seeing feathers flying at impact. I’m glad I don’t have to chip over somebody’s golf ball because marking a ball is not permitted. I’m glad I don’t have to play with clubs that are imbalanced from B# to G# like a set that Bobby Jones had. I’m glad I don’t have to tee the ball on a pile of sand. Moving into the 1960s thru 1980s where some want the line in the sand drawn - I’m glad courses are beautifully manicured and irrigated, with smooth greens to putt on. I’m glad the clubs are better balanced. I’m glad…you get the point! The advancements are enormous…and if they weren’t good then play would have declined, which didn’t happen because golf greatly increased in popularity. And also aren’t we glad that most everyone has a computer so they can reap the benefits of all it offers to golfers? Draw a line in the sand? Nope, not me. That’s what third-world dictators do… I have fond memories of days gone by, but give me today and tomorrow, and I’ll try to keep up. If one can’t keep up - they fall behind.
I think this discussion is more philosophical than about a particular sport. Its the same as going at the forest for logging; to the deep sea for oil etc etc. Its man against nature mentality. As the old man par has no voice the majority is quite happy to go at him as hard as they can. I keep bringing the example of cricket. Why the Oringinal form of Test cricket has maintained its integrity. Because there are bowlers and batsmen. Would the bowlers allow a titanium cricket bat?? No way. Will the batsmen allow each bowler to select their own ball (which can spin and swing to their strength); No way. For the alternative form of cricket (One days); they use a white ball which is the same in every other aspect but the paint is white instead of brown. The bowlers keep whining just about that. They think a ball painted white instead of brown gives the batsmen an advantage.
So thats why cricket has maintained its tradition; they dont allow test cricket under lights although most stadia have them installed for other forms of cricket. Its because there are stackholders on both sides. As opposed to that old par man has no voice. so we get him with vengance. Its the same mind set from crop selection to indiscriminate logging to deep sea drilling to the Everglades… Man against the voiceless..
