that is 2:09 of 100% truth
Rors

I think the point is to increase/sustain play on existing courses, not make them obsolete. What you advocate will eventually lead to losses of revenue and eventually abandonment of courses that were perfectly fine. You will then get overcrowding of courses that can expand, along with a decline in access to courses because those that can expand are likely in rural areas where cost of land acquisition is not prohibitive. With fewer courses, cost to play will increase, with a likely effect of discouraging play and reducing popularity of the game. Land is an asset that does not grow in size, and needs to be managed as such.

Golf was meant to be a game of recreation, competing with friends and enjoying the outdoors. I don't think we should lose sight of that. Tournament competition follows from popularity of the game. There will be competition regardless of how equipment is regulated. It's always been that way.

and i think Rory's response in campfire's post is a very good counterpoint to your post.
i will never be in a position where the combination of equipment advances and my ability will outgrow any course i currently play. 99%+ of golfers can likely say the same.

Actually it supports my point.

You don't get younger people and minorities in the game by shrinking it and making it inaccessible.

If anything make golf accessible in urban areas. Building larger courses & building urban courses do not align.

And I'm ok with bifurcation.

This is some alarmist fiction right here

based on your response i'm not sure we're talking about the same thing
i don't know what you're referencing with 'You don't get younger people and minorities in the game by shrinking it and making it inaccessible'
the discussion, as i understand it, is in relation to the recent USGA and R&A statement about the impact of increased distance found by players in the game and the way it can be mitigated (as if it needs to be). the USGA and R&A are alluding to the potential to nerf balls and or clubs to decrease the recent gains. Rory's point in the post above is that if you do that, you are limiting the potential to get more amateurs (like me) and inexperienced players (like youth and minorities) to be excited about the game.
summary: anyone that isn't a professional or top level amateur benefits from the current advances in technology. our local courses won't have a need to get longer or become more difficult because 99%+ of us just aren't that good and it's the local amateur play where those courses make their money.

Also, I'm not against technology advances. I think the USGA screwed PING with the square grooves. USGA was also out of line essentially outlawing the long putter. Both of those were ruled legal, then because pros were perceived to be taking advantage USGA decided to outlaw. Square grooves provided a marginal advantage out of wet rough. If 50% of the pros used long putters, so what?

But those have nothing to do with the distance issue. Most players are unaware that prior to 1990 the 1.62 inch ball was legal for play everywhere in the world except the U.S., with the British Open allowing that ball until 1974. Imagine if that ball were still in play in tournaments now. DeChambeau would probably hit it 450-475 yards. Even amateurs would see 20-40 yard distance gains. Would we be putting up a fight if there was a good argument by course architects that 400 yard drives do not align with growth/sustainability of the game?

Such as?

All golf balls are essentially "nerfed" by rule and by physics. We don't play super balls that go 1,000 yards.

Also, there is a physical point where additional yardage by amateurs serves no purpose. The game has physical limits imposed by observing/finding the ball, being able to warn others of an approaching ball, etc. I'm not against players trying to hit it far, and they should be rewarded for being able to do it successfully. But asserting that no changes can/should be made is simply naive.

The stigma it seems is "rolling back", which is why I'm in favor of bifurcation. The pros will adjust because that is what they do.

Generally you are searching for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

All the hyperbole you laid out about courses having to shut down due to space constraints (or something I honestly don’t fully understand your point) isn’t backed by any evidence at all

You don't agree increases in distance are making (or will make) some courses obsolete? At least at competitive amateur level?

For elite amateurs and pros yes. But for almost all players the distance and forgiveness gains just make the game more enjoyable.

Tighten the fairways and let the rough get a little longer.

Technology will never overcome the difficulty of the short game.

Very very few

How does bifurcation work? PGA/Euro tour players play a different set of balls/clubs? Ok, so the top guys get their own pile of range balls to hit at The Bears Club or whisper rock, but other people are stuck hitting normal range balls. Korn Ferry Tour/Canadian Tour/PGA latin america are forced to play different equipment, and so are college kids probably, as well as people in the US am/mid am/where's the end?

If I want to play a korn ferry tour qualifier or us mid am, I probably will want to practice with the different equipment, but then how do I handicap vs my friends who are using normal gear? Lots of them probably want to play something that the pros are playing too.

It's complicated, and unnecessary. Who gives a crap if a pro shoots 62 at Aronimink or Seminole. If it's windy/dry/firm they aren't going to shoot that. I can hit 190 ball speed, but have a harder time hitting it straight than the mountain of 165 ball speed turrets I play with. Most courses I play in tournaments force me to hit piles of 2 irons anyway since they're tight. Length is already neutered in tons of spots. Rolling a ball back probably just benefits a lot of the longer guys more anyway, but to my point, doesn't amount to much value.

Bryson hitting it 320 in the air and dead straight on tight courses is a massive skill. I'm not sure why more people don't celebrate the feat, aside from the fact that he personally is clearly taking HGH. Most tour guys are much less long than you think, and most of the long drives by the numbers are rolling 50 yards. Add a dog leg here and there and that point is negated. Plenty of courses like harbour town exist, and cater to guys with different skill sets.

Golf just had one of its best years ever, let's not make it more complicated for no reason. I have a lot more fun shooting 67s than grinding out 75s.

Okay, I'm tired of winter. Let's get on with spring. Not looking promising for spring golf travel either so it's probably two plus months before I swing a club.

Might have to go browse eBay or something just to keep myself occupied. Narrowly talked myself out of cleaning out and setting up the bag for the season this past weekend, probably won't be able to hold out much longer.

No indoor or heated ranges available?

Yes, but not convenient. If I get desperate I'll make the drive.

This is the first winter I’ve made a concerted effort to do indoor hitting. My club has 3 monitors available.

This is how "lazy" I am: my club has great practice facilities, including multiple covered/heated stalls, but it's about a 7 minute cart ride from the clubhouse. Course is 15-20 minutes from my house. I ain't got time for that ****.

What golf podcasts y'all listen to? Seems like there are only a few high-quality ones out there, and even those drag out a little long for me. I'd listen to Foreplay Pod more if they edited it down to an hour. Get a Grip with Max Homa is great for that consistent tour player perspective.

Any podcast that has Joel Dahmen as a guest is gold.

I don't listen to podcasts at all but I have really started to follow a lot of YouTubers. My favorite seems to be the guys at TXG. Probably gravitate to that one most because I see Matt as future me if I can add about 7-10 mph on the swing, and get about 1000% better on the swing itself. That's the most informative to me, both on equipment and learning lessons.

Others I watch for entertainment: No Laying Up, Rick Shiels, Big Al.

Others I haven't watched a lot of but get back to it when I have time: Mark Crossfield, Peter Finch.

I watched Good Good the other day and they are WAAAAY too millennial for me.

Any others out there I am missing?

Chasing scratch is pretty good for a low commitment podcast.

Shotgun Start, Fried Egg, No Laying Up

Granted these are hit or miss, some episodes are great and some are crap. They do have a lot of complaining about nonsense that I could care less about.

Injury update:

Hand was feeling really good for about a week straight. On 2/8 I decided to hit the range and everything went pretty well. Went back on 2/10 and after about 25 swings the pain came back. I noticed early on my steep (toe down) swings didn't feel great but it wasn't what I would call pain.

After the pain started I called it a day and the hand ached for about 2-3 days. Now day-to-day it feels fine. Going to not grab a club again for another 10 days, then I have a charity thing that I really need to play in. If I get pain during that then it's gonna be shut down til the beginning of May.

Also gonna set another appointment up with the dr.