We continually hear from the golf governing bodies – the USGA and the R & A – that technological advances in club and ball design are outdating classic courses, essentially making golf to easy and may be “ruining” the game.  One could argue this may well be true for the infinitesimally small percentage of the professional golfers, and by the way, not for all of them.  But wait!  The Vardon Trophy is awarded each year to the PGA Tour Professional with the lowest scoring average.  Over the last 20 years the winner’s scoring average as ranged between 67.79 by Tiger Woods in 2000 and 69.92 by Steve Elkington in 1995.  Matt Kuchar won the trophy in 2010 with an average of 69.61 the second highest in the last 20 years and Luke Donald won in 2011 with 68.86, in the middle of the pack over the time frame.  By the way, only three times has anyone beat Byron Nelson’s scoring average of 68.33 in 1945 and it has only been done by one player, Tiger Woods.  Another interesting tidbit – in 1945 Byron Nelson played 35 tournaments – something no tour pro would even think about today. Looking at those statistics it is difficult to square the data with technological advances making the game to easy.  You can see all of the Vardon Trophy winners back to 1937 at http://golf.about.com/cs/historyofgolf/a/pgavardontrophy.htm.

Now let’s look at us – the average golfer.  According to the USGA, the average handicap of the American golfer is 16.1 for men and 29.2 for women. These numbers have remained largely the same over the last 15 years despite significant technology advances with equipment (emphasis mine but the USGA’s words).  According to The National Golf Foundation there were 26.1 million golfers in 2010 (2011 numbers are not yet available) with 14.8 million being core golfers, which are down from 30.0 million and 18.0 million in 2005.  Now I ask you, why in the face of declining number of golfers would the ruling bodies want to make an already difficult game – if you are a golfer and don’t believe that get a mirror – more difficult and less appealing.  For the most part I suspect that the advances in technology have made the game more enjoyable but do not appear to have had a material impact on scoreing.  Look at it this way, while it may have an impact on the infinitesimally small percentage of the golfing population noted above, the change in grooves on irons is not going to impact most of our shots out of the rough.  We couldn’t spin the ball out of the rough with the old grooves and will not be able with the new grooves.  For the vast majority of us it is a lot of ado about nothing.

Barney Adams, the founder of Adams Golf, has written an interesting article on the length of courses for us average golfers.  Here is a portion of the article and the core of Barney’s argument.

 In trying to figure out what the right thing should be, Adams first considered tour pros and how they rarely need more than a middle iron for an approach. “We watch them and think, ‘Man, wouldn’t it be fun to play the game like that?'” Adams says. “Well, we can.”

Adams came up with a system he calls Tour Length. He calculated that for a pro to hit the same clubs on approaches as an amateur averaging 230-yard drives on a 6,700-yard course, the pro’s course would have to measure at least 8,100 yards. Conversely, for the 230-yard driver to hit the same clubs into greens as the pro would on a 7,300-yard layout, the amateur would have to play at no more than 6,200 yards.

By Adams’ calculation, this means the amateur who drives the ball 200 yards (closer to what the average golfer achieves) should be playing courses measuring about 6,000 yards. Many women, routinely forced to play tees in the 5,600-yard range despite hitting drives of about 140 yards, should be playing from approximately 4,600 yards.

Focusing on things like this seems to me to make more sense than worriyng about technological advances. You can read the full article at http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2011-05/golf-barney-adams-forward-tees#ixzz1qL0IRIH0

In golf we enjoy playing with the same equipment – well almost – as those that play for living and it would be a travesty if, as some have proposed, that we see something like a “tournament ball” or other attempt at equalizing and minimizing length.  First of all, no matter which ball would be chosen it would undoubtedly favor some golfers over others.  And again, one would have to ask to what purpose.

So it appears to me that the two ruling bodies have little to worry about when it comes to the current crop of equipment.  Instead, maybe they should be focusing their efforts and attention on introducing and re-introducing golf to people, showcasing how golf is a game for a lifetime and one of the few games where those of disparate ability can compete together – thanks to the handicapping system.