"Architecture has been abysmal in my opinion in its reaction to equipment and technology and bigger, stronger golfers."

As someone who has studied the evolution of the golf ball distance debate in recent years, it's fun to see how far we've come. There was the initial shock of the whole distance explosion which led to irrational claims of improved player athleticism as the sole cause. Then we moved to years of attempts to dispute that anything was amiss even as courses like Augusta resorted to planting Christmas trees. 

And now, with the economy tattered, rounds down and the game taking too long all while many courses have become less safe, the attempts to justify doing anything but reining in the ball for the elite player has risen to the level of farce.

Peter Kostis, talking to John Huggan:

"We need to have some perspective about the golf ball," contends Kostis (whose closest friend, it should be noted, is Wally Uihlein, the head honcho at Titleist). "Throughout time there have always been periods when the ball was seen as a threat to the game. I have articles written in the 1920s, saying that the sky was falling and that the game was doomed, all because of the advent of the steel shaft. The ball was going too far back then, apparently. So longer, more expensive courses were being built. The arguments we are having today have taken place at least four times already.

And we all know, history must be allowed to repeat itself no matter the cost!

"So this is just another of those times. People who don't understand that don't respect the game.

Ah now you're seeing the humorous side that Peter rarely shows us! The people who want to rein in costs, preserve the element of skill and prevent the game from becoming a one-sided affair favoring distance are the ones who don't respect the game! The ones with something to sell are the only ones with pureness in their hearts!

Go on...

And they don't respect what happened before them.

That's true. The governing bodies have been bamboozled for generations on this.

The game has always had periods like this, where courses got bigger, longer and more expensive. And new technology was always blamed, the manufacturers vile creatures in it for money, not for the good of the game.

"In my opinion, course architecture has been every bit as big a problem - if you want to call it that - as technology evolution. The bigger courses became, the more length became important. So guys naturally figured out how to do that.

"Then Tiger came along. The immediate reaction was to make the courses bigger. It was a knee-jerk reaction by architects who don't know how to play the game at the highest level.

Peter I just looked in the PGA Tour media guide and lo and behold, I can't find the years you played at the highest level. Could you email me those?

That reminds me, to be an on-course reporter, shouldn't you have played at the highest level? Isn't any other commentary just the knee-jerk reaction of someone who has not played at the highest level?

If a hole is a straight 510-yards what are you going to do? You're going to hit the crap out of it. Architecture has been abysmal in my opinion in its reaction to equipment and technology and bigger, stronger golfers."

Of course we know it's not the architect's job nor is it practical in any rational sense for a golf course--a vast, complicated arena built on 150 acres or more--to adjust to changes brought on by faulty regulation, all because no one has the vision to see that people will still need to buy golf balls to play golf, no matter how far they are allowed to fly.

Imagine if Boeing developed a new airliner that flies faster, straighter and most important of all, is significantly cheaper for Boeing to build. But this new jet requires a much longer runway, introducing safety issues requiring the modification of every runway in the world whether the plane will ever land there or not. So if Boeing wants to sell this plane to the airlines, shouldn't they have to shoulder the cost burden for retrofitting of existing airports?

Sadly, too many folks in our world like Mr. Kostis would have everyone paying out of their pockets so that Boeing could deliver a nice third quarter margin. And they'll preach the religion of socializing costs and privatizing profits with no apparent end to the destruction.

Keep that monitor strapped to your back, big guy and leave the course design to the folks who haven't played at the highest level!