Just standing at the tee a player would have to think twice about the kind of shot he wants to play. We don’t want them to be bombing away from the tee. Let’s introduce a great deal of cerebral activity into this game.

I'd have to read all of Rubenstein's article, but my take on just the bit quoted wasn't so much that he was stating that the hole SHOULD be played that way, but rather it was a great opportunity for commentators to talk about it, if anything for a mere point of interest and reference to the differences between the way golf was played in the past, and the way golf is played now.

Let's face it, if you're not a golfer, you don't watch golf. And if you're a golfer who watches golf, especially tournaments that Tiger isn't playing in like I do, then you're a true lover of the game, and dare I say it...nerd for the game.

I personally would love to see more commentary relating to architecture and the type of grass on the course from the announcers just to learn more about it. They do talk a bit more than they used to about the grass, but I find it interesting to learn about the differences in the way the ball rolls on various green varieties, and the difficulties faced when hitting from a thick rough of Bermuda or Kikuya.

And I always love to know about the tendencies a designer sway toward when designing a course; his signature features present on every course created; and perhaps a little history of how the course came to be, and why it was made the way it was based on the original terrain.

It's not always easy to find out the characteristics various designers are known for in their courses. Some of the major ones like Nicklaus' love for hills and valleys in his greens, or Pete Dyes love of railroad ties, but some of the lesser known or older designers, not so much. I'd love to hear about a designers reasoning and ideas for the course he created, and even how "it was meant to be played", because I just find it interesting to compare how many different approaches exist now when playing these PGA courses due to modern technology.

And it doesn't mean players today play them better. Erik, you made some great points when talking about Tiger. The big bomb and gouge guys definitely do not play according to the original "plan" of the designer, but are they scoring much better? The big bombers aren't winning all the tourneys, so they don't necessarily have a huge advantage. Who cares how someone plays a course. Technology, along with focus on diet, strength-training, stretching and psychologists, merely allow golfers today some additional choices as to how they are able to play a golf course. But at the end of the day, whether you're at 175 yds out or in the greenside rough in two, you still have to putt the ball in the cup in fewer strokes than everyone else... end of story.

You put Jack and Arnie up against the bombers of today, and I'm betting their skills, finesse and mental game would still tear apart, overall, the guys bombing 365 yd drives every time. And there are examples of shorter, finesse players challenging the long ball guys all the time. Look at the Masters last year. Tiger and Zach...a classic David vs Goliath with the guy who didn't go for ONE par 5 in two all week coming out on top.

But big picture, Tiger wins because he's mastered the golf ball and his golf swing, and he knows how to make the golf ball do what he wants no matter where he is on a course. He can scrap and score low. He can play with grace and beauty and score low. He's proven that he can slaughter the field by bombing the ball, missing most fairways, but chipping and putting like a stud. He's also proven he can put his driver away, tee off with a 2 iron most of the day, hit every fairway, and methodically disect a course "as it should be" and again, slaughter the field. He can adjust in whatever way he needs to, because he can. Not only is he the best player in the world, but he's the most skilled, mentally strong, focused, creative and adaptable player.

Creative and adaptable are two areas of a golfer's game that don't get as much credit as they deserve today, but in my opinion, they are the difference between Jack, Tiger... and the rest of the field.

So I say bring back the spin of the old ball. The precision of squaring the clubface will be re-emphasized again, and the power hitters still have their advantage if they can square the clubface.

. . . going back to Tiger Woods, because it is a wonderful thing to be watching the greatest player while he is in his prime . . .

Tiger Woods ironically nullifies the distance argument. When he came on the scene (for me, that was '97) I was intoxicated by his 160yd PW shot, and his long bombs off the tee. But the smart observer does not forget that it has been, and always will be, his short game that makes him the greatest. Can I say that again? THE GREATEST.

Additionally it is when he is shotmaking well AND putting well that he wins by large margins. Wanna see some shotmaking? Look at the highlights from the 2005 PGA champs and the 2000 US open. Now notice the large margins by which Tiger won.

JB and Bubba are great players (it was JB's putts that got him the birdies to win over Phil two weeks ago, by the way) and they hit it long, sure. But if you want to improve on your best, if you want to compete, or dominate a course, it is going to come down to what happens with the approach shots and short game.

Bend the fairways, sure. Grow the rough, sure. Or cut em wide and flat, whatever. "Bombing" style play and distance technology only get you a little closer to the place where you show if you really have GAME!

I wouldn't necessarily want the loft limit of 50*, no caddies, no yardage books to be a permanent thing. But I do think it would be great to see it happen at least once!

Maybe we could ask Peter Thompson to organise it. That's how he plays St Andrews for the three months per year he livers there.

If the guys out on the PGA tour weren't able to do the exceptional things that they do... and that includes hit it prodigious distances compared with the average golfer... then it would not get the attention it does.

Golf purists may not like the way these guys can demolish a golf course, but for the majority, it is entertaining.

Entertainment wise... the majority like to watch people do what they can't.

Like it or not, big drives will always be something the majority of fans want to see.

Personally, I'd love to see them place more "real" hazards with potential for severe penalty if they don't drive the ball in play (driver was originally called the play club)... this would bring in more of a risk/reward scenario.

I'm all for big drives... I'd love for there to be greater reward for those who drive it straight and greater potential penalty for those who don't.

Sean Cassidy "Real Men Swing Fast"

Kudos to you both! Matt's comments speak for themselves; as for your idea about restricting the number of clubs (and other things), I too think this is a very simple way to address the issue of the game becoming perhaps a bit too "easy" for top level golfers. That last sentence was a loaded one, and I don't necessarily think golf is too easy at the highest levels.

But if one believes strongly that something should be done with the rules to tax the skills of professionals a bit more, then putting a more restrictive club limit on professional events (Frank Thomas's idea) is very sensible.

There would be no need to modify anything--the ball, lofts, grooves, any of it. Equipment makers carry on, weekend players carry on. Pros on the tour simply must remove a few clubs from their bag.

I wouldn't be quite as restrictive as you--I wouldn't prevent caddies or yardage books, for reasons that would require too lengthy an explanation. But on the number of clubs...reduce it to something like 10 for professional events, and then see what they do.

Although it is easier to hit the ball further and straighter, modern technology also means that greens are more than tweice as fast as when Nicklaus et all played, surely that is much harder!!

I honestly believe this whole debate has come about by older persons feeling a little inadequate due to the caliber and all round high quality of the modern top golfers!

I'd like to see the pros play a tournament (even if its a single round) with 8 clubs they carry themselves, no caddy, no yardage book (just markers at 200, 150 and 100), and to make it really interesting have a maximum loft allowable of 50°.

This would let them bomb away with their drivers (if they want), but there would be plenty of decisions to be made from the fairway. And it would make it interesting closer to the green with only 50° of loft available.

But I don't fancy it will happen this year.