Then nothing can ever be accomplished if all factors must be addressed. The purpose of a solution is to identify those that are most important and address them.

All factors != infinite. I'm merely asking that you consider more than one. Like… six or seven. Nobody's creating boundless problems here, but just as it's impossible to enclose a space with one or two boundaries, it's impossible to consider a problem as complex as "increased driving distance on the PGA Tour" by considering only "the ball" and "the driver."

Without considering all other factors, it's nearly impossible to determine the impact one factor has because, by definition, it's relative to and affected by the other (ignored) factors.

Then nothing can ever be accomplished if all factors must be addressed. The purpose of a solution is to identify those that are most important and address them. To say that all factors must be adddressed is creating an argument that has no bounds. Essentially it's just lazy rhetoric. I have yet to see you submit of your own. I'm off.

I'm taking one factor and discussing it's impact.

Without considering all other factors, it's nearly impossible to determine the impact one factor has because, by definition, it's relative to and affected by the other (ignored) factors.

My argument is that economics is a major factor in the lack of growth in golf.

How much has the population of the United States grown or shrunk over the same period of time? If it too has remained relatively stagnant, then perhaps that's a primary cause for the lack of growth.

I'm suggesting that there are a lot of things people casually leave aside when they should consider them. Why must the game "grow," in your opinion?

Are you interested in the popularity of the game expanding? If so how? If not why?

I am if it means I'll have more courses (and affordable ones at that) nearby to play. I'm not if it means I'll have a harder time booking a tee time.

Does that get my point across? Who says the game of golf needs to grow (or that the ball needs to travel less distance, etc. etc.)? People are debating the answer without even first agreeing on the premise of the question.

I have to ask, Have you met Geoff and have you actually played golf at Rustic Canyon, Boston Golf Club, Woodland Hills CC, the famed Lakeside Country Club where he has performed or has consulted in the same duties as a golf course architect?

I have not, and the (new to me today) knowledge that Geoff has actually finished a golf course as an architect has led me to drop the "self-proclaimed" from in front of "golf course architect." I apologized to Geoff for my use of that phrase and regret that it will remain in the TrackBack sent to his site.

It is clear from the regular routine of bashing of Geoff's great name here that this is a very personal issue with you. My take on it is that its more about who you are representing compared to those who wish to see the game returned to a more definitive skill level.

I don't bash Geoff, but I do take issue with his baseless opinions, suggestions, comments, speculation, etc. There's a very big difference to me between bashing a person and bashing something a person says or does. It's like an otherwise smart person doing something stupid versus being stupid.

I'm not "representing" anyone, Tom, and I've made that abundantly clear.

I know from experience that the fifty extra yards of distance my ball has somehow managed roll further off the tee

And you've touched on yet another thing which Geoff gleefully ignores: the fact that today's fairways provide so much more roll than the fairways 20 years ago. Geoff asserts, despite lacking proof, that today's fairways roll less because of irrigitation, despite abundant facts to the contrary. His assertions make me wonder if he watched any of the British Open this year. Instead, Geoff solely blames club and ball technology for this increase in roll and ignores the fact that the length of the grass is pretty darn important.

I too miss shaping the ball a little - today's balls spin less. But if I wanted a ball that spun less 10 years ago all I had to do was pick up a "distance" ball. The only thing they've changed in the past 10 years ago was to add short-game spin to those "distance" balls of 10 and 20 years ago. Off the tee, however, the Pro V1 acts just about the same as the Pinnacle or Top-Flite of 1994.

If you are who you claim you are in regards to your passion for the Game, then why not seek Rustic Canyon out for yourself and see the error of your somewhat terse opening statement. If you would like me to join you, I would be more then happy, just as long as its at dusk, because its the most classic time which to play there!

I would love to, and will look to get ahold of you should I ever visit the region. As I said, I apologize for the "self-proclaimed" portion and have removed it (and apologized to Geoff). I am a fan of courses that are "laid upon" land rather than "designed" - a fan of Tom Doak and the classics - as much as anyone. If what you say is true about Rustic Canyon, then Geoff most likely has very good skills as an architect. A round at dusk would be great.

However, Geoff has not yet convinced me that he is right, and he will never do so as long as he continues to assert as he does without a firm grounding in reason, logic, and fact. I trust that he's passionate about the game as I am, too, but that doesn't mean I must agree with him. I'm willing to agree to disagree with you on this Tom, as you've been nothing but polite, and I feel Geoff (and I) could both learn a bit from you in that regard.

Thank you for your comments.

Just like Mr. Shackelford, you are attributing what you perceive to be a problem to one thing seemingly without considering other factors. Several golf courses are booked solid and don't want or need to see golf move "beyond the popularity it has." Why is the popularity level golf currently has "bad" and why are you solely blaming economics - capitalism and a free market - for that?

I'm taking one factor and discussing it's impact. I don't have the time nor the energy for a full fledged research on the prospect.

I'm not arguing the demise of golf I'm saying that it's been stagnant for 10+ years. NGF.ORG has even shown that the total number of rounds hasn't moved. Economics is one of the top factors for people giving up or not starting to play. My argument is that economics is a major factor in the lack of growth in golf. If this is not true then what are the major factors. Mind you that this lack of growth has spanned many years. Your running up against people that want to see the game expand beyond it's current level of popularity.

I'm not solely blaming economics. I'm identifying a major factor that is preventing the growth of golf and submitting ideas to overcome the economic barriers. I can't do anything about the weather, nor am I concerned with addressing the economic concerns of society. I am however, interested in how the economic barriers in golf could be removed.

Are you interested in the popularity of the game expanding? If so how? If not why? I'm growing weary of submitting my own ideas and thoughts for review. I want my turn at critique.

I live in Southern California, I'm a member of a course that was co-designed by Geoff Shackelford called Rustic Canyon.

Being familiar with the area before it was a golf course, I was gifted the opportunity to see its startling transformation (or lack thereof, simply because the attention to detail to preserve Happy Camp Canyon's natural beauty) at the hands and mind of Geoff Shackelford and well as his co-designers Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner.

Futhermore, Rustic Canyon has been celebrated here in Southern California as an innovation in modern golf course design--by it's simplicity and intentions of building a golf course to literally coexist with natural enviroment, while creating 18 really enjoyable and fun holes which to play the game. I thank them each and everytime I'm walking those great fairways in the late evening. (my favorite time to play because at that time of night, its as if God actually turns a light switch on and the canyon comes further alive).

Geoff's Rustic Canyon has also won its share of awards too:

• Rated #63 of America's Top 100 Modern Golf Courses, 2005 by Golfweek
• Rated #4 Public Access in California, 2005 by Golfweek
• Best Places to Play, 2004 by Golfdigest
• Rated #6 Public Access in California, 2004 by Golfweek
• Rated #28 Fifty Best Courses for $50 or Less, 2004 Golf Magazine
• Rated #1 Best New Public Affordable, 2002 by Golfdigest

I have to ask, Have you met Geoff and have you actually played golf at Rustic Canyon, Boston Golf Club, Woodland Hills CC, the famed Lakeside Country Club where he has performed or has consulted in the same duties as a golf course architect?

It is clear from the regular routine of bashing of Geoff's great name here that this is a very personal issue with you. My take on it is that its more about who you are representing compared to those who wish to see the game returned to a more definitive skill level. I know from experience that the fifty extra yards of distance my ball has somehow managed roll further off the tee in the last seven years, as well as how straight and precise my shots go, has to have an affect on the architecture of golf courses somewhere. If you want to call it good--the narrowed fairways and increased rough, well then your more of a masochist then I am! But I'll tell you this, I miss the way I used to be able to hit cuts and draws, and just the simple ability to work the ball by the way I swing the club--only to rely on one swing all of the time throughout the round.

But that's just me.

If you are who you claim you are in regards to your passion for the Game, then why not seek Rustic Canyon out for yourself and see the error of your somewhat terse opening statement. If you would like me to join you, I would be more then happy, just as long as its at dusk, because its the most classic time which to play there!

If economics is a component for access, for example purchasing the equipment, and there are different economic levels how is there access for everyone? You have confused the idea of access and availability.

No, I haven't. I've merely remember that'd the Rules of Golf cannot legislate expendable income or the price of equipment.

The products are available to us. However, the money we have will determine if we have access. Price is a barrier to access. I'm not asking for a welfare system. I'm saying that if skill is to be the factor that separates players at the amateur level reduce the barriers.

For that, you'll have to talk to the equipment manfuacturers. The golf market, like any other, fits capitalism pretty well. The market has $300 or $400 drivers because enough customers are willing to pay for them. Golf courses open and close (or adjust prices) because of market forces.

The ruling bodies of golf clearly shouldn't get involved.

Isn't money a large factor in the reduced number of rounds played as a whole. Isn't this the impetus of the First Tee Program? To ignore this and shove the argument of economics aside severly damages the credibility of your argument.

I'm not shoving economics aside in the least. Instead, others are. I believe economics - not how far the ball travels or "technology" in general, should be considered. Likewise, "the number of rounds played" is affected by a lot of things, including weather, how exciting the PGA Tour is in any given year, general economics (not just the price of a new driver, but the unemployment rate, etc.). This year alone, how much of a reduction to the # of rounds played can be blamed on hurricanes, for example?

How would you explain then the lack of black players in the professional tours? According to what you are saying they have the same access to equipment.

They do have the same access. A poor black kid can afford the same things as a poor white kid or a poor kid of any other race. That's not a (golf) legislative problem or a "technology" problem, that's a social, economic, etc. problem, and one far outside the realm of golf.

I think you're distorting the argument here: I'm in favor of considering all factors while others seem only to blame "technology." Furthermore, as I've said repeatedly to the likes of Mr. Shackelford, I don't even accept the premise that the game of golf is "in ruins," "needs fixing," or is in a state of disrepair.

There is nothing preventing them from performing at the same level except for skill. I agree with you at the professional level everything is equal. However, the pillar that you have built your argument on: accessability crumbles when you include the amateur world.

My argument is that Mr. Shackelford and his ilk have built their arguments on assumptions and personal opinions and defend those positions without reason, fact, or logic. If you're referring to the first comment I made here and not my article, then you've misunderstood the point. Golf cannot solve the world's ills. Some people are poor and some are not. That's the way things go and the way it's always gone.

Some of golf's greatest players were poor growing up, yet the found a way to excel, compete, and improve.

However, sometimes we need to step back and understand that the tradeoff is that golf is never going to move beyond the popularity it has until the economics of the game are addressed.

Just like Mr. Shackelford, you are attributing what you perceive to be a problem to one thing seemingly without considering other factors. Several golf courses are booked solid and don't want or need to see golf move "beyond the popularity it has." Why is the popularity level golf currently has "bad" and why are you solely blaming economics - capitalism and a free market - for that?

I'm in favor of considering all factors. Mr. Shackelford loves to blame technology, and you're blaming economics. In neither situation do I even accept the premise: that the game is in ruins and that something needs to change.

Amateurs have access to the same equipment as professionals. The only thing limiting them is economics, and golf sure as heck doesn't need to institute a welfare system so that some guy with no money can have custom-fitted, custom-built irons. There are no restrictions that differ from pro to amateur and thus, by definition, everyone has access to the same equipment.

If economics is a component for access, for example purchasing the equipment, and there are different economic levels how is there access for everyone? You have confused the idea of access and availability. The products are available to us. However, the money we have will determine if we have access. Price is a barrier to access. I'm not asking for a welfare system. I'm saying that if skill is to be the factor that separates players at the amateur level reduce the barriers. Isn't money a large factor in the reduced number of rounds played as a whole. Isn't this the impetus of the First Tee Program? To ignore this and shove the argument of economics aside severly damages the credibility of your argument.

How would you explain then the lack of black players in the professional tours? According to what you are saying they have the same access to equipment. There is nothing preventing them from performing at the same level except for skill. I agree with you at the professional level everything is equal. However, the pillar that you have built your argument on: accessability crumbles when you include the amateur world.

I understand that one of the enjoyments of being a golfer is seeing the new equipment that comes out. Trying it out and comparing it to what we have. The joy of buying a new driver and smoking it down the middle.

However, sometimes we need to step back and understand that the tradeoff is that golf is never going to move beyond the popularity it has until the economics of the game are addressed. Maybe I'm posting in the wrong part. As it's not an argument regarding technology per se. Instead it's an argument that technology advancments serves as a barrier to the expansion of the game.

There are several points in your argument that I'm not sure were defined correctly. Doesn't this argument have more to do with the money involved with the various companies that produce golf equipment. The equipment companies would have a limited opportunity to make money if there was no room for technological improvment. Would that be good or bad for the game? That's not what you are addressing with you post though.

I think that the companies of today compete on a pretty level playing field. The speed with which science and new discoveries can be made effectively acts as a "cap" that keeps the "players" pretty well equal. Titleist drivers go just as far as those from Callaway, TaylorMade, etc. They're already on a level playing field, and artificially capping the technological improvement wouldn't do much to change that.

NASCAR still sees technological improvements despite severe limitations on their cars. And besides, Titleist, TaylorMade, etc. still have their brands to fall back on. I don't think capping "technological improvement" alone would let a company like Snake Eyes become the #1 driver or putter in golf.

It appears that you are saying that technology has no influence on skill being the main component to succeeding at golf. This is only the case when everyone has available to them the same technology. Using the PGA Tour as an example is good as this is the case.

I said that people competing with the same opportunities (with respect to technology, training, practice, etc.) and under the same conditions (same course on the same day, same tees, same hole locations, etc.) will separate themselves solely based on their skill (that day and over longer periods of time, like four days in a tournament or over a full season).

What about the amatuer population? What about those that don't have access to the same equipment? Now the foundation of your argument, equal access to equipment, has suffered a dehabilitating blow. Couldn't one make the argument that the technology gap between generations of clubs is such that skill is reduced and that the disposable income of the player involved becomes a larger factor. Isn't that a fact that you try to reinforce on this web site with the various equipment reviews? Buy this new driver becuase I hit it 10 yards further than my old one.

Amateurs have access to the same equipment as professionals. The only thing limiting them is economics, and golf sure as heck doesn't need to institute a welfare system so that some guy with no money can have custom-fitted, custom-built irons. There are no restrictions that differ from pro to amateur and thus, by definition, everyone has access to the same equipment.

Technology improves things, that's a no-brainer. I give you that. But Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus with today's equipment would still be good, and Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh with equipment from the 1980s or 1960s or 1930s would still be good, too, so long as they competed against other players using the same equipment (i.e. no Tiger with hickory shafts versus Jack with today's equipment).

People make different amounts of money, but the USGA and the R&A obviously cannot begin to legislate the prices of golf equipment or their availability to underprivileged or poor people. We don't perpetuate any such "fact" because there's no fact there beyond the very simple "if you want to buy this driver, you need to have at least $299."

Those that propose limits on technology are looking at the game as a whole.

First of all, the game has limits. The CoR and MOI limits are more recent, but the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) and others have been around for quite some time. I too look at the game as a whole, and that's why I take issue with those blindly opposing caps on "technology."

If you want to look at the game as a whole, do so! But doing so requires you to look at a lot more than "technology," including player conditioning, player training and practice, course design and architecture, course maintenance and agronomy, and skills with things that haven't changed much in the past 50 years, like putting and chipping. Smoother greens make it easier to hole putts… but is that the ball's fault? Hardly.

From the professional to the guy playing at the local muni. To maintain skill as the key component across the game as a whole then all participants need access to the same equipment or the advantage of newer equipment must be minimalized. I feel that is the crux if their concern.

By rule, they have access to the same equipment. If a "tournament ball" is made the law of the land, then they won't have access. You're arguing for something that exists right now.

While others like to attribute longer driving distances and countless other things to "technology," I merely advocate looking at all factors.