11 This issue’s mailbox was dominated by one subject: the proposed ball rollback. Dear Editor It seems to me that to roll the ball back will be a logistical nightmare. But let’s just say it’s possible. I think there’s an argument that the whole game could benefit from a ball that didn’t go quite so far. If golfers hit the ball a little less off line with their driver, could more courses on small parcels of land keep their historic layouts? I worry that many inner-city courses, for example, are in danger of closing, being shortened or having their boundaries covered in nets. The safety margins in modern golf are much larger than eras gone by and, coupled with many tournament venues needing to be over 7,000 yards, the footprint is huge. I don’t see these guidelines changing, but a rollback would ensure that we don’t go bigger. If the ball does roll back, I don’t think it will be enough to change our role as designers too dramatically. Topography often dictates where a hazard is placed specifically within the zone we look to work in. The reduction in length is not big enough that those zones change. Alex Hay Whistler, Canada Dear Editor The timing of the announcement from the USGA and R&A suggests a new test of the cohesiveness between our global governing bodies. The combination of technology advancements and player athletic conditioning has stretched the game to its limits, and the problem is most definitely real and should be addressed. Managing change is critical for the long-term health of our sport. Therefore, the process should play out, and the right organisations are leading the process. For the PGA Tour to suggest that they may not adopt final outcomes, at this early stage, is irresponsible and another indication of the unnatural control they have over the other entities in the global golf ecosystem. We expect adversely impacted manufacturers to lobby against change, but not the governing bodies, who should project unity in mission and purpose, while providing support and influence. Dave Shultz California, USA Dear Editor As any golf course architect that has had to explain proposed improvements to members will know, golf does not like change. With balls going further and further, we have had to publish safety guidelines for the design of holes, but the truth is many new and old courses do not meet these guidelines. Reducing the flight of the ball seems like the obvious innovation. Separating professional and amateur equipment might sound odd but it happens in other sports. Golfers will not want this change, and we already know tour pros do not want it. This is an improvement to the game, but the people who play the game do not want it. My guess is there is not a compelling case to rollback just for touring professionals. Andrew Craven Bristol, United Kingdom MAIL BOX In the last issue, Sandy made a trip to Royal West Norfolk, or Brancaster, which is situated between the sea and a salt marsh that floods at high tide – making the course inaccessible when the water rises above a certain level. John Crawford, a member of Glasgow Golf Club, was the first correct entry out of the hat and wins a GCA golf shirt. This month, Sandy's destination is a course that nearly failed several times, but was saved by social media popularity and is now a major success; the hole at which he appears is one of the most dramatic Redans you will see. For a chance to win a coveted GCA golf shirts, please send your entry to gopher@golfcoursearchitecture.net. GOPHER WATCH
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzQ1NTk=