Should length dictate course design?

Ganton - short but sweet.

It's a hot topic and one which is receiving increasing publicity as balls go further and clubheads get more sophisticated.

One view is that rather than lengthening courses we should merely trick them up, grow the rough longer, introduce more doglegs and protect the greens and fairways with more bunkers.

It's an intriguing issue that has left many course designers and legislators in a spin.

In the past I have had a similar conversation with Donald Steel, a former amateur international who has made alterations to many legendary courses, including Royal St George's, where this year's Open will be played, Royal Liverpool and Turnberry as well as designing the chalenging Bracken course at Woodhall Spa and the Palmerston at Brocket Hall.

Bracken course.

He claims the R&A and the USGA - the rule makers - have virtually ignored the architects in this debate, while having regular consultation with manufacturers.

He now claims leading American architects pleaded with the USGA to do something about technology, some years ago, but it fell on deaf ears.

One alternative is to stretch old courses with new back tees or encourage new sites to purchase extra land to take longer par-4s and regular par-5s out of reach in two blows.

But what kind of handicap golfer wants to slog round those kind of courses? Chances are no one will want to play there.

Some say, and Steel is one of them, that enough is enough. Land is at a premium and no one wants 7,600-yard courses.

And I would agree. Surely it's better to have to think your way round a shorter course with good course management and strategy, rather than crash, bang, wallop your way round in an effort to break 100.

Tiger Woods - Augusta move.

Steel recently told a magazine, that he disagreed with Augusta National's bid to lengthen the US Masters course to prevent Tiger Woods making a mockery of it.

"I assume they were trying to make it more challenging. As for Tiger-proofing, whatever length of course, Tiger will still win. He could play at 5,800 yards and he would win. I worked out that to build a golf course for Tiger Woods where all the par-4s were genuine two-shot holes and all the par-5s were three-shot holes, you would need a course of 8,500 yards.

"I don't think Augusta was right. It was costly and there was massive upheaval - which wasn't a problem for Augusta. But their solution isn't one that most clubs will be able to afford or face up to."

So what should be done?

Should the authorities step in to reduce the overall length the ball travels (and insist manufacturers make balls to identical specification) while reducing the spring-effect of drivers and fairway woods?

Or should we not be accused of burying our heads in the sand and extend courses to meet new technology?

Should pro golfers dictate the future or the 100 million amateurs who play the game around the world?

Tell us what you think on the Forum.