For those new to the distance debate or only mildly interested in this neverending saga, the role of course design drives the views of most. And yet, golf architects who could profit by rapid increases we’ve seen in the last two decades, should be loving the added work and calls to deal with safety issues.

But dealing with distance in almost every decision they have to make has 95% of European Institute of Golf Course Architects voting for some form of “rollback” in the name of safety and sanity.

The July survey questions and results can be viewed here, with a link to the PDF in the righthand column. From their president summing up the results:

“We surveyed the EIGCA membership for their thoughts on a range of factors relating to increased hitting distances, forged through their experience of designing golf courses around the world. The most eye-catching result is that 95% of respondents agreed that action needs to be taken to reduce hitting distances,” says Christoph Städler, President of the European Institute of Golf Course Architects.

“The vast majority of respondents (75%) believed that increasing ball flight length and advances in equipment technology are diminishing the skill of the game which is leading to a simplification of golf course strategy. 88% of respondents considered a reduction in driving distance of between 10% and 15% would be appropriate.”

The results have been sent off to the R&A and USGA who have suspended discussions until 2021 due to the pandemic.

A few noteworthy results regarding safety, an issue often ignored or even mocked.

•90% have encountered existing courses with increased safety issues due to the increase in hitting distance

•73% have increased safety margins due to the increase in hitting distance

And regarding design issues:

•20% have almost always been tasked by clients to lengthen a course, another 37% have frequently been briefed to do so, and 32% occasionally (89% of respondents meaning this is a common requirement asked of architects)

•93% have re-designed a course, or part of a course, due to the increase in hitting distance (15% almost always, 37% frequently, 42% occasionally

Finally, besides the 95% who’d like to see some action take, they would mostly spare the amateur game:

•62% think that amateurs should be spared any regulatory effects to reduce hitting distance (21% amateurs be completely exempt + 41% that amateurs should largely be spared)