PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

For anyone interested in questions that involve an unimportant issue in contrast to the world’s woes, here’s one:  What to do about the fact that some pros hit a golf ball farther than ever before?

Some will say who cares.  Others will say it matters in the game of golf.  Still others have no opinion, if only because the issue is so obscure.

I say the question matters.  Perhaps that is because golf is a game I love and it occupies a lot of my time in retirement.

There have been various proposals to stem the ever-growing long distance golf shots, which, frankly, threaten the character of the came.

• The best golf pro in history, Jack Nicklaus, suggests changing the golf ball so it won’t go as far.

• Some suggest changing the nature of golf courses – make the rough grow very high and narrow fairways at the same time so the so-called “bomb and gougers” will have to tone down their shots in order to remain in play.

• Some suggest reducing the number of golf clubs a player can carry – the current limit is 14 – so golfers wouldn’t have as many options to hit the ball so far.

This is important is the sense that doing nothing could present a challenge to golf course operators and architects who will have to make courses ever longer, a threat which carries a number of environmental considerations, as well as issues for current courses around the country.

One of my favorite golf writers, George Peper, who edits Links Magazine, showed up this weekend with his perception on the golf distance issue.  Here is an excerpt what he wrote:

“So it seems we’re finally going to get some answers from the USGA and R&A on the distance question.  After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.

“Much of their recent chatter has focused on the notion of curtailing the shaft length of the driver.  Meanwhile, they’ve asked for feedback.

“Here’s mine:   Don’t simply limit the length of clubs, limit the number of them.  Cut the maximum number of weapons a golfer may carry from 14 to seven.  And not just for the pros, for all of us.

“Sound outlandish? Believe me, it’s no more outlandish than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

“I learned that from bitter experience.  About 40 years ago, when I was editor of GOLF Magazine, I wrote a column in support of Jack Nicklaus’s idea of throttling back the golf ball.  I made what I thought was a cogent case.  The day the column appeared, our publisher got a call from the CEO of Titleist informing him that, because of my views, he was cancelling its $2 million advertising schedule.

“For the sake of non-argument, let’s leave the ball alone and cut back the clubs.  That shouldn’t frighten the equipment makers.  After all, I’m not suggesting they stop producing 7-hybrids or 4-irons or 62-degree wedges.  The fact that we’d carry only seven clubs doesn’t mean we’d own only seven.

“Quite the contrary, I would think each of us would want to have in our garage, car trunk, or locker a complete arsenal— even more than 14—from which to assemble our desired seven.  Keep in mind also that set makeup would vary not only from player to player based upon strength and skill, but from day to day according to the challenge of the course and the playing conditions.

Peper makes solid points.

But so does one of my friends who wrote this to me over the weekend:

“Remember the U.S. Open at Merion, one of the shortest venues for an Open.  The pros had a heck of a time.  I think rather than making courses longer and balls longer and shafts longer, we need to go in the opposite direction.  Put the premium on hitting fairways, chipping and putting.”

Also good points.

No doubt the distance debate will continue, even as we anticipate finally getting some answers from the United States Golf Association in the U.S. and the Royal & Ancient in Europe.

As Peper put it:

“After decades of dithering, withering, and slithering, the two ruling bodies have suddenly become veritable sword-rattlers, promising serious action in the near future.”

Well, a final point is that, for me and many of my friends – they are old folks – the distance issue won’t matter much.  We don’t hit the golf ball far enough any more, if we ever did.  So let the debate continue.