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.

I remember a few years ago when none other than Jack Nicklaus said he had a solution to golf’s “distance problem.”

Just change the golf ball, Nicklaus said, so that it would not travel as far as it did then – or as it does now.

His suggestion was met mostly with disdain, if only because golf ball manufacturers were against dialing back their technology.  Plus, many players wanted to continue trying to hit the ball farther – and farther.  Call it bomb and gauge.

Why was Nicklaus advocating golf balls going a shorter distance?

Pro golfers hitting the golf ball prodigious distances make some courses outdated.  At least for the pros.  Not, of course, for us rank amateurs.

There have been other suggestions to limit golf distance, but George Peper, editor of Links Magazine, came with a good one in his most recent column for publication.

In short form, his idea was this:  The 50 per cent solution—don’t just limit the distance of clubs, limit the number of them.

Here is how his column started:

“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.”

It’s no more outlandish, Peper contends, than asking ball manufacturers to spend millions of dollars creating a product that’s inferior to the one they already make.

In fact, Peper adds, “the seven-club set would be a bonanza for manufacturers in that they’d be able to create all-new products to sell us. I’m talking about genuine hybrids— drivers that may be played with confidence from the fairway and putters that can double as chippers.  There would also be an imperative to develop new shafts— whippier ones.”

More from Peper:

“While a seven-club set might not totally address the distance dilemma on the PGA Tour, it would go a long way (no pun intended) and certainly would make tournament golf way more fun to watch.  Think about it.  Most pros would likely carry a driving club, five irons/wedges, and a putter.

“So, Bryson DeChambeau would still be able to blast his colossal drives, but since his next longest club likely would be a 5-iron, he’d have to hit the hell out of it to reach a 600-yard par five—either that or punch a driver off the deck—and wouldn’t that be fun to watch!

“Just imagine the artistry the pros would show us if they were called upon to use the full measure of their athletic talent rather than lean on an assortment of crutches.  I’m thinking about what we all saw at Augusta last year, Jon Rahm skipping a ball across the 16th-hole pond for a practice-round ace, or Bubba Watson’s Wednesday whimsey this year at the Waste Management Phoenix Open, hitting the green at the 167-yard 16th with a flick-wristed driver.  These guys have jaw-dropping talent—we just don’t get to see it as often as we should.”

If golf were played with seven clubs, Peper says:

• It would be simpler to learn, less bewildering and intimidating to new players.  The “beginner set” would be everyone’s set.
• It would be less expensive.  Getting oneself equipped with a standard set would cost less.  About half as much.
• Play would move more quickly because decisions about which club to hit would come more easily.
• Carrying one’s bag would be less physically taxing, so more people would do it, a positive both for personal health and fitness and for the global environment, as fewer motorized carts would be needed.
• The distance issue would die out—no further yardage would need to be added to courses.  Courses would save on maintenance expenses, further reducing the cost of the game.
• Professional tournament golf would become much more compelling to watch.
• The rest of us would become more creative, imaginative, self-reliant, and knowledgeable golfers.
• We would all continue to play under one set of rules.

Okay, pursuing Peper’s good idea, I thought this afternoon about which seven clubs I would carry – well, I could only come up with six, so I’ll be one short.  Here is my list:

1. A three-wood
2. A three-hybrid
3. A six-hybrid
4. A seven-iron
5. A 52-degree wedge
6. A putter

One other virtue of this revolves around money.  With only six or seven clubs, I could buy two sets – one for home in Salem, Oregon, and another for our winter abode in La Quinta, California – and basically pay the cost of one 14-club set.

See, always thinking!