When I was roaming the fairways of the PGA Tours of the world- as a player- I was always trying new equipment. Searching for that little bit extra that may help give me an advantage over the next guy.

Now as I roam the practice fairways and driving ranges as an instructor- and yes, still roam the fairways of the PGA Tours with some of my players I coach, I again am still  trying to plan out or look for some type of advantage I can gain for the players I help.

That's human nature- to try and evolve and to try and become better.

As a former player and now as a coach I also - just like always- look at golf from the perspective of the course itself.

The golf courses haven't had much opportunity to speak for themselves with the advancement of technology in recent years. Their voices have been muted- with the volume turned down pretty low.

I love all the arguments from all sides.

The players standpoint.

The equipment companies standpoint.

The governing bodies, probably less than sufficient standpoint.

And finally from the course architects viewpoint- for they are the ones who hold the worst cards in the deck and receive the most backlash- generally for something that is really out of their hands.

In all these arguments, rebuttals, provocative thoughts and insights and pursuit of a solution- there is one main argument that tends to be lost.

How golf courses were designed for not only certain clubs and shot shapes but for how they were designed for certain trajectories.

Augusta National, the annual venue of the first major championship each and every April has rolled with the punches better than anyone.

Obviously the club has unlimited resources to tap into through the wealth of it's members and the revenue it generates form staging the tournament each year.

It has been able to "try" and stay ahead of the curve by inventing new routings of holes by purchasing land from neighbours and adding pine trees that already look 35 years older than they should be.

Yet have they truly been able to keep the course test worthy and within the boundaries it was originally designed upon. The answer is no.

Take hole's 10-11-13-15 for example.

Each of these green complexes were designed with a shot in mind.

The 10th hole was designed- long and narrow with a right to left tilt- to absorb a long iron approach, preferably a fade shot that would come in low and fight against the right to left tilt and chase on up the green.

The ball was allowed to skip in or bounce up by design.

Ben Hogan once said if you ever see his approach shot to the 11th hole on the green then you know he hit an imperfect shot.

His goal was to strike his long iron second shot to the right side of the green- to avoid the danger of the pond guarding the left side- and trust he could get down in two more shots from there.

The 13th and 15th holes were both designed as the ultimate risk & reward second shots. Invariably players would need to strike a majestic long iron or a fairway wood to a green narrow in depth but much wider across than the previous mentioned 10th and 11th holes.

Now players are striking towering 7 and 8 irons into the 13th green and not much more into the 15th hole.

The design of these two iconic par 5's were to enhance a scare tactic into the decision making of the player.

Trying to hit a high long iron or fairway wood from a downhill lie with just the right amount of precision to clear the pond and yet stop short of going over the back of the green would have kept many a golfer up at night wondering how or working on how to execute that shot.

If you could figure out how to play those shots then you built and advantage over the other players.

Nicklaus did this better than anyone. He learned how to play high towering long irons.

Ray Floyd's 5 wood - which is on display inside the beautiful Augusta clubhouse- was his tool to victory in a record breaking win in 1976 when he demolished the par 5 holes with this higher softer landing highly skilled approach.

Technology in golf has enabled this search to become somewhat easier for most players now.

The number on the club itself doesn't matter too much. After all today's 6 iron is really a newer version of what was once a 4 iron.

Tiger's 8 iron could arguably be said to be Byron Nelson's 6 iron in it's loft and length. The biggest factor is more the design of the ball combined with the evolution of perimiter weighted clubs that can throw the ball up higher.

More elevation of ball flight due to club design. Lighter clubs designed to be moved faster. More guys pumping weight for strength. Combine all that with higher launching balls with less spin  and you have unheard of distance.

Augusta National- along with most PGA tournament sites- as hard as they have tried to stay ahead of the next big thing has very much become "dartboard golf".

Higher soft approaches with shorter clubs that go a long way in the hands of the elite player takes away the design attributes or designated playability of the original design intent.

Tiger Woods won his 5th green jacket last weekend on a course that played significantly different to when Jack Nicklaus stretched into his 5th jacket way back in 1975- an amazing comeback victory.

If anyone could have worked his way into the towering long iron Nicklaus needed and used then you couldn't go past Tiger as the one to do it.

Heck if the club and ball technology had stayed truer to the task of producing players rather than having players inherit skills- then Tiger may have actually won 10 Masters by now- just like Nicklaus and Palmer once predicted.