There will always be exceptions in a game like golf, where equipment and extreme training can change the game. BDC is just the next phase and the newest player to challenge golf's traditions. Jack, DJ, Brooks and especially Tiger all have changed the game. Is this newest iteration good for the game, I certainly don't know, but it does create interest. . . . ."what will Bryson do next. . ."? Will BDC dominate the game as Tiger did? Not a chance. My only real interest is how long he will last. Extremes tend to be short lived. Age changes everything. Personally, I will just buy the latest driver on the market that guarantees more distance.

Poor course set up by the USGA. Fairways should not narrow until around 300 yds. Should be 40 yds wide until then. Allows more strategy for all players but helps short, accurate players. Pin placements more reasonable. Too many pins had no way to get to them.
Can't make enough birdies.
Course management could be emphasized. Fair for bombers and accurate hitters.

Of course he is good for the game. Every player on the tour offers something different with technique, attitude, confidence, personality and style. That is what makes the tour the tour. Stop analyzing and enjoy the tournaments.

It seems like sour grapes for the naysayers. As hard as DeChambeau works, give him his due. He isn't playing much if any slower than other players. At 71, I have lost a lot of speed and yardage. But, I don't complain because others hit it longer, I just wish I could get it back. If young players want to hit it longer, work harder.

Seems like a lot of gab about a particular golfer's talents. Doesn't anyone recall when Tiger emerged on the scene when, around 2000? And courses had to be "Tigerized" to accommodate the length and skill of his game. At the time, now one that I can recall had condemned him for being a vastly superior golfer, the best to come along since Jack Niclaus. So, if a pro comes along who can regularly smash it 340 to 380 yards and still finesse it around the greens, I think we should be stand in awe and not be critical.

I have been golfing for 45 years. The attraction for me to the game is the target sport aspect. Bryson and Tiger and others have changed that go a distance game.
If the PGA wants to keep equipment they have approved allowing longer distances, then they need to add water bunkers snd other difficult bunkers to the long distance landing sreas of the fairways. This will bring the long hitter back to shorter distance drivesand still allow the shorter hitter to get better distance with the approved equipment.
One thing I have observed in tornaments on TV is the lack of short game play and putting by these long hitters. The current pros, with s few exceptions, generally come up short or miss the hole on the low side. These two faults will cause you to not make a putt. If we shorten the drive with landing area restrictive bunkers, then they would have to have better touch on approaches and better putting ability, and that is what this game is all about.

the obvious is the length is out of proportion, but also if we all applied the mathematical possibilities to each shot, the round would now take five and a half to six hours. both of these not healthy for the game

I think it is time that golf courses were modified to ensure more skill is involved rather than brute force and strength. Current trends limit success to those who can hit the ball immense distances resulting in drive and short iron / pitch shots. Many of the lesser (average) mortals cannot compete.
I believe that the courses should be modified to put skill and pure shot making back into the game and challenge each golfer to think his way around the course more.
I suggest that fairways be manicured in such a way as to limit the excessively long drives by letting the rough grow in on the fairways at prescribed landing areas so that if the really big hitters decide to hit the extra long dries they end up in the rough. Instead of tee to green fairways, modify them to make it more of a challenge to plot your way around the course.
This would not only bring shot making and accuracy more into the game but at the same time reduce the cost of maintaining golf courses i.e. less labor needed, less machinery maintenance, less fertilizers etc. I think it would be better for the game and make it more interesting for the spectator. By all means let the guys "give a go" if they choose the risk and reward shot but increase the risk.

Look at every sport you can think of, they are all going further, faster, longer, better as technology, training, mental improvements, equipment improvements, all change the face of that particular sport. Just look at Michael Phelps, no one is asking if he is "good for swimming". Every generation of golfer is going longer distance, lower scores, better prepared. Plus, we can't single out Bryson, there are several golfers hitting as far (Champ, Wolff, Johnson, Bubba). I think what scares people about Bryson is his scientific approach to the entire matter, and what is scary about that is that most of us are not smart enough, or not dedicated enough, or interested enough to do what Bryson does. It is available to all. He should not be villainized for being dedicated enough to put in the time and effort. His power will not be able to overcome human fallibility and the bitch of a mistress called GOLF. For a while it looked like Jordan Speith was the chosen one, and now he struggles. Who is to say that Bryson will not stumble. Bryson is not good nor bad for golf, but the natural progression of the sport. Bryson is simply a shining example of what dedication can accomplish.

I am from Australia and have been playing the game since we only had persimmon woods and blade irons and only reached a 3 handicap so worlds away from anything special but I agree that Bryson is not special in terms of being a long hitter to have won.

Jack was long, Greg Norman was said to be the longest and straightest driver of his time and Tiger was long and whilst I may be wrong it appears to me that Bryson, unlike Jack, Greg and Tiger, has set out to simply "overpower" any golf course from tee to green and in the knowledge that with sufficient distance in most cases the next shot with a modern golf club will be more than easy.

I read a comment on the "anchoring" of the putter that Bryson, Matt, Adam and Bernhard utilise and I have to agree it should be stopped simply by ensuring the putter is the shortest club in the bag and limited to 36".

I am inclined to think that the discussion around courses accomodating for Bryson's length might not be academic as I am relatively sure there will be more people than golfers that would express some concern for copious amounts of extended real estate just to cater for a minimum number of people capable of utilising it.

The concern is not that just Bryson might be bad for golf because I doubt that but rather whether what Bryson is offering is ultimately what we as golfers want - will our young people be wildly seeking distance risking some other issues - talk to others on the course and those with adjacent housing