He is also NOT a "voice of reason," which is a phrase that carries an intended meaning of a wise person whose words should be given greater credence to. Rather he is just a player with a perspective, and in my opinion, with one that is very incorrect and reflects a lack of understanding of the issue.
This is a problem that has plagued the game and affected the fields on which it is played since the boomin golf in America back in the teens of the 20th century. Many notables were complaining about the distance the golf ball travels and how long holes needed to be constructed to allow for challenging play. And that, after all, is the key.
Challenging play. When the very average plaer views a 350 yard hole as short and not a challenge then the question of whether or not technology has effected the game is answered. That is the state we are in today.
The problem with the long-hitting professionals hitting the ball astronomical distances is more a concern in the public's demand of defining the best, the champion, and how that can be measured. It has no bearing on the PGA tour and whether it is "boring golf." Quite frankly, the tour is alive and doing very well for itself and its players routinely impressing crowds with 64's and 20-under victors.
No, IMHO, the real question of "challenging play" is really found in three events, only two of which have a belief in actually challenging the players to some extent. The Open, the U.S. Open and the PGA.
We all pretty much recognize that the only course on the Open rota that has a vested interest in proving it's merit through brutal scoring conditions is Carnoustie. Any of the other venues will easily accept as the "Champion Golfer of the Year," someone who plays four rounds in 14 or 15 under par.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we all also know that the USGA dearly wants par as a winning score protected if at all possible. Then the PGA has been somewhere in between striking what they always feel is a fair balance between the two, though they also seem to be wanting Mr. Par a little better protected now.
Augusta and the Masters should play no part in this as score has always meant far less to them than tradition and the crowning of a champion after an exciting Sunday back nine that is where "The Matsres really begins." They love their eagled par-fives, near aces on 16 and disasters on 11 & 12 to balance them out. & under or 17 under matters nothing as much as whether the victor deserves to wear the green jacket.
So that really brings us to the heart of the argument - is the need to have the grand old venues that are now too short to be able to "protect par" against the onslaught of technology greater than the thrills and dynamics that technology has created through distance?
I say yes. I want Opens at Merion and I also want Bethpage Black to beat up the big boys as well.
All of a sudden, after all of that writing, I feel like Tom Paul.