Steve,
Frank Thomas doesn't get it.
Remember, it was on his watch (1974-2000) when distance and shot dispersal (accuracy) got out of control.
His statement, "making the ball travel a shorter distance has the same effect as lengthening courses." is absurd.
It completely overlooks the cost to clubs for lengthening their golf courses and altering their architecture. And, these costs are significant and repetitive in nature.
His headline sub-title, "Tougher Courses Could Help Restore the Game's Balance" is likewise absurd, especially when he never offers any suggestions on how to make them tougher, while maintaining the element of the fun of playing them.
His statement, referencing RTJ's work at Oakland Hills, "Creative course designers can make similar modifications to place a premium on accuracy in major championships, bringing golf back into a better balance." is likewise absurd.
Should we now have fairway widths at 10 yards ?
A mandate on where golfers HAVE to hit their shots ?
Do we now move all bunkers and architectural features to meet the challenge of 153 golfers in order to make the golf courses tougher ?
And, what happens to the golf course and all of the architectural features after those 153 guys leave ?
The game was fun for me when I was 15, 25, 35 and 45, all before high tech. It was also fun for me last year when I couldn't hit a tee shot 200 yards. Why do he and others think that he game won't be fun if we don't hit the ball as far as we do today ? Distance isn't the inherent lure and value of the game.
Since I've heard that the real jump in distance is for those who have swing speeds in excess of 110 mph, why wouldn't changes to the ball impact those players the most ?
If the ball and equipment was good enough to generate the interest and play circa 1980 why wouldn't that ball and equipment generate the same interest today ?
I would agree that it's a dual problem, which is why I suggested a reduction in the size of drivers AND a rollback of the ball.