"Tom,
If CBM's approach was essentially laisse-faire towards I&B (or technological advances), then why do you suppose that the GCA treehouse seems to be so interested in things like rolling back the distance of the ball?
Sandbox:
I'm not sure I understand your question or the intent of it. Are you saying you think the "Treehhouse" endorses, or should, eveything Macdonald said on I&B?
There's no question the R&A and USGA is still acting in a very laisse-faire way.
If there was a distance problem in the era of the haskell ball or if there is one today and a fellow like Macdonald did not recommend something be done about it, the fact that nothing much was done about it then or is being done about it now should be looked at as a potential mistake.
A philosopher such as Max Behr made a very interesting point way back when (in the teens and 1920s). That point of Behr's was----at what point does I&B just sustain skill? It occurs to me that neither the R&A nor the USGA has actually ever bother to define exactly what is meant by the terrm "skill" in golf!
