This thread fleshes out something I told Dick Rugge in Houston last week when discussing the thumper. (A delightful guy, btw.) JSPayne's posts come closest to what I was trying to say.
The use of the thumper, stimp meters etc. all represent a specific view of how the game ought to be played and competitions conducted. The view is that the game ought to be played under conditions such that the link between excecution and results is as predictable as possible.
Those are things that have a high value to the USGA and that's how they want to conduct their championships. To do that you make playing conditions as consistent as possible. The bounce on the approach to the 2nd green will be identical to the bounce you get on the approach to the 14th and so forth across the course. Same goes for green speeds. Proper use of the thumper and stimp meters will get you that, ideally.
It's a perfectly reasonable approach.
It is, however, a fairly unique approach. There is nothing written in the stars that says that is the way competitions must be conducted. Other sanctioning bodies, such as the R&A (as best I can tell) and lots of ordinary golfers would not agree with that approach.
For example, JSPayne and others on this thread express views that are much closer to those of Bobby Jones, MacK, Behr, Simpson, Thomas, MacD, and the whole Golden Age throne room. The idea being that golf is bound up with playing on natural terrains (whether designed or not) and all the vagaries that suggests. Unpredicatable things happen, you get raw deals, you get lucky, and so forth. You are often unsure what will happen, even with good shots.
In short, there are lots of people - past and present - would not agree that rationalizing the link between execution and outcomes is of central importance in the game.
Bob