Christ, Garland and I do have something in common! Move me back a set of tees on my home course and my score may go up by a stroke or two against 2.7 strokes higher on the course rating and 5 higher on the slope. I am not a Wild Willy, typically finding over 75% of the fairways, but barely above 35% of the greens.
Rolling the ball back to something before the introduction of the ProV1 would probably bring the course and slope ratings more in line for me, but I don't need to hit the ball any shorter than I already am. There are probably 50 golfers like me to one for whom the modern ball provides a disproportionate advantage.
The reason the debate continues is because there is no ideal solution. I would think that the physics of the ball works both ways, the disproportionate effect going one way would also go the other. And the 20-30 yards lost to a guy like Dustin would likely have a much lesser effect on his game than the 5-10 I would lose. If we haven't notice, the top players hit mid and long irons with considerable precision; ditto for the fairways woods. In comparison, the chances of me hitting a 5-iron from 170 yards to within 50' of a target is probably < 50%. If the ball was rolled back and now I am hitting a hybrid, that % probably goes down below 25.
Bifurcate, build 30 more professional stadium courses, or be willing to accept the -30 winning score with more frequency. I am good with any of these choices much more than making me play with a shorter ball.