David,
Unless I'm mistaken, this conversation is about equipment and equipment regulations. The reason it's a worthwhile discussion is that people think great architecture is being ruined or the game is becoming too big which leads to too expensive and time consuming for people to play. Some people think both are major issues. I agree with both of those concerns but disagree with your single minded approach of trying to artificially take yardage away from Dustin Johnson, and his ilk, to save the game. You're misguided.
You brought Shackelford into this, I didn't. Happy to let you take him out of it. Which book should I read?
My "single minded approach?" To the contrary, I am all for
any approach that might help, including trying to convince these courses/owners/developers/clubs not to foolishly chase after the technology which (IMO) hasn't really helped the average golfer all that much. That is part of why I focus on the difference in benefits between the big hitters and the small hitters-- to try and convince others that the old courses really aren't too short for most golfers, and that it wouldn't make sense to bastardize a design for the sake of a few big hitters.
It is also misleading for you to state that I want to "artificially" take yardage away from anyone. Golf is a game played with implements and
those implements have always been regulated. According to the ball manufacturers, they could easily manufacturer balls which exceeded the rules. Are those rules "artificially" taking distance away from Johnson, too? The rules define the game and they are supposed to protect the game. Changing the rules would be merely a matter of trying to actually accomplish what they set out to accomplish in the first place.
As for Shackelford, I offered his name in humor to point out that some have been willing to "blame the clubs." I surely wasn't volunteering to summarize his books for you, nor do I think that would be productive given your stated hostility toward him.