I fail to understand the rollback arguments.
Any course that adds length does so per it’s own decision. Vanity, I assume. “Protecting par”. There is no need to build longer courses. The back tees at most courses get limited use today. If members want longer courses and faster greens that allow them to brag about difficulty, let them pay for that. Courses that manage to their budget will survive. Those that overextend or fail to manage budget will not.
Let the pros score whatever they score. They only play a small number of courses anyway. Not the ones that most golfers play. A pro will beat the average player, regardless of equipment. Hitting a tennis ball with a bunker rake. Let them score 50 under in tournaments. What does that matter?
I play with seniors who carry 18 clubs and two rangefinders. They have $400 drivers, which they adjust multiple times during a round. They buy new irons every year or two. Most never hit it more than 180 yards. They play a 5000 yard course. Without today’s giant drivers and hot golf balls, they’d not play at all. If they see a pro win with a new putter, it’s in their bag the next week. If an endorsement promises them 10 yards longer drives, they take out the credit card. Do you think they care about a rollback?
On the other extreme, there are players who carry bags with assorted clubs, including 3 rusty 5-irons and a beer cooler. A 15 pack of top-flights usually gets them through a round. Do they care about rollbacks?
These groups make up a large percentage of the golfing public, that pays the bills. Despite what the NGA or USGA wants to believe, neither of the above groups follows the rules very closely. They do, however, watch the pros and buy the equipment that the pros endorse.
Let the kids bomb it and enjoy that. Make the game more difficult and the younger generations will play on their iPhone, not on your golf course.
Finally, what is the agreed upon proposed rollback? Hickory and featheries would certainly allow for shorter pro courses. How are equipment limits measured and enforced? Manufacturers demonstrate the ability to work around legislated limits. Recent club tests by the Tour have shown that.
I guess the equipment rules could mandate a rollback, but why? Instead, make courses beautiful, sustainable, interesting, and with multiple shot options. (This IS a forum on course architecture, right?)