What seemed strange to me about his comments was the notion that the R&A/USGA cannot explore the "distance debate" and also promote growth of the game. Seems like both of these topics should be part of their standard modus operandi and they can spend "millions" on both?
His previous comments about the regulatory bodies missing an opportunity 20 years ago when the Pro V1 was launched is spot on.
If you look at the data, gains have been minimal since then and we're at the point where ball and club technology isn't advancing in any meaningful way.
I worked at TM for a few years and collaborated with engineering and R&D (incredibly talented people) to develop product lines / strategy and I can tell you that it's a grind getting a typical golfer "more yards" these days once they've been properly fitted. It's all marketing BS.
Also, bifurcation is a challenge because "average golfers" want to play the same products as the pros (based on numerous surveys).
It would need to be a change across the spectrum or nothing based on the survey data that I've seen, but I'd still like to see the ball rolled back for pros so we can evaluate the impact. Changing rules drastically on clubs will be challenging because it's unlikely a magical solution exists for metalwood club size, CT, COR, etc. These guys can hit 3 woods 300 yards that have 165cc heads.
What frustrates me is the mangling of golf courses, especially historic ones, so the 0.1% can play a tournament there. Who cares? Pro golf is pretty boring these days so just let them play on TPC tracks and call it good. Leave other courses alone. LOL