Going back to the original question, I’d frame the question this way: do we believe that radical steps need to be taken to courses primarily because 1) players are better or 2) equipment is better?
There is a broad contingent of golf Twitter that believes that 2) is the correct position (Shackelford, NLU, Andy Johnson, Clayton, etc.) Their position is that is is chiefly because equipment got out of control from the late 90s into the early 2000s that courses have become defenseless against the top players in the world. Thus, the solution to the problem of overpowered courses is rolling back the equipment.
There is an indisputable core of truth here.
That said, I still tend to be sympathetic to position 1. Specialized training and data analysis have revolutionized virtually every sport. Put the current Detroit Lions (unfortunately, my team) on the field with the Bart Starr/Vince Lombardi Packers. I would expect at least one player from the Packers to die in the course of play, and for the modern Lions to win by something like 50 points.
I intend no disrespect to early era of the NFL or, for that matter, to the classic eras of golf. And I believe that the greats of previous eras, with access to the training, etc. of modern times, would still be great players today.
But if there were no changes in equipment since the mid 90s, but training (not just physical, but also swing knowledge, launch monitors, etc.) increased as they have, I would suspect that the modern field of golfers would still greatly outperform the previous generations on an unchanged course.
I don’t see why that’s a problem. When track athletes get faster and break records, no one says that the track should be lengthened so that the times are consistent with previous generations. But in golf, when modern golf scores get low, we have to change the course to give the illusion that they’re no better than any previous generation.
