"It's expensive to change everything, and the ball manufacturers would not be happy."

Ron Kroichick interviews Robert Trent Jones Jr. and the distance chase comes up.

Q: People talk a lot about the technological advances in the game and the lengthening of courses. Should there be more restrictions on the ball or clubs when courses are forced to constantly lengthen themselves?

A: If the course is designed with a serious championship in mind, length is a definite part of our era for the reasons you talked about - the technology, the aerodynamic dimples on the ball, the athleticism, the big-headed drivers, all that. So what we've been doing since about 1992 is making courses longer and longer for championships. That's the easy answer and it's not one I like - because as I said, there are four or five major elements of defense and we're focused on one.

So there are other things people do, like what Augusta did - very strongly contoured greens. The pros hate that. They assume they can make every 20-footer, and if they miss, it's usually the architect's fault. Deepening bunkers is another thing, or smaller targets as at Pebble and the Olympic Club. ... Everyone is saying, "Bring the ball back," but I don't think you can. The genie is out of the bottle. It's expensive to change everything, and the ball manufacturers would not be happy.

Now, didn't he just describe several things you can do to a course to offset the distance explosion, all of which cost a lot of money. Yet to roll back the ball would be expensive and would make ball manufacturers unhappy.

First, it would not be expensive to modify courses to accommodate a shorter flying ball. In 99% of the cases, you simply pick up tee markers and move them forward.

Second, does the game exist to service the disposition of golf ball manufacturers? After all, they've gotten their way and they aren't happy now because play is down.