A Sky Sports roundup at the Valspar Championship talks to European players commenting on the distance debate includes Rory McIlroy, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson, Paul Casey and Ian Poulter.
All downplay any issues for different reasons, but McIlroy's comments were of note given his views on equipment influences.
"For me there's no concern. It's not the ball, it's not the equipment, it's the people that have got more athletic and have more speed.
"The guys train better, they know what they're doing more, they have Trackmans so they can figure out how to swing it fasters and be more efficient. It's not the golf balls, it's not the golf clubs, I think it's just fine the way it is."
So if the equipment is not a factor--a farcical statement but let's work with the theory--then what's the harm in tweaks to the rules for elite players to keep courses a sustainable distance?
I'm not sure I understand the line of rhetorical questions posed by Rose:
"Is the golf ball going further? Yes. Are we stronger? Yes. Is it a problem? Golf isn't getting any easier for the amateur and it isn't getting much easier for the pro.
"Are we getting make some courses obsolete by the distances we're hitting? Yes, but then again great designed golf courses don't need to be long."
So they're obsolete, but the courses do not need to respond to a changing game?
Obsolete would imply they are outmoded and in need of replacement.