Bomb and gouge won't go away with this. Isn't the point of bomb and gouge already admitting not needing to hit fairways. It has always been an advantage to hit bigger drives, even long ago; there just weren't any real stats to prove that up to 2011 (strokes gained) or so.
One guy on golf channel made a good point about being a bomber and being on the leader board. It's usually the guys bombing it and hitting fairways that appear there. Bomb and gouge guys are further down. No matter what they propose, distance will continue to be of the importance it already is.
I agree it is a skill. However, based upon the USGA and R&A report, assuming its veracity, the skill of distance has swallowed up the other skills to a large degree. Distance has encroached upon the other skills, the argument goes, to the point that bomb and gouge is the way to go. After all, distance leads to shorter clubs in, closer proximity to the hole, and more putts made—lower scores. They argue that there needs to be a readjustment to the importance of all the skills and the only way to do it is to temper distance. You could arguably do this via course setup and pinching in the fairways even more perhaps. However, unless the rough/obstacles are especially penal, it’s better to hit a wedge from the rough than a short to medium iron from the fairway in most cases.
Your point is merely going in circles. For the purposes of the argument, I assumed that it could be possible. This happens all the time in logical discussion—it’s called arguendo; it’s used often for thought experiments/discussion and in legal reasoning as well
Of course, I agree with you that if it’s not possible then it’s not a good idea. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. I’ve only talked about this further because others have replied to it. See discussion above.
I think we're both saying the same thing. Maybe it came across as if I were defending MGS's tactic, but I was trying to make the point that what MGS does isn't anything close to science, in fact it is quite antithetical to how science works. If MGS were really scientific in any regard, they would publish their test methods and all the raw data, and encourage experts to prove their conclusions wrong.
I'm 99.9% sure that ball manufacturers have extensive data on how their balls performs, probably much more rigorously tested than MGS. I wouldn't be shocked if the big manufacturers like Acushnet have extensive data on their competitor's products as well. Of course, publishing it is a different matter.