I guess my point is that the USGA really doesn't need to firm up their Open layouts to the point where they're essentially killing grass. It would be much easier and simpler to narrow the fairways, increase the rough, and allow the rough to grow around the greens.... you know - like the way they used to set up US Open tournaments way back when.
If I player (like Dustin Johnson, for instance) can gouge a wedge out of 6 inch rough and still somehow have it find the green - he's still most likely not physically capable to exert the needed control to have the ball land anywhere near the hole location without a great deal of luck. And even then he still has to show some putting prowess to score.
The USGA needs to get back to a time when they didn't have to trick up golf courses by firming the conditions and killing the greens to make it challenging. Put a premium on driving accuracy. And if a guy like Zach Johnson hits driver and finds the fairway - then he's rewarded for being able to control his golf ball. Most likely Zach's best drive is still 10 yards behind Dustin's 3wood, but it's forcing players to make a decision off the tee.
Control is the keyword here. Narrower fairways, deeper/thicker rough around the greens.... perhaps not mowing the fairways down low enough to where the players aren't getting 30+ yards of rollout. The challenge is still there. The balance needed to be struck regarding accuracy and distance is still prevalent. The greens don't have to be bare and stimped at 14 to challenge these guys, IF they get the rest of the setup right. The longer hitters are still maintaining an advantage, provided they find the short grass.
I remember a time when a missed fairway was so penal that it basically cost the players in a US Open at least a stroke, maybe even more.
It doesn't cost the USGA more money to let the grass grow. They don't need sub-air systems. They can still host most of their tournaments on some of the more classic layouts.
Where they run into controversy is when they change the classic layout to combat the longer hitters by firming up the fairways and greens. These courses weren't designed, these greens weren't designed, for that type of deviation from the way the original architects designed these courses to be played.
That's why Olympic Club, Oakmont, Shinnecock Hills, etc have led to controversial setups over the years.
Make the targets smaller. Grow the rough and narrow the fairways, allow the rough to grow around the edges of the greens.
The goal should be to reward accuracy just as much as distance. Miss a fairway - then pay the penalty with not being able to control the golf ball. Miss the green - pay the penalty with not being able to control the golf ball.
It really doesn't need to be that complicated. And if a player shoots 9-under and wins - then so be it. He's earned it.
They've lessened the requirement of a world-class player to judge the lie of his golf ball when his tee shot goes astray. That's the crux of the problem.