"I'm all for letting them blast away. It's a sport -- where physical prowess should count."

There were several highlights from the Golf Digest/Golf World/GolfDigest.com roundtable on the PGA and mercifully, none involved talking about Firestone which I'm already over after turning on the television to a sea of green.

A nice ball debate popped up in discussion of major venues.

Diaz: So many of the great courses are either too short or don't have the infrastructure. There's a solution to this, but it remains the elephant in the room.

Johnson: Oh, let me guess. The ball? Are you getting hot and bothered by the fact the USGA is going to conduct a test with Canadian Tour players using a short ball in the next couple of months? A short ball could be on the docket.

Sirak: I surrendered on the ball discussion 10 years ago.

Diaz: I'm past hot and bothered. All I can say is that when Shinnecock, Pebble and St. Andrews start to play rinky-dink, something is wrong.

Johnson: Not me. I'm all for letting them blast away. It's a sport -- where physical prowess should count. I don't care if they shoot 20 under at Augusta or Pebble or St. Andrews. I know some people are in love with par. As mortals we struggle with achieving it. But the best in the world can beat it up all they want as far as I'm concerned. Pebble is still beautiful. St. Andrews is still historic regardless of the winning score.

Diaz: It's not about par, it's about producing the golf that tests the best in the game in the most interesting way. If it's wedge or short iron to everything, that diminishes the interest of the play for me.

One problem with (E.Michael) Johnson's case: natural or cultivated-through-good-mechanics physical prowess is not rewarded any longer because of the equipment. Oh long hitters are longer than ever, but many average and below-average-but-properly fitted players are now hitting it in places they have no business being. The power game has been diminished by technology.

No?