I actually do think the article has a pretty good point.
My understanding is that we have created 1-5 woods with trampoline faces (even some irons), so that the sweet spot is big enough to swing as hard as you can. The real rollback would be shrinking those sweet spots, and would be as simple is clubs being required to have an effective uniform density (no more hollow driver heads), with maybe some ability to add weight to the bottom. That's obviously not going to happen because the general public would freak out. The irony being that nothing would actually change since courses "defend par" with every step forward in technology.
I'm honestly torn on the entire subject because Wethered & Simpson basically mock this debate a century ago arguing that design can trivially control the amount of advantage given with distance, while at the same time lamenting this technology as changing the golf swing itself, not just the strategy. It's genuinely nuts to see the deltas in distance within age ranges in my own home club (>100 yards between players with similar swings).
I think this debate in my head is why I keep looking for design tricks that will increase risks for ideal launch angles. I'm obviously not a course designer, and my thought experiments on design strategies
would probably be laughed at by any serious architects. Still, I think that, since the key to these exceptional distances lies exactly in a perfectly sculpted launch and landing angle (no matter what distances we're talking about), design strategies that target exactly those launch and landing angles will inherently increase the risks.
I'm not saying that power shouldn't be rewarded here and there, but games with a single, dominant strategy are boring.
My other thought on fighting power-as-skill is sculpting wind. I've been pretty interested with a kind of "designed" wind since becoming obsessed with one specific par 3
in Edinburgh that seemed to move the ball in the air like no other hole I've played (even since then).