a comment made by Reher Morrison
I read that, and (as written) it's completely wrong.
What they did not feel was necessary (but required for the statement to be useful) is that within the range of possible ratios (for a given deck height and stroke length) a change of .10" on a 6.00" rod produces no useful effects. Ratio changes below 5% (.30" in a 6.00" rod) are generally not useful unless the original is a bad choice (4.25" stroke with 5.70" rod). If the length's variable range were 1.00" the statement would never have been made.
Most of the "comparisons" done in magazines and on line change only the rod length (and piston CD to retain deck height). To make the A/B comparo valuable, other variables should be addressed (but were not), especially cam LSA and IVC. Short rods are more tolerant of late intake closing.

Let me guess: FAMOUS NAME beats actual engineering?