No,it definately wasn't meant in any kind of derogatory or diminishing way.Explaining how longer rods kill low end torque is difficult, in that it envolves a lot of physics and technical terms and mumbo jumbo. It mostly has to do with how it changes the dwelling of the piston at both ends of it stroke TDC and BDC.And engines are really pretty sensitive to even small changes in their R/L.The only way to try is to compare an engine that you could relate to. Take a 292 with its 4.12 stroke and 6.76 long rod. Now take that same 292 and put a 7.500 rod in it. The engines are built and prepped indentically in every way, except for rod length.As you begin to push the rod length of a given engine upward, and increase its R/L ratio, you also push the torque curve upward as well. You also create a narrower torque band. In the short rod engine as the piston approaches TDC and BDC, you can graph with a degree wheel and dial indicator various points of rotation relative to piston location in the cylinder, as it approaches and passes these TDC and BDC points. Now if you do the same with the long rod engine, and compare the same degree wheel locations relative to the piston as the short rod engine. You will see that with the the long rod engine, the piston slows down or dwells longer as it approaches and passes those TDC and BDC points. That loss of inertia also causes a loss of torque.(Hope this isn't boring) Low RPM engines(up to 7000)seem to have more usable HP and torque with relatively low R/L ratios, around 1.5 to 1.6,provide good low RPM grunt. Ratios in the 1.7 to 1.8 range are mostly used by engines that have a considerably higher peak RPM(up to about 9000)a Winston Cup Chevy engine has 1.81 with a 6.350"rod and 3.500 stroke, and the loss of the torque down low in the RPM is insignificant in these engines. Even though the GMC has a pretty high ratio already, 1.7 ratio, changing a 350 from a 5.7 to a 6 inch rod makes a huge noticeable change in its low end characteristics, and you only are changing the ratio from 1.64 to 1.72. Now, saying all that, to say this, changing his ratio from 1.7 to 2.0, is a very large jump for an engine that probably has a peak of maybe 6500 or so.He made some very good dyno #'s to say the least, but I think he gave up a lot of torque by making that big of a change in rod length, and since HP is also a by product of it, he really would have seen some much higher HP and torque #'s with a stock length rod. The good thing about HP is that it doesn't know if you have a fly weight piston or a 10 lb. piston, it makes the same either way....
