The issue is not the bumps the runway, but the lumps in the air; wind, crosswind, gusts, and associated assumptions.
Either pilots are not experiencing a sufficient range of conditions or unable to relate training / experience to the real conditions, … or, … or,
It would be interesting to review the extent of experience, how many crosswind landings, against the depth of experience, how close to the 'limit' or range of gust intensity. Just because 15kts X was 'easy', then so too will be 30kts X with gusts; not so for every aircraft type. Every wind encounter is different, all situations must be treated as such.
Previous posts cited difficulties with simulators; many lack representative roll-yaw interaction and most do not have the ability to induce side-force, lateral acceleration - 'seat of the pants' feedback; yet we believe that they are sufficiently representative of the aircraft. Then there is the 'jump through the hoop' training; time for management / regulator to look at 'work as done', vice what they imagine.
Do First Officers get to fly a sufficient rage of conditions; or are they always limited to xx kts. How are they to generate experience; when do they see higher X winds - when they become Captain, and fly in limiting situations, without further experience.