Of course it is true that for recreational players, the Pro V era has meant little in terms of direct impact to them. The vast majority of recreational players can happily - and should - play on 6500 yard golf courses. For 99.8% of the members and guests at Merion, that course is and will always be a classic and fully demanding test.
Having stipulated to all of that, let's ask some more questions:
~If average consumers/recreational players have gained so little with the advances of the Pro V era, what do they have to lose in any rollback, particularly one that is aimed at the performance parameters of elite players? Recreational players have little to lose and nothing to fear, is what I say.
~If the net result of a careful ball rollback was that recreational players' games was nearer to that (distance-wise, at least) of the tour players', would that not be a great thing for golf? I think so.
~What is the real benefit to average golfers of technology that provides them with tiny benefits and yet provides elite players with substantial benefits? Nothing, I say.
~What is the benefit, to the general game of golf, of equipment technology that pushes distance gains to ever-higher levels? I once challenged the Golf Digest Equipment Bloggers "Bomb and Gouge" (Mike Stachura and E. Michael Johnson) on this point and they ultimately replied that if Augusta National and The Old Course became obsolete for championship play, that would be okay. (They doubted it would happen, and said that they'd be happy to have an extra week to play those courses themselves if it could be arranged...) But the point remains, what good does it do golf to have an ever-increasing arms race in terms of equipment? Why make million-dollar changes to golf courses at all, anywhere, if instead we could retool a $3 golf ball?