I find it a little ironic how the focus of this thread has changed. We are now engaged in a relatively civilized discussion of some of the issues which our departed Melvyn raised at every juncture while at the same time making it impossible to have a dialogue. Why is that the case? Because in almost every circumstance, shortly after Melvyn perceived that someone failed to agree with his point of view, he resorted to ad hominem attacks and the ability to exchange real ideas was lost. While some responded in kind, others just refused to participate. Hence many interesting threads were stifled by Melvyn's preoccupation with turning almost every discussion into a lament for what might have been and a referendum on his own distorted view of the game.
That is why my friend Bob Huntley was more than justified in calling Melvyn out. Understand, neither Bob nor most of us on this site were in favor of censoring Melvyn's views. But when an individual refuses to respect the views of others, resorts to personal insults at the drop of a hat, and merely repeats the same arguments over and over without any adjustment for any other point of view, he is not contributing to an exchange of information. That is why his purported reason for leaving, his inability to find meaningful debate, is laughable. Melvyn never debated anyone; in the spirit of the famed Monty Python skit, he engaged in contradiction. There is a difference. Bob recognized the difference and said so. Melvyn couldn't respond and retired. So much for wanting to debate. I suppose that Melvyn's defenders see no contradiction in excusing Melvyn's perpetual personal attacks while blasting Bob for identifying Melvyn for what he is. If we lose some historical information that is too bad but for me the price was way to high. I would welcome Melvyn back but not if his behaviour remains unchanged. I get paid to debate issues with others and if the other side is unpleasant, I endure it on behalf of my clients and because it is my job. But there is no similar duty nor is there a pecuniary incentive to put up with that type of nonsense here; a place that is designed to be a discussion group among friends.
I have addressed the substantive issues numerous times. My view is that there comes a time when a game can be viewed as mature and any significant tinkering with rules or equipment can endanger the sport, at least at the highest levels. In baseball, 90 foot bases have always worked. Wooden bats work, the college game is worse for aluminum. But the mound used to be much shorter, doctoring the ball was legal, the ball was less lively. Those changes balanced the game and the rulesmakers have only tinkered. Basketball eliminated the center jump after each basket, instituted the goal tending rule, widened the lane which made the 3 second rule relevant, brought the shot clock to the pros and then to colleges and brought in the 3 point rule. by the way, the ball has changed significantly.
American Football? Start with the shape of the ball. Add the introduction of the forward pass. Try out 2 platoon football which required rule changes regarding substitution. Recent changes in the rules on holding have made a significant difference Those are only fundamental changes. Additionally, changes in helmets and pads have changed the techniques used by players.
Changes in tennis are comparable and relate to equipment as the rules remain largely unchanged except for the tiebreaker. Larger headed, better balanced rackets have made it possible to use western grips which produce greater topspin and harder baselins shots. This has changed the balance of the game virtually eliminating the serve and volley, even on grass.
So the suggestion that other sports have remained unchanged is factually incorrect. The question remains, have the equipment changes in golf been good for the game and/or its architecture? I submit that question is in part answered by your cut off date. For me, the worst impact has been on the architecture as wonderful old courses have been rendered less relevant for the top players because of the distance increases attributable to equipment. This has led to greater expense and longer rounds. but I suspect putting the genie back in the bottle will be well nigh impossible. So for me, while I think the game was better when the ball didn't go as far for a variety of reasons, my focus is forward. I hope that the powers that be can try to "freeze " the game where it is recognizing that the game isat the least "mature" and needs no major changes. A roll back would be nice but unexpected.