Gary,
I am also a publinx golfer. Sounds like the two of us represent opposite ends of the publinx perspective. I play most my golf at one course and almost always compete in some sort of match, usually adjusted to handicap and usually there is a bet of some sort (usually for miniscule stakes.) In fact, almost everyone I know who golfs regularly does so in a matchplay format or one of its many derivatives. When I occassionally play golf at some of my old haunts I am amazed at how short the long holes seem now, and I am not a big hitter.
As for the pros hitting it 300 or 350, as I said above, it isnt just the pros, it is a wide variety of golfers with a wide variety of handicaps.
I agree with you that it would be detrimental to the game to suddenly turn off all the technological advances which might help the bad players, but as I noted above it is not the bad players who are benefiting from technology, at least not relative to the long hitters.
Also, I think you might be relying on a false premise. The equipment manufacturers would have us believe that a limit on distance will hurt all golfer proportionally. There is absolutely no reason this has to be the case. If the manufacturers can build balls that provide relatively more benefit to fast swingers, they can do the same for slow hitters. So why not cap the top and let the slower swingers catch up for a while so we can get the distance gap back to where it makes sense?
And I am not talking about bifurcation. A single rule could be drafted so as to still allow slower hitters to continue to benefit from technology, within reason.
Bottom line, I do care about the distance gap if only for architecture's sake.
Regards,
David