As from the previous thread, I am all for 150 or so courses trying it, or offering two cups, or two days a week with both or larger cups, etc. I agree the locations would have to be carefully selected, perhaps by trial and error.
The "no change" opinions here are typical of the 8M core golfers, and to be expected. Golf does appeal to many just the way it is. No problem with that.
But, things do change, at an ever accelerating rate. Not sure golf, which HAS changed, doesn't need to change to adapt to the next generations tastes, at least somewhat. I understand its sad that it may have to make itself more like a video game to be attractive, but that is what might happen, if not with 15" cups, then perhaps with more tech or something else.
Some have gone beyond the 15" cup question to the root question, which is, if society allows less and less time for golf and practice, what do we do to make it faster and easier, since a large portion of people who might play a few times a year don't because its also too hard to master? With so many recreation options, many just can't make a commitment to golf, and would make it closer to something like "going to a movie" for a night.
And, I agree, shorter courses (a la Tee It Forward) would also work, but keeping the existing clubs so more golfers have a realistic approach shot, and not an unreachable green. You know, play courses with an average of driver and 6 iron as was originally intended for the rest of us......yes, basically, an expansion of multiple tees to level the playing field, to perhaps multiple balls, cups and courses to make up the difference between the tour pros and the rest of us. The old saying "he plays a game with which I am not familiar" is truer now than when said about Nicklaus.
As to putting being an equalizer, I also don't agree - unless of course you can go to the club or range and spend hours perfecting a stroke. No one (or perhaps one in a million) is born a naturally good putter. And kids have everything else dumbed down so much to assist their "accomplishments" that NOT doing so may turn them off to golf altogether.
In essence, shorter courses and bigger holes (although I agree it may not have to be the clownish 15" cup) would give those folks the thrills of golf at a faster pace, which seems to fit societies' faster pace. I think it would go a long way to making the game more fun for a lot more people. For those who think it ought to be some test of manhood, I am just not sure we need to force that on everyone. I also believe that if starters and occasional players use the 15" cup, it will give them even more reverence for the traditional game, and some will continue on to try to master it.
I see golf as strong enough to adapt, and don't see any adaptations as a weakness as some of you do. Of course, I don't really know what is best either, but experimenting on 150 or so courses seems the way to find out, no?
As to the snide jabs at profit only motive, I would say most folks just in general worry about providing for the next generation and keeping it going. Are we really so selfish that we don't care if golf dies the day we do? It's not all about the profit, as some suggest.