After all these pages, Kalen may have identified the real issue. As i stated in the other distance thread, there are 2 issues arising out of the gains in distance that have come about over the last 20 or 30 years. The first relates to architecture. Whether it makes sense to us or not, many classic courses are being altered/lengthened because their membership believes that in order to be perceived as a first rate course, they must be long enough to challenge the best players. Oftentimes this makes the architecture less interesting. It increases costs and makes each round more time consuming. As an aside, it rarely achieves its goal.
I suppose Barney is right when he says the members own the course so they can do what they want. I would suggest that the owner of a Rembrandt is free to paint mustaches on all the faces but I submit that no one in their right mind would suggest that such actions should be considered good or even rational. Having the right or ability to do something does not imply that exercising that right is a good thing. Judgment remains a valuable commodity.
The second impact of the increase in distance is its alteration of the skills needed to be an outstanding golfer at the highest level. For most of the history of the game, at least since the advent of the steel shaft, the ability to play all the clubs "through the bag" was a common characteristic of the truly great players. A key characteristic that separated many of the greats from the near greats was the ability to play long irons. Nicklaus was legendary but Hogan, Snead and Nelson were no slouches. I could add others. Today, long irons are used on tight driving holes and very long par threes. An occasional par 5 requires a long iron for the 2nd shot while most only need a mid to short iron to reach the green in 2. So what has always been an essential skill separating players is largely lost unless we build special courses of extraordinary length. For regular play, tees would be much shorter and the maintenance cost would be outrageous. Again, this only matters if as a spectator, one appreciates the variety of skills the game needed and which we are losing.
It is for another thread to discuss the concept of when a game reaches "maturity" so that it should preserve its essential character through rules making. Baseball did pretty well with wood bats and the distances between bases produce the close plays that make the game interesting. Many argue that changes in tennis equipment have made the professional game less interesting. For another time but I suggest that changes in golf equipment have hurt the game in the 2 areas I have noted. If one doesn't care about either issue, that is their choice. I care but I am dubious that anything will be done about it. Again, for another post.