Given this is an architecture forum one thing no one has mentioned yet is a basic principle of architecture is building a green relative to, and suited, to the shot to the green.
What the equipment - ball, driver, mowing machines, trackman - has done is see players hitting wedges and short irons into greens designed for middle and long irons.
And on some par 5s, 3 woods into greens designed for wedges - which is way more interesting than wedges into big greens.
And some short par 4s are way more interesting - and dangerous - now they are reachable.
But not the 18th on The Old Course - which is now a long par 3:)
Mike:
I am going to have to disagree with you on this point, since this is an architectural forum.
I've always figured that there are going to be golfers all over the hole hitting approaches from every distance, and I didn't want to leave the guy who didn't hit it far with no chance to hold the green. So, I've always tried to make my greens somewhat accessible under adverse conditions, and for low-trajectory players.
I know that most architects who are good players see it your way. [So does Mark Fine, who keeps insisting that Donald Ross and A.W. Tillinghast didn't project that technology would change the game, and intended for certain holes to be approached with a 5-iron and sized their greens accordingly.] But that's not what I saw in the U.K., so that's not what I've normally done on my own courses.
I do think we agree that players hitting wedges into the majority of greens is not the same test of golf that good courses used to provide.