Tom Paul,
I completely agree with your similarly thoughtful post. Please see my thread from a few weeks back titled, "Let's just change par for the pros".
I based that thread on a simple and obvious point; the definition of "PAR".
The definition reads as follows; "The score that an EXPERT player would expect to make on a hole under normal conditions."
Who could possibly argue that the score an expert player should make has changed greatly over the years?
For instance, a course like Merion would now simply be a par 68, with 3 monster par fours on the front side, and more in balance with the difficult finish.
Augusta National could simply become a par 68 or 69, based on the very reachable par fives on the back, as well as the second hole. All of this needless construction and lengthening and other surgery would be eliminated.
Can anyone possibly provide a reason why this wouldn't be a good idea? Who really cares if the pros at a US Open at Merion would now shoot 268 at Merion instead of the 280 that Nicklaus and Trevino fired in 1971? That would be about -4 under the new par, and certainly indicative of wonderful play.
What's more, it would give us some historical perspective as to how much better the players of today might be against their predecessors.
I still think the ball should be rolled back somewhat, or at least stopped in its tracks, but even so, I think the changing of par is really the short-term, realistic answer.