The idea that things have evolved as they have because of a "free market" for equipment and design is exactly what some people would like to hear. But I'm sure Geoff understands as well as anyone how many different forces conspire to make things as they are.
Wow! Have the Russians also managed to "conspire to make things as they are"? That damned Putin must be one hellavu multi-tasker!
I guess I must have been contemplating the various strategies offered by Riviera's 10th hole the day "free markets" were discussed in the remedial course for Econ 101. Here I thought that the "free market" was millions of individuals expressing their informed preferences through their purchases (products, services, ideas)- "average Joes" and "many different forces" included. We like our ProV1s- nobody is forcing us to buy them- despite there being any number of other cheaper alternatives that suffice.
Though I haven't found Geoff's past comments on golf and its architecture particularly insightful or unique, I can only quibble with one idea in the subject piece: that the emphasis on length is relatively new. I remember 40+ years ago when graphite shafts in drivers first appeared at my then home club (at around $150), there was considerable excitement. Ditto for when the TaylorMade metalwoods were introduced. I was a couple of cycles behind the early adopters, but I too enjoyed knocking the trees down close to where our balls would normally roll out to with our persimmons. Distance and strength in most sports I know have always been highly valued.
I am also alarmed at how many of my friends here wish to impose your individual preferences via regulation on the rest of us. One of the major reasons given for the decline of our game is how difficult it is to play reasonably well, even with occasional practice. I've seen many GCAers play over the 15 years on this site and making the game more difficult vis-à-vis a roll back in technology and a reduction of clubs permitted under the rules is going the wrong way 180°.
In this I am with Bill Buckley when he said "I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty." Really, the intelligentsia here couldn't be more wrong. The advantage of a pro over a 15 handicapper would only increase if instead of 14 clubs, both players are limited to 7 (or 10 or 5). I can't think of a single pro I have ever played with who had one single deficiency greater than any of my own. In nearly every case, that 385 yard-hole is much easier for Mr. Oglivie with a half-wedge or pitch than for me with 9 iron or wedge. Cut my club options in half, and the level of difficulty for me increases, maybe geometrically.
As to the construction of courses and tools of the trade, would Mr. Hancock be good with an esthetic that has the requisite power to determine that horses and scoops are the only allowable implements for future construction? Why would anyone wish to restrict the ability of good folks to express themselves? You want to shape with a small backhoe or with a pick and shovel, go for it. You like short courses, there are many out there or move up to the set of tees you prefer.
Golf's biggest challenges have very little to do with the ball or the high performance clubs (the elephant in the room continues to be in the realm of economics and public policy). If the long ball at the Tour level throws off a delicate balance with accuracy, shot-making, and finesse, BIFURCATE. Tony Ristola and I have advocated this here for over a decade, but we keep running the same old movie time and again. For the large majority of golfers at the club level, "average Joes" included, the long ball is not a problem. Geoff is correct.
P.S.- I agree with Kyle. For those of us who can't practice much, spend the time chipping and putting, and only enough on the long game to warm up.