Some folks here apparently can't even see an issue worth debating. I disagree--I think there is an issue here. More than in any other sport, tech evolution in one piece of equipment--the ball--has drastically changed the game.
For starters, it's the ball, not the clubs, that accounts for 90% of the effect on the the pro game. Lighter shafts are nice, but pros have always had speed. Cavity back is great, but these guys are hitting the sweet spot pretty consistently. Hybrids might be the golf club tech that's had the most impact for pros, but it's a very specific and limited impact: hitting long irons that take off with a 20* launch angle instead of 16* is only going to affect a couple shots per round.
Likewise, tech has evolved all sports, but not to the extent the ball has changed golf. Football players are bigger, stronger, and more muscular due to science in nutrition, training, etc. But it's not like runningbacks are going from 5.5 second 40s to 4-flat. They're picking up a tenth or two, and there are more athletes in the pool that can attain 4.2 or 4.3. But the 4.2 hasn't gotten any faster. Likewise, baseball parks are the same size. The ball is the same ball. Wood is still wood. Lighter cleats and compression shorts aren't creating footballers that can suddenly run 10-straight sub 10-second 100 yard dashes. We're not seeing field goals from 80 yards.
Tech--specifically the ball--has drastically changed golf, though. Drives are about 25% longer. The club of choice from 180 yards has gone from 4/5-iron to 7/8/9-iron. The modern ball launches high, with relatively little spin, and is minimally affected by wind (compared to the balata ball). That changes the way pros tackle a golf course. A 440-yard par-4 used to require some thought: a 280-yard drive (huge in 1985) would still leave you 160 to the hole, which was 6/7 iron for most pros. If you missed the fairway, you're left with a 6-iron from the rough which is daunting. If you hit 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, you're looking at 3/4-iron to the green, which means you have to carefully choose your angle of attack into the flag. Position on the fairway matters. The modern equivalent of the 440-yard 4-par is about 485 yards. For the top-1/3rd of guys on tour, this is a driver 8-iron or 9-iron. Who cares if you put it in the rough, because you'll be hitting 9-iron into the green anyway? Even if you lay back off the tee with your well-placed 280-yard 3-wood, you've still got 205 to the flag. That's a stock 6-iron, which launches plenty high and lands soft enough that placement off of the tee is basically irrelevant unless you're hitting into US Open greens.
So, to make a course difficult, the tournament committee has to bake the greens, grow calf-deep rough, and put the pins on 10* grades. Guys either try to throw a dart (where they might achieve triumphant success or crushing failure) or they aim away from the hole and you spend most of the day watching guys read 40-foot putts. I think some of the artistry is gone from the professional game because of the ball.
That's not to say that limiting the ball is the answer. The professional game is, as Recreational Golfer noted above, a very, very small part of the game. I've played with a few older guys who couldn't lift 25 pounds, but they can make their perfect-tempo swings with their 47-inch drivers and pound their perfectly-fitted ball out about 240. These guys would probably be miserable hitting a 170-yard slice with a Titleist Tour-90 and might quit the game. I, for one, have a lot more fun playing now than I did 20 years ago when I was playing competitive golf at the high school and college level. Shots are easier. Eagle putts are frequent. I can still hit great shots without practicing, because the sweet spot is only a guideline. (My short game blows, but that's a different story.)
I'm not sure that limiting the ball is the answer, and I'm certainly not sure that 2 different balls (pros vs. ams) is the answer. But those who think there isn't a question are missing a lot, I think.