This subject is fascinating to me, and I'm still trying to explore how changes in technology, etc., might be either completely negating strategy for the top players, or better yet, looking to find ways of creating a "new" idea of strategy for them.
I guess my definition of "strategy" is more like the "heroic" school than RTJ Jr.'s definition of a simple "safe route" that I posted above.
To me, it still comes back to the Old Course, the Mother of all Strategic thinking.
Yes, on almost every hole one can play safely on the tee ball by going left. However, that route inevitably leaves a problematic approach, usually requiring the next shot to be played over a bunker, partially blind, or to an oblique angle, or some combination of all three.
However, the golfer who successfully challenges the bunker complexes and gorse down the right is inevitably given a favored route for the approach.
Lest one begin to think of TOC as one dimensional, the best holes actually begin to move the bunker complexes into the center of the fairway, creating even more options. I'm thinking here of holes like 12, 14, 16, where the far right side is still the dangerous, risk/reward route (with OB a newer more dangerous consideration), but those center complexes also have to make the player think of playing short, or attempting the carry on the "center route".
Such multi-optional holes tend to be the most interesting to play over time and in differing conditions.
But, to get back to my original point, I don't think anyone would call TOC "heroic", yet it offers enormous risk/reward options from the tee, and with second shots on par fives by providing advantage to the player who succesfully confronts and negotiates those hazards. The player who takes the safe route finds their next shot enormously complicated, and might choose or have to play "safe" again on their approach to another "safe location that might be a far distance from the hole.
In my mind, a "safe" route that offers no problems to solve other than a bit longer detour is pretty damn boring.
What's more, if there is little reward for challenging a hazard on a hole where one only gains limited "advantage" of some decrease in distance but none (or a more complicated approach) in terms of positioning, wouldn't even the best player almost always take the safer route, as well? WHERE is the TEMPTATION??
Now you have two classes of players out there just playing "away" from hazards all day, not exactly scintillating
enjoyment, in my opinion.
NGLA is quite another good example of what I'm trying to explain, as is Merion. At Merion, for instance, challenging the OB boundaries leaves one with a much preferred advantage for the subequent shot. At NGLA, taking the daring aggressive route on holes like 1, 2, 3, 7, and many others and succeeding provides "an advantage" in no uncertain terms!