This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Patrick,I believe that it is possible to design for radically different levels and the proof already exists in the Tour level courses that the general golfing public plays every day.
I believe Pat's answer lies in the laws of scalability. I'll explain...As a given shape, say a triangle is stretched from two points (a & c) the relative angle to the third point (b) decreases. . . .Thereby minimizing the initial effect / relationship of the strategic features.
In your example, the golfer no longer has to hit the ball in the ideal spot that the architect's design dictated as the optimum angle of attack.The architect, let's say, one of the old dead guys, never contemplated drives with carries of 300+ yards, hit with precision and wedges from 150 yards, hit with precision, with balls that will stop on a dime.I do agree with you that lengthening a hole to TRY to retain the strategy for the approach shot makes sense, but many on this site don't see it that way.
A factor that helps counteract the longer modern golfer is the severely undulating green – one of the primary reasons ANGC and the Old course have held up for so long.
John Daly played what would have previously been considered an unorthodox or radical method of play when he won the British Open. Even Nicklaus, announcing his play, was shocked.Nicklaus was explaining course management and the architecture and Daly just blew it over everything rendering Nicklaus's version of strategy obsolete. And, Nicklaus wasn't known to be a short hitter.
Personally, I think golf is better when you aren't THAT good. It's better when you stand over a shot unsure of whether you will pull it off. That uncertainty is critical. If you really know what is going to happen every time you swing, what fun is that?Don't get me wrong. I would not want to be a 23 handicapper lucky just to hit any decent shots. But, the man struggling to break 80 each time he goes out may have more fun than the guy expecting to shoot in the 60s. The outcome is less predictable. The uncertainy greater. Options and strategy become far more of a real thing.
I also found it interesting that in the 72 holes Tiger played to win the tournament, he never hit it in one bunker.My read, without benefit of viewing all 72 holes he played, is that he took many of these architectural features out of play with his length.I would like to get the video tapes and view the tournaments again before signing off on my theory.