In the back of their book Cornish and Whitten list a few 'design experiment' that simply weren't successful. One of them listed is the required short iron from tees on dogleg par par 4s and 5s and extremely sharp doglegs etc.
In my opinion, when Flynn designed and built it #2 "C" nine HVGC he probably had a higher risk option of driving left across the creek or hazard area that's practically in-line on the left down the line of of drive (certainly not a good or multi-optional arrangement if the option over the creek has been shut off by trees or something else that makes that higher risk option non-functional).
We believe, though, that the entire idea of "shot-testing" that appears to have been so much more prevalent in the old days of SOME architecture vs today should be better explored and better understood---not that that will make it better appreciated today, however.
What was that old fashioned architectural philosophy of "shot-testing" and what were some of it's conceptual arrangements?
Well, a hole with like PVGC's #7 was certainly one of them and believe it or not so was PVGC's #18. I'm talking here about the intended shot values of the best executed shots of a particular strategy. When PVGC was designed the stategic shot values for even a very good player on #7 was his best drive and his best brassie to safely clear HHA in two and on #18 it was his best drive and probably his best almost equally long shot to gain the 18th green in two. The expectation (intended in a design sense) of any other option or strategy was to lay up somehow on particularly the second shots and make up the shot that was lost distance-wise in some other manner before holing out.
This was the farthest thing from our present basically locked in perception of GIR with mulitiple options!!
This was much more the era of straight match play (far less expectation of "par GIR") and the era of basic match play or design concept, strategies or philosophy sometime referred to as "the tortoise and the hare". This was also the era of far less flexible tees!
The difference between the intended concepts of the strategies and shot values of those kinds of old fashioned "shot testing" holes is there really never was any forced lay-up off a tee for even the good player with that one-dimensional "shot-test", or more specifically, combination of two "shot-tests" one right after the other. Even the good player, particularly the good and strong player, was expected to accept the risk and 'blaze away" off the tee and if he executed that well to "blaze away" again for the green or to overcome some other hazard in two shots often with his most distance gaining club.
The only strategy available to the tortoise was to play conservatively and gain the green in one more shot than the hare might if he successfully executed those two combined "shot tests".
The whole point of this kind of one dimensional "shot testing" at least in a match play context, is that if the "hare" was not successful in either of his two "blaze away" shots than he would be back on a par or even worse off than the tortoise who's strategy was as much to lay in wait for the hare to over-reach himself as it was for the tortoise to play conservatively and cautiously.
The prevalence of far more flexible tees and the entire architectural concept of far more multi-optional ways of more players gaining "par GIR" has done away with the popularity and excitement of this kind of one dimensional "shot testing" hole and design concept which pretty much always only related to the "hare" (the good and long player and not the tortoise (the shorter of physically weaker player).
This type of thing is interesting to understand for exactly what it was and what it was intended to do. This was probably golf and strategies back in the day when golfers were expected to come to terms realistically with their own limitations---when designers did not necessarily offer them designs and strategies that were "politically correct" equality---at least not in the sense of gaining a green and such in the same "par GIR" number (of strokes)!!