A well designed course plays very similarly for someone hitting the ball like I do from the 6,000 yard tees and someone hitting it 20-25 yards farther and playing the 6,500 yard tees.
The only difference is that the short hitter does not experience the thrill hitting the ball and seeing it travel 230+ yards in the air, hanging up there for six or seven seconds of air time. However, that's a big difference. As Shivas keeps pointing out, hitting it far and sure is one of the elemental pleasures of the game. There are no tees I can play from to hit the ball as high, straight and far as you can.
Interfacing with the architecture is fun. Getting the ball in the hole is the ultimate goal. But don't sell short the pleasure of making the ball fly through the air. That's certainly why most kids who pick up a golf club decide to play the game.
I don't know about that. Most kids who pick up a club for the first time don't hit any shots high and far. They are happy to hit one square enough to buzz it out 100 or 150 yards instead of all the whiffs and 25 yarders straight sideways they hit the first two dozen times they swing at it.
I don't think the fact I can hit it higher, further and with more hang time than you means I get more pleasure out of the game than you. That's ridiculous, because it means the people who enjoy golf the most are the gorillas in the long drive contests! I don't feel that I'm shortchanged because I can't hit it like they do, or even as far as short knockers like Bubba and JB Holmes.
The point is, as you say, interfacing with the architecture, and more of that should be done on the ground. We're getting away from the origins of the game by longing after high drives that carry a long way. From the time I was about 17 until the spring of 2001 when I first teed up my 400cc driver and a Pro V1, I was CURSED by high drives with a nice hang time. Sure, they carried further than most anyone else's, but they didn't roll for shit, and the 90000 rpm spin rate put them at the mercy of the slightest breeze. I was always trying this thing or that to get the trajectory and/or spin rate down, trying swing changes, using drivers with lofts as low as 6.5*, etc.
Sure, the high drive is in vogue now because the characteristics of the ball demand it for the best results, but if we went back to a higher spin ball like Tiger suggests, knowledgeable golfers would once again ooh and ah not over my drives that reached the ionosphere, but the "pro trajectory" drives that never reached the tops of the trees lining the fairway.
I think that if Shivas said one of the elemental pleasures of the game was hitting it far and sure he wasn't talking about today's optimized trajectories. He's talking about hitting the shot you visualize, and hitting it well. And the shot you visualize is dependant on the limitations and advantages of your equipment, and the dictates of the architecture. If you play a soggy course with modern equipment, then the skyball that hangs in the air for 7 seconds is what you want. But if you play NGLA with a Tiger-recommended high spin ball, you are going to want that low trajectory drive that I'll bet old hands like Mucci and TEPaul can hit with their eyes closed, and not the shit I'd be flinging up into the wind getting blown two fairways over!