Well, the examples I'll use are two courses I've played more than a few times (and I know Shivas has played one of them, and I believe views it as a better course than Pebble Beach).
One is Lawsonia Links, a Langford/Moreau design, and the other is Nakoma in Madison, which has design links to Tillie. Both are very good courses (at least in the occasionally rarified air that is my golfing circle), and both are enjoyable courses that offer -- for my crappy, 18-handicap game -- a fair amount of challenge and difficulty.
One is far more enjoyable to play than the other -- in my view -- and it is that way in large part because its wide playing corridors provide a degree of strategy largely absent in the other.
To play Nakoma is to be confronted by two basic strategies -- put the ball in the fairway, and keep your damn ball on the green below the hole. It's a pretty classic tree-lined, parkland course, with pretty thick rough, trees lining each side of the fairway, fast greens (many of them tilted back to front), and greenside bunkers pinching green entrances. Oh sure, to be in the exact middle of the fairway provides a better shot at the green than being on the side of the fairway, but it's a matter of degree, not an entirely different strategy required to play the approach. Off the fairway, for the most part, you have to punch out. Not sideways, but trees will almost always impede a direct line to the green from the rough. Once on the green, being below the hole means a decent run at a one-putt and a pretty sure two-putt. Above the hole, and you risk three-putting (I once hit an approach shot -- after being warned not to by a regular there -- four feet above the hole. My next putt was 10 feet below the hole. I three-putted.)
Lawsonia is far more interesting to play. Yes, a good deal of that has to do with better terrain, more interesting green sites, and particularly the use of the terrain to create blind and semi-blind shots. But an underrated part of L/M's design at Lawsonia is the use of wide fairway corridors to provide a degree of strategy absent at a place like Nakoma.
Take the 3rd. A dogleg right par 4 in the mid-300 yards, with a classic L/M pushed-up green site, a very deep bunker guarding the inside of the dogleg, and a deep bunker fronting the right side of the angled green. The fairway is wide and open, and provides a choice on the tee: A) Bomb it over the fairway bunker? B) Skirt/play close to the fairway bunker to try to shorten the length of the hole? C) Or play well left of the bunker? "A" provides the shortest approach, but risks taking on a high-lipped, penal fairway bunker, and you still have to take an aerial approach over the right greenside bunker. "B" -- for shorter hitters like me, who can't carry the bunker -- also shortens the hole, but still has an element of risk (the banana slice ending up in the fairway bunker), and still requires an aerial approach over the greenside bunker. Or, you can try a running approach shot that stops short of the green and pitch and putt your way to par. "C" lengthens the hole a lot, so your approach is longer, but it opens up the green, and you can use either an aerial or running approach.
That, to me, is a pretty good golf hole (and Lawsonia has about 12 others like them), in part due to the width of the fairway corridor that -- combined with other features of the hole -- makes a golfer think both on the tee and on the approach shot. It's multi-dimensional, where the typical tree-lined par 4 at Nakoma is one-dimensional.
For the record, I'm a lousy golfer, always have been, have always admitted to being so, and don't aspire to be any better. But I do like to think I have gained over the years an appreciation for compelling golf architecture, and what makes one course more interesting to play than another.