Kirk:
Sometimes the forced layback ("distance control") as you opined, does result in such a situation and if used at an appropriate time, without overkill, is fine. I just don't think power players should be shackled through a constant inclusion if they marry the elements of both distance and shot control (defined by the ability to work the ball both ways when called upon).
Kirk, you are focusing on the distance control element. The big item with today's drivers is how they have straightened out many players but getting to work the ball when going full throttle is not an easy situation to do consistently. Winged Foot, which I mentioned previously, forces the player to work his ball with sufficient length throughout the round. Simply pounding it for the sake of pounding is not sufficient in and of itself.
Kirk, I believe power is part and parcel of golf. No less than accuracy. Sometimes short knockers bemoan long hitters because the element of length will never be a part of their arsenal and that lon ghitters get the added advantage of a shorter shot and easier angle. I do believe that length can be challenged through a wide variety of architectural elements beyond the simple narrowing of fairways to bowling alley width and then flanked with hay-like rough -- see a place like Dunluce at Royal Portrush as an example of this type.
If you were to play the 11th at Rock Creek -- Doak challenges the player to head down the left side -- it is narrower than the right as it should be -- and should such a player successfully do it and in the course of doing it hit a very long and well placed tee shot then the reward should be worth the effort made.
If you don't provide the reward for such an effort the stronger player will not simply go that way but another. However, golf design should not be about providing dead-ends or one-way oriented design to strong players simply because they are stronger. The compelling nature of the 11th at Rock Creek is not that it mandates a certain play but that it provides a variety of choices when you step on the tee. The final result is in the player's hands -- as it should be.
I have no issue with the inclusion of strategic elements that call upon a player to hit to "X" distance off the tee. Going too far can result in a penalty of some sort -- that can happen with the 6th at Tetherow. The player has to decide what angle and at what length would be optimum for him.
Kirk, I understand your desire for distance control -- but it's easier to clubdown than it is to work the ball with the big stick. Strong players with any brains in their heads will forego the desire to beat on the tee shot if another avenue is available. Shaping shots -- going in either direction and trajectory control -- how high or low one can hit a shot -- are two of the more demanding elements one faces. I would urge architects to include a broad variety of strategic shots / holes that call upon such elements while still preserving core elements tied to playability. It's not easy to do but I have seen clear instances in which it can be done.