Two recent tours of my courses - one under construction and one existing, one with a tour pro and the other with a contractor who works with Tour Pros reminds me of how much good players critique courses with this question. Examples:
On a green resembling MacKenzies Sitwell (?) Park green - toned down, but clearly a kissing cousin, the reviews snorted, "Well, if I've gone over the green back left, and the pin is THERE, I can't get it close!"
In a backing bunker, sloped up at the back, the pro walks in, praises the first 15 feet as being flat, but then continuing to the back 15 feet of the bunker, which slopes up, says, "With a miracle shot, I might get it to 8 feet from here."
On a driveable par 4, the pro praises the options of driving the green or going left of some bunkers, but he mentions he might take all hazards out of play by playing to 160 yards, and feels the upslopes of that area might cause too much spin, and feels it should be level for the Ultra Conservative shot. Again, I agreed in principle, but frankly I didn't consider that good players would consider a 160 yard layup.
I don't disagree with the premise of trying to create fairness, but I do think you could go to any course and find similar situations. In the 160 fairway situation, we couldn't import fill into the floodplain, for instance, and had to grade and drain the flat area with catch basins. Naturally, if you want to see any backing bunker, and he agreed he did, the lip must be raised, which causes a downhill bunker lie, if you over shoot the pin location there by 15 yards, etc.
How many of you - especiallly the good players - use the "What if I miss here" criteria to evaluate golf courses?
Do we have to consider every possible combination of misses and pin locations, or do players just have to know certain areas are death on certain days?