Jake,
It does, however, I still disagree.
The last thing those golf courses need is rigid definition of fairways, etc.
However, if you're asking to maintain the original width of the corridor then I'm all for it - just don't make the definition between heights so rigidly defined. Remember, most of the older courses had short grass cut in excess of 90 yards, but the HOC was higher. Today, those corridors are much narrower and often simply the arbitrary intent of someone. Who is to say that a ball in one area of the golf course should lie on short grass, and a ball 3 yards away should be in 3+ inch rough? Especially in a case where the corridor was actually much wider?
I'm an advocate of trying to "muddy" the changeover between different heights of cut, since fairway lines are for the most part arbitrary lines. This is a bit difficult considering today's equipment but I want an extended (20+ yards) transition zone between the .400 cut and the 3 inch cut.
By the way, as you may know, the rules do not define fairway, rough, collar, etc. These areas all simply "through the green."
As for Ross, there was no single method or intended look to his bunkering, he built both flashed-sand and grass-down bunkers on his courses, and often mixed the two. Check out a place like Wannamoissett or Pinehurst for an example of flashed sand Ross bunkering.
You are correct in that the maintenance should correctly tie in the hazards to the fairway and allow the golfer to come as close as they dare to the hazard, but to rigidly define these areas, to me, is going down the road of deviating from the original plan.