Matt,
Great topic and observation about how equipment changes driving other than distance. I much prefer thinking in these terms rather than ratings, and I often wonder, since I still do try to set up draws and fades in my design work, if its worth it, appreciated, used, etc.
From what I see, golfers at the top level can still work the ball, albeit a bit less, perhaps 5-10 yards at the most. My son just walked by, and we discussed it. He constantly plays a patterned shot, whereas his longer friends just try to bomb it. It appears that its the same as it used to be - some bombers and some thoughtful golfers! His thought pattern is simple - if its a wide fw, he draws for more distance (his nickname among team members was Fred Funk) whereas when the fw is tight, he hits a fade for control.
And lets not forget that the Taylor Made drivers, for one, had the screws to adjust the weights to help either draw and fade, and now you buy them pre weighted to your specs for draw or cut. Of course, that seems to presume that the course architecture really has no bearing on what type of shot anyone who buys those drivers might play, which is disturbing.
But years ago, I played with Gary Player and noticed just how small his controlled draw or fade was. It was rarely more than a few yards, about the same as my son plays now. When I asked, Player's reply was that he put just enough draw on it to make sure it woudn't go right, or vice versa. Even then, he wasn't particularly trying to fit shots in, he was just trying to take one side of the fw out of play.
So, the question is, what kind of gca might encourage a pattern shot now?
Certainly, a large tree encroaching about at the apex of the reduced curve (about 190-200 yards off the tee now) would encourage someone to bend it around. PPalotta's suggestion of staggered bunkers would work, I think for some. If we presume a tee shot distance of PGA Tour average of 292, I think the staggers would have to be fairly close - say left at 280 (just beyond comfortable carry range for most top players) and right at 290-300, and with a narrow fw angling left between. I think the far bunker would have to pinch pretty far across the fw, maybe to the centerline. That would leave a pretty narrow, angled landing zone that would almost require a full drive to have a pattern to fit in, with an option to stay right at a shorter distance.
With the variations in distances these days, for any given landing area, some would just carry the short bunker, but I guess that's okay. You still can't design for the 0.0001% who bomb it over 300 yards. (I looked it up on PGA TOUR.com and 24.5% of Tour drives exceed 300 yards. Earlier in the year it was only 18%)
Lastly, I would start to consider what length hole that type of shot might fit on. On a par 4, if a player who couldn't fit it in played straight and shorter of the right bunker, I doubt I would want the layup to require a real long approach, so maybe the forced shot pattern makes more sense on mid length par 4 holes, and perhaps, any par 5, where you would require a certain shot pattern for max distance in order to reach it in two.
Anyway, just some pre and mid coffee noodles on a great topic. I reserve the right to change my mind, especially if others come on and show me the errors of my ways! I mean, any guy who likes Medinah No. 3, clearly has a muddled thought process.
