The accepted manner of designing for different handicaps is to design the hole for the scratch handicapper from the back tee, and then to add an appropriate number of forward tees so that the hole plays in this pre-determined way for all golfers.
However, rather than having one strategy and several tees, why not have one tee (or at least fewer tees) and several strategies?
In other words, why not adapt the hole's strategies to the golfers abilities, rather than adapting the other golfers to the strategy of the best players.
An perfect example of this was given to me by ian andrew several years ago. We were touring a course in Montreal that he was renovating (or soft-redesigning...), and we came upon a new bunker that he had placed in a hillside about 150 yards from the tee of the 10th hole. As there wasn't much separation between the back and forward tee, good golfers wouldn't even notice this bunker, but the shorter hitters would be quite challenged by it. When I asked him about this bunker, he basically told me something along the lines of: "It's a hazard for the high handicappers. They need some challenges as well".
Plus, it looked good. In fact, he probably put it there simply for looks. Strategically speaking, he let the chips fall were they may.
It all made perfect sense to me. Why should all level of abilities be faced with the same strategy, hazards and choices? Different golfers should be faced with different choices.