Kyle,
This is a really interesting essay, and I agree with a lot of it. The main premise that width = strategy really strikes a chord with me. I run into this problem all the time at tree-lined, Northeastern courses where the only "option" or "strategy" is to fit a drive into a 25-yard-wide fairway. Width solves this issue, and it makes the test mental rather than physical.
My example of a strategic hole that most people despise is the 6th hole at CC of Rochester. This hole was thrown into the property by Robert Trent Jones in the 1950s, and Gil Hanse redid it nicely in 2004. It is a very sharp dogleg right, turning about 220 yards off the tee. A long bunker protects the inside of the dogleg. The golfer has the choice of driving left into a wide part of the fairway with a fairway wood. This leaves about 190 yards into the green that is shallow and difficult to hit with a long iron. If the golfer challenges the bunker, he runs the risk of either finding the bunker and having a difficult recovery or going long into the valley on the far side of the fairway.
In the past, the valley was filled with willow trees, keeping the corridor near and thus all but eliminating the choice to attack the hole with a driver. Recently, the club cut down the trees on the left, creating a much wider corridor. A drive that finds the valley will not be ideal, but it will still have a shot into the green with a shorter club than if he had laid up. Hanse's redesign creates a short-game swale short-right of the green. This means that a player who lays back off the tee will have to make up for his choice through excellent short-game play.
If the golfer is successful with his tee shot that challenges the bunker, he will have a short iron into the shallow plateau green and will have a huge advantage over the golfer who drives out to the left with a fairway wood. Because of the width of the hole and the opportunity to cut off the dogleg (especially if the golfer can shape the ball from left to right), the golfer faces two distinct choices that offer drastically different consequences. Most people dislike having to face a real choice such as this. I see many good players attack the hole with driver, miss it right in the bunker or farther right in the woods, and condemn the hole as an abomination. This reaction shows the greatness of the hole and insistence that the player make an actual decision.
The coolest thing about this strategy is that I once saw it play out in a match. I was caddying in the CCR Invitational, which consists of the best amateur players in the Rochester area. My man was playing one of the two or three best players in the area in the top bracket. My man laid back off the tee, while his opponent attacked the corner successfully with a beautiful drive that he shaped perfectly. The difference on the second shot was stunning, as our opponent was a good 50-60 ahead off the tee. My man had to work hard for a four and a halve, and he only got the halve due to a good short game display. One elected to attack and reaped the reward of an easy par, while the other laid back and had to work hard to compete. It was very cool to see that strategy play out.
One question: you talk a lot about width as being key to strategy. Does the severity of the hazard have anything to do with strategy?