I think I see the problem. I was not espousing a theory of design, but rather describing the thought process of the player when faced with decisions off of the tee. These decisions can be very different for different types of players, and i think we may be in agreement that the goal of the architect should be to present questions for every type of golfer when they approach a shot. While the concept of tee ball distance is fairly static for the player, the architect should be considering a range of driving distances in their attempt to present strategic options.
Using the 10th at Riviera is an interesting exercise in this regard, if the attributes of the hole are analyzed correctly. The following thread has all the needed background:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,16619.0.htmlAs Tom Paul noted in the thread, not every hole can be all things to all players.
The hole may be reachable for the pros, but for the majority of golfers it still isn't close to being in range (which probably doesn't prevent the less prudent duffer from giving it a go). For those that can't make the distance, the straight line should not be the option due to the angle of the green, as you noted. Thus the shorter hitter will look to find a spot in the fairway that will give them the best angle and distance to attack the hole while avoiding the bunkers. To get to that distance and angle, they may decide to challenge the left most bunkers, or they may decide a shot well left is their safest line. This seems to be an analysis that works backwards from the hole, an approach you dismissed as simplistic in an earlier comment.
However, for those that can, the straight line is actually the safe line, as well as an exercise in working backwards from the hole. To quote Brandt Snedeker: "If you lay it up, it's almost a tougher wedge shot than it is hitting a driver off the tee. That's what's so hard about that hole. That's why you see very few guys lay up, because it's such a difficult second shot if you do lay up."
I'd suggest that the trade off for the longer hitter on the 10th are not nearly as compelling as you suggest, and even on the safe line, its a very tough hole for the shorter hitter.
As for determining the epistemological benefits of any differentiations, it would probably be a good thing to avoid inventing and attributing methods of analysis to those that have not espoused such methods as well as ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the arguments used to support any conclusions made with respect thereto.