I wondered how long it would take to go from Bob's good (but frankly, obvious) point to what passes for insight and nuance around here.
I have to admit, it took even less time that I thought!! We all seem to agree heartily that a short Par 4 is great in how it challenges/affects a golfer's thinking, especially if that golfer is an abudantly skilled professional, one of a class of men whom we dislike/envy for having the talent and temerity to blow it past and/or ignore every beloved architectural feature ever desiigned and thereby to render many of our great, classic courses obsolete. And yet in the very next breath, we immediately start to presume that somehow it is the "short" aspect of a "short Par 4" that is the secret and the magic bullet; and ignore the fact that the only reason the governing bodies engage in fevered attempts to keep great courses relevant for the best players (and the reason why we bellyache about the lengthening and renovations that result from these attempts) is because scores keep going down
relative to par. Can we have it both ways? Well, I guess we
can -- but it is muddled (and unrealistic) thinking it seems to me.
Architectural features and challenges find their "meaning" in relation to the concept of par.
Peter