David,
For a short straight par 5, I dont mind a narrower tee shot for those who are seeking to get home in two. The way the hole is, if you choose to blaze away and finish out to the right, you have to deal with not just the poorer angle but a variable lie and a bit of rough. A reasonable balance in my view. You still have plenty of width short of the bunkers for those who choose the more conservative 3 shot route. Why does a shot par 5 need a 40+ metre wide landing area for the drive?
The holes doesn't need a second shot centreline hazard. And when the existing bunker is relocated to the left, you have a sufficiently wide fairway in the second shot landing area.
Shane,
Width is an almost universal principle of the world's best golf courses and golf holes. It is no coincidence that Commonwealth's widest hole is universally regarded as it's best hole.
If you don't mind a narrower tee shot for those getting home in two on a short par 5, would you be happy for Royal Melbourne to halve the fairway width on 2W, 4W, 12W and 15W?
the chance of holding the green from the right side rough is slim at best. Why not make it fairway to give people the option of trying something stupid, rather than encourage a boring lay up shot from 90% of lies in the right hand rough?
I agree that the hole does not need a centreline bunker, my drawing was just an example of how much wasted space there is to the right of the hole, that the right side fairway bunker could become a centreline bunker if the hole had a width closer to that at our best courses/holes.