I think this is flawed logic.
Drop out the greenside play and putting, and these guy are hitting 30+ consecutive good shots.
"Drop out the green side play and putting". ?
Talk about flawed logic, it doesn't get more flawed than that.
Par fives were meant to place a demand on the golfer that they hit three consecutive shots in order to reach the putting surface.
When that demand has been eliminated, it needs to be restored
Approaching a green is a far higher demand than hitting a fairway to fairway shot.
Not necessarily, there are plenty of dicey second shots on par fives where decisions have to be made as to whether or not to challenge a crossing feature/hazard or a difficult landing zone
The fairway to fairway shot has a huge variation in length and target you can choose.
Approaching a green with a flag stick in it has a very small variation in length and target to choose from.
"Small variation in length" ? How ? When ? And where do you make this stuff up ?
Did you ever stop to consider that the decision you make on your second shot will directly impact the decision and variation for your third shot, your approach to the green ?[\b][\size][\color]
Hole length variances were made because of what the ground yielded for siting greens. Some of them we par fives, but just because they needed three shots certainly does not mean they were "meant" to demand three consecutive shots. The demand was a byproduct.
You talk about the second shot decision on a par 5. Well there it is. There is a decision that is more flexible than the any decision made about approaching the green. It would be the rare occasion where the talented player is going to decide to lay up to 100 yards when he has a 170 yard approach. However, given a 270 yard approach on a par 5 he may just do so. Or, he may lay up to 50 yards, or perhaps several other numbers. Of course he will have some factors affecting each option he rules out, but there are far more options and flexibility than on a par four with a 170 yard approach.