Patrick,
I have some industry studies on what golfers play what distances, which I have posted before. I back that up with my own observations, and actually, the TD distance thread was pretty consistent.
I clearly understand your underlying premise, that isn't the problem. Apparently, debating it with you is. See other comments on this and other threads. Funny, I haven't been called whiny by anyone else....
OK, TOC is public, although technically there is a club or two associated with it if we want to quibble.....that said, I still believe that using iconic courses as examples for the typical isn't right (not just your example here, but that happens all the time around here) When you go for a once a year or lifetime experience, you don't really play for par. You take what they give you.
Besides, you presume that in multiple tees that those fw bunkers come into play equally for all. It could be that way, but even at 25 yard splits, I find most of the fw bunkers are still just beyond the majority of the shorter hitters from the shorter tees. Why? The tendency to place them at 290-300 yards from the tips. The next groups don't hit it 275, 250, 225, etc. And, the few who do, don't hit it that flush all the time. The one odd thing about it is, while more average players have more partial misses and land well short of their max distance, the net result is that the guy who hits the best (maybe even career) shot has the best chance of getting into the hazard, which tends to anger them.
So, I will give you that. I will also agree that it is possible to cleverly arrange a mix of hazards, like cross slopes, mounds, etc. in the more likely to be found LZ, and use bunkers only where the best players might find them most often. Of course, we do that now with multiple tees.
That said, I don't think the average golfer would like fewer options at a non iconic course. They, not me, are caught up in par, although, I do agree (and have seen industry studies again) that say camaraderie is more important to most. As you say, you would have to change the par mentality of the entire golfing world. That is a tall order, no?
As to tees and greesn close together, that was lost for a while (housing and maybe even general safety and room for cart paths) and has been re-emphasized. Just as roads, house lots, houses themselves, etc. are all bigger now than they used to be, so are golf courses. That is not all mindlessly going astray. It is logical reaction to both distance increases, but also play increases, experience in safety requirements, etc. IMHO, placing tees and greens back closer together and limiting tees just because thats the way it was in the good old days is NOT a valid design premise. Designing for now and the foreseable future is.
If and when the ball rolls back, the carts go away, turf is damaged on tees, the lawyers agree there are no lawsuits, etc., design will change, I guarantee it. Until then, the current paradigm makes more sense than you admit to. In general, design reacts to human need/conditions (form follows function) but shouldn't dictate them (function follows some predisposed form from the old days) except in some unusual circumstances like historically signifigant courses.
So, I will agree with you to the point that this is an interesting discussion thread, and I know you start some of these to keep things lively around here, which we all appreciate. I simply concluded, not once, but twice upon reflection on this thread that any idea that required rethinking of par, score, nearly the entire idea of the playing of golf from the early days on (play for score, or at least holes in match play) and whatever else to achieve the dubious goal of the tees like the old days is not practical.