Lyne,
I think your reply accentuates the dilemma the architect faces in trying to provide a disinterested challenge to suit all level of golfers.
When I reconfigured/redesigned a course, I added two additional sets of tees.
My reasoning was that the men had three sets of tees to accommodate the broad spectrum of men golfers, while the women had but one set of tees to accomodate the broad spectrum of women golfers, and that by adding two additional sets, it would make the course and the game more appealing to the women golfers.
In addition, I color coded them rather than declare them "women's tees.
By doing so, older golfers and older duffers, who couldn't enjoy golf from the three sets of tees previously declared "men's tees" began playing from the new sets of tees.
One elderly gentleman told me that he made his first par in three (3) years.
However, I do take exception to some of the tenure and content of your reply.
Were men at fault when women's basketball took hold and the rim was maintained at 10 feet ?
The foul line at 15 ?
For decades and decades, men, not women played basketball, hence the courts and related components were geared toward men.
Subsequently, as more and more younger women took up basketball, the size of the ball was reduced for their play.
But, the rim, foul line and court dimensions remained the same.
So, one has to ask, to what degree should the challenge on a golf course be diminished ?
To what degree should the architect "dumb down" his efforts and still retain a reasonable challenge for people who are bigger, stronger and more capable of hitting the ball further ?
It's a dilemma
Basketball resisted the idea of altering the field of play, instead choosing to challenge the young women athletes to "meet the challenge" presented.
Women's Basketball ignored the inferior athlete.
Golf has not followed that path.
Golf has altered the field of play, primarily at the tee end.
But, consider........... should the fairways be wider, (I'm always in favor of that) the rough lower, the greens less sloped ?
In golf, you can't alter the course for one segment while keeping it static for all others.
And, that's the dilemma.
The solution ?
Well, I'm of the opinion, at all level's of golfers, that the golfer should aspire to rise to the challenge vis a vis improving their game.
If you can't reach the 10 foot rim, from the foul line, I'm against lowering the rim and moving the foul line closer.
If that means that elements of the female population shy away from basketball, so be it.
I'm not interested in dumbing down the challenge of a golf course, to accomodate a golfer of lesser ability, irrespective of their gender.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I await your response.
P.S. Have you ever seen Mark Pearce in his white knee socks ?
You might not cheer so loud