Mike,
I agree, even if I wonder if Jones and Mac could know which contenders would be on the birdie holes while leaders were on tough ones. It would seem somewhat random, but at least it allows that possibility at the Masters.
For "regular design" gca's have also considered it, and many here can find flaws with it.
RBHarris had his "Perfect Par Rotation" of 4-5-4-3-4-5-4-3-4. He even went further to have the first 3 and 5 be the long ones, and the second to be the short ones. Makes sense not to have a reachable par 5 on 2/11, but the par 3 could easily be reversed. One problem I always found on those type courses is that while par varies, the approach shot distances could often be similar. At hole 6--7-8 you might have a wedge approach to a par 5, a short iron approach to the par 3, and since 7 was usually a short 4, a wedge there too. (He tended to sequence his par 4 holes as medium-long-medium long-short-very long)
Stanley Thompson had his famous chart showing the variation in approach shot yardages. In the Cornish/Graves book, they also had a chart showing angles of the green (left/right/straight/across) to match shot variations with length.
Fazio tackles it a bit in his book, mentioning not having a series of bunkers either right or left, but balancing them for variety. I recall Lanny Wadkins working with him at TPC Myrtle Beach and us having a discussion on whether that kind of balance made for a better course than simply picking the natural locations for hazards and just building the best 18 holes possible. (I took it Lanny didn't really have much to do with the routing, just features)
My sense is, most architects can only think of so many things at one time. They route first, casually looking at the best features, but it ends up they look at some, but not all holes for best feature designs. Certainly, routing affects flow as much as hazard placement. Then, they sort of try to come up with some variation of good holes that flow differently.
An example may be the JN "feel good par 3" template, which gives the impression that he puts it in when he thinks there are too many hard holes in a row. I guess Jack has come a long way. I get the impression that in days past, purposely building a non tournament quality hole might have killed him!
But, Lanny's simple question usually persists - is a course better with all 18 holes being as strong as they can be, or one where a few are easier really a better overall experience? Ideally, you have both of course, but it can't always come out that way in design.