This is an interesting thread with some great thoughts, like Jim suggesting the PGA should let the local superintendent set the pins. But to me, it underscores one thing I know: when we are discussing what is good/great golf course architecture, there is very little to be gained by considering how the pros play a course. Some pros can bomb and gauge their way around a course, ignore the architecture, and rely upon their talent. Others like Zack Johnson can just rely on great accuracy to hit fairways and greens and make their share of putts. A few, like Jordan Speith, just putt their way to periodic victories.
It really sucks that the pros get perfect conditions. While they would whine about a poor lie in a sand hazard, they probably have the skill to deal with it. Jack Nicklaus had it right when they used long-tooth rakes at Muirfield one year: introduce randomness to lies in a bunker and the pros will think twice about where they might miss. Of course, CB Macdonald had an even better idea: prepare the bunkers with a team of mules...