I've never understood the intention/goal behind setting up a driveable 4 during a tournament. Whether it's at the US Open or the Western Amateur, if the goal is to make it player-neutral and present to both the longer hitter and the shorter one a different question-choice than the one they faced the day before, the set-up doesn't work as intended -- only the longer hitter is faced with a new choice to make. I suppose one could argue (though I wouldn't) for the merits/validity of an alternative goal i.e. to preference one type of golfer over the other, at least for one round -- but then (using Matt's example) that's likely achieved by choosing the least challenging pin position possible, centre back, thus turning what looks to be an already mediocre/poorly designed golf hole (IMHO) into an even less interesting one.
More generally, I think tournament set-up staff should leave architecture to the architects: the notion that you can turn even a very good short Par 4 into a good driveable par 4 simply by moving up a set of tees is, at best, misguided.
Peter