Everything circles around. Maybe trees and narrower courses are the answer. Can you imagine what Bryson and ten more like him would do to a wide open Tom Doak Course! It would be called “the chip and putt classic” 
Maybe Harbour Town has the solution. It requires shaped golf shots and trajectory control not just 350+ yard bombs.
Sad to say I am only half joking 🙃
Mark,
And I half agree! Mark, if you believe that form follows function, you are probably not far off the truth. Of course, golf course design philosophy is now hotly debated almost as much as political debates, with those in the middle ground just catching incoming fire from both or all sides, but I know you can take it!
I understand strategy and width, but also Flynn and others wrote to challenge accuracy, finesse and lastly distance. How do wide fw ever challenge accuracy? Outside the bubble that is gca.com, it is pretty widely known that wide courses are bombers paradises' and basically take most of the field out of contention. Say what you want about narrowing ANGC, and point out a few individual hole flubs, but most in the golf world don't think its a terrible idea.
We have more stats now. The USGA Slope rating guide says low handicap players typically can hit 66% of fairways 29-36 yards wide at 275+ yards. Those with 225-yard tee shots need fairways 35-42 yards to hit 66%. For most courses that will never see the tour, I would gather the fw should vary between about 36-42 yards wide, no? (maybe narrowed by mowing intermediate rough strip if the Tour ever does come to town) Much more is a waste, and 42 is wide enough for good players to strategically place the ball one side or the other.
Besides, the same strategy can be had, aiming for a side of the fw to have an open green, and depending on approach shot length, with a 42 yard wide fw and a green angled at 10-15 degrees as a 60 yard wide fw with a green angled at 30-45 degrees. What good does another 17 yards of fw do for strategy, while using more mowing, water, chemicals, etc.? Granted, it may do some good strategically, but for most courses, at what cost and cost to the environment? Are super wide fw really worth that, all things considered for most courses?
I have heard the modern arguments, and just can't agree that every fw needs to be ultra wide as a design theme. Occasionally for variety, of course is okay.
I will say, we also now know that most trees use more water than turf, and certainly native grasses (after established), which does argue in favor of lesser use, limited to strategic areas (for shade at tees, multi hole backdrops, safety screening, wind blocks, false wind blocks, etc.) They look better in small clumps of 3-15, perhaps watered with underground drip systems, and the scattered trees do offer some hope of recovery. I will also agree that for a century, trying to convert open sites to fully wooded ones with trees everywhere can now probably be viewed as at least a partial mistake. Open courses probably shouldn't aim for more than partially wooded status in most cases.
As always, just MHO.