Mark,
I am asking the question, and maybe not 100% sure of what I am getting at, other than my oft stated contention that no one ever really measured designs of those Golden Age masters to see how often players took the risk of hitting near the hazard. Certainly, from the good players I know, most will focus on hitting the middle of the fw most times.
As one for instance, I really doubt that all of Mac's 6 routes on his prize winning hole would have been taken in equal amounts. Heck, I have seen (and designed) several clear cut alternate route holes, where the challenge route is rarely taken for one reason or another.
As we are (again) in very cost conscious era, with bunker reductions, turf reductions, etc., I find myself wondering whether building alternate route holes make sense, if only 1% of players actually use them? For that matter, do we ask a super to maintain 65 yards of fw when only a few would ever consider playing to the outer edges? Even on more mundane, single fw holes, why keep building holes where the prime angle comes from being near a bunker, if most golfers believe it's better to be safe in the fw, regardless of angle to the green?
Granted, I anticipated the correct "it depends on a lot" responses and I agree. I also agree with the design to create "stories to tell" aspect, especially at resort courses, but also useful at any other course.
However, Ben H seems to understand my point. If we are going to "efficiently" design strategic features to be used often, I suspect the same as him - later in the round more likely to be tempting. Par 5 holes, where a stroke or two can be gained, also most likely to be used. Possibly a short par 4 for the strong player not afraid of rough might make someone take a chance.
All that said, this is a discussion group, so I thought we would discuss an idea that is outside the typical "groupthink" mindset of this group, you know, just for fun.