Tim,
What happened to "The customer is always right" when it comes to menu or golf choices? I sort of understand your point, but in the end, I think it is the architect who should be trying to design for golfer enjoyment, not the golfer being required to necessarily play something he/she can't handle just because we said so.
[size=78%] [/size]Just like the mantra here that we should "design for the land" which is true, of course, but only to the extent that it will probably create the best overall experience for golfers in most cases.
I also don't understand the mention of "pandering" to golfers of average ability. I mean, that is a pretty aggressive use of language to demean most of us. In fact, more course designs should consider the average golfer more and better. So, I support the idea of more length proportional tees, so most have a chance of hitting greens in regulation. If the middle shot on par 5 holes is usually considered "boring", why should we design 1 to 3 of those shots for shorter hitters on each hole?
I do agree 7 tees can be a bit much, and found that golfers really objected to more than 5, because in the end, there is no real harm in playing a bit too long or short (i.e., no one gets hurt making those decisions) On the other hand, if a course membership wants that, then back tee players who object to the looks really need to take an attitude of tolerance in the name of other, less talented players playing forward. (91% of men prefer playing 6,300 yards or less according to recent studies, so why should further back tee players be the ones who affect others' play out of their desire not to see other tees?)
The best gca I know at hiding those tees, btw, is Fazio, who goes to great lengths in many cases to hide them. However, in a housing course, where the land plan usually pinches in at the tee, it is difficult and requires more width to stagger tees, hide them with small ridges, etc., which he does, but not many of us get that luxury with developers.
I can't really comment on what CBM was thinking during design, but in reality, the history of tee design is at best, one of benign neglect and insufficient thought as to how average golfers play. I do believe he believed in "pandering" to himself, i.e., he had a huge slice, so he always put O.B. on the hook side. He probably didn't think of the various classes of golfers as he might have, although accommodating his slice also accommodates others, which worked out okay.