John...
Thanks for the response. I agree with your contention that there probably isn't a right or wrong answer here. It basically boils down to one's own personal preference.
I will always believe no.7 is a poorly designed par 5 and basically has remained as a par 5 because someone wants the course to play as a par 72. Good designed par 5s are Oakmont 12, Shinnecock 16, Pebble 14, Merion 4, Crystal Downs 8, Carnoustie 6 (not the 99 set-up of the hole) and Olympic 16. I would like to know if the pond that fronts no.7 is indigineous to the property--if not, that makes matters worse. I think courses that don't have indigineous water on their premises shouldn't introduce it just for an effect. Winged Foot is great because (there are numerous reasons) it didn't introduce non-indigineous water to the course.
I don't have a problem of leaving par 5s for member play. I have a problem if they are of poor quality for top flight tournament play. My standard if a hole should remain as a par 5 is twofold--1--Its 72 hole stroke average dropped 0.25 shots from the last tournament and 2--Its 72 hole stroke average drops to 4.75 or lower. At that point, either strengthen the hole or call it for what it has become. For example, it will be great to see Oakmont 9 as a par 4 in 2007.
I agree with your contention that watching players think is a good thing. I also think introducing a number of mid-irons into par 4s is a very good thing. More Pinehurst no.2's would be great!
On playing 16 45 yards short on Saturday--I seem to remember a blustery 4th round at Carnoustie in 1968 where the 16th was not moved up from its 248 yard designation where it was into the wind and only Nicklaus made it pin high. I could have supported moving the tee from the back of the champ tee box to the front, but certainly no 45 yards.
Lastly, I don't like hole 1--reminds me too much of what Nicklaus does--elevated tee, downhill, etc. I much prefer Winged Foot 1 as my opener.