Rich, quanta?!
I agree very strongly that width is "not necessarily an effective strategic tool."
Like any tool, width for its own sake is valueless. It's not good or bad, effective or ineffective.
To George's point, doesn't the value lie in the design of the green complex?
The extreme example of a hypothetical hole with unlimited width (presumably all fairway), where a golfer holds a wedge in a his hands, is really a question of whether there's a hypothetical green complex that produces "meaningful" differences in scoring according to the lateral result of the drive.
That means hole locations, but in relation to swales, ridges, angle of green, location of hazards, false fronts, slope, green "shoulder" heights, etc -- elements of the green complex's design. It also probably is a factor of green firmness and speed, bunker conditions, etc.
If people say "width doesn't matter," then aren't they really saying, in this extreme example of wedge-in-hand, there is no possible green complex design that can make a difference?
Have designers totally given up on the concept of "angular" green complexes? Are the flattening of greens to accommodate higher speeds and / or the emphasis on "fairness" the real culprits here, not golfers hitting the ball farther?
To be honest, I can think of all kinds of scary wedge shots. I guess the argument for better players is that those don't exist anymore?
The funny thing is, for a player of my ability I can see a greater fractional difference -- maybe even "integral" magnitudes of difference-- with a wedge in hand than at, say, 6-iron distance. 6-iron distance is hit-the-green-somewhere distance. Which is not to say there's not huge value to being on one side or the other...
...so can this question be answered at all without considering the golfer?
I say that because I think Jesii's right and Rich is wrong as far as tennis goes.
A serve is either in or out the way a ball is either on or off the green -- a tennis player who operates at the level of in-or-out is one lacking the ability to serve with power, location, and spin. He might be able only to trade power against location. He's got a flat serve and a patty-cake serve both of which he knows in advance will go either in or out but beyond that he's not sure.
So it's binary for poor tennis players and fractional for good players. But even up to and among ~4.0 players the fractional differences can approach "integral": every good left-handed player learns the value early on of the slice serve to the right third of the Ad court. Especially when there's a fence on that side.
The analogy to golf being that if a static field like a tennis court can convey such a large fractional difference in position, then why can't a movable feast like a green...
Mark