Watching the US Am at Riviera, I'm struck by the difference between the shortened 8th vs. the 10th. The 300yd 8th, even from the front left tee box to a back flag, is a driveable hole. In fact, you could argue that there really isn't an option other than to go for it if you're a player than can get there.. The 10th is "driveable" from a distance perspective, but as we know, rarely is attempting to hold the green from the tee a viable play.
So, pretend that the 10th doesn't have the architectural pedigree that it has. Pretend it's the first time you've seen either hole. Is the 10th really as interesting as we think, especially given that it's so difficult vs par? Or is a truly driveable hole like the shortened 8th a more interesting hole, given that it can be driven with more regularity than the 10th?
Going further down the rabbit hole, has the concept of the driveable par 4 (distinct from the short par 4, drive and pitch) become too ubiquitous?