Well said, Brent. I think if you enjoy shot relationships, the par four certainly sets those up in the very efficient minimum of two shots. Why have more? You can have less if its a "concept" shot that is interesting in its own way.
I'll post here rather than on the landing area thread, but no one over there has convinced me that multiple tees to get most players to the main landing zone (can we use that phrase?) isn't the best way to go.
Why?
Golfers hit tee balls some pretty typical distances centered on clusters of about 290-260-230-200 -170 and maybe 140 yards, even though tee shot distances go all over the board, both as groups and individually.
I agree that the theory isn't perfect and there will be the occaisional goofy penalty, and the persistent problem that golfers then have differing clubs to the green from the same distance, but there isn't a solution to that, without making almost the entire hole a tee!
Since you need enough tee space anyway, building multiple tees approximately those distances is a lot more cost efficient than building one tee and several landing zones - in both construction cost and future maintenance.
I think the main idea on the single landing zone started early in the GA, and accelerated with Tillie's removal of "duffers headaches" in the Depression. Jones and MacKenzie followed that line of thinking in using fewer bunkers at ANGC, and only to challenge better players in the main LZ. I think the theory is that lesser players and those who top or sky their tee shot really don't need further punishment - and rewarding rather than punishing is the hallmark of classic strategic design.
Now, I don't mind variances from the "prescribed" distances by several yards either to guestimate where a tee shot on a particular hole might land after accounting for wind, downhill, etc., or to use the natural features and challenge people who hit different distances, and even the occaisonal bunker to challenge the shorter hitter - after all, he pays dues, too! I suppose its possible to design the 14 long holes to challenge back tee golfers from distances from 350 down to 220 or so, setting the main hazards at a variety of distances from the tee.
If one of the arguments for not using the perfectly prescribed distance of 290 yards, for instance, is that the golfer doesn't hit it flush each time (which is true) I wonder if varying the distances would really bring the hazards into interesting play more or less? At least, I can imagine hitting a career 300 yarder when the carry bunkers are at 220, and catching it thin for a 220 yard tee ball when the bunkers are at a more normal (for me) distance of 245-255, thus negating any strategy.
I do think that elongating flanking bunkers (whether in clusters or long strip bunkers like Pete Dye) is an appropriate design repsonse after multiple tees as is staggered bunkers on opposite sides of the fw, which in effect starts to set up both angles of play and multiple strategies for differently abled players.
The other thing about multiple tees is that with players averaging 4.5 hours and 90 shots, or about 3 minutes a shot, if multiple tees don't allow players to reach the par 4 in two, we may add up to 42 minutes per round, on length alone.
I would love to hear a neat and different solution that really addresses the length variation problems more efficiently than that, so keep talking!