Shivas

I think you understand the point of the question though don't you.

Tommy

Absolutely correct, and that is why the best architects today are trying to build them more often than perhaps the architects of the 50's - 80's. When you have too many shorts you get complaints from some of the longer players about their driver being taken out of their hands, which is an issue because length is as much skill as a good wedge game. I like the idea of maybe one short par three (>150yds) and two or three short par fours.

Sully

I don't have any problem with 350 yd drives what I do have a problem with is 190 yd 7 irons.

I would add the long par 3 to the short par 4 as antidotes to distance problem.  The most bizarre idea in the world of sports over the past few years has been lengthening golf courses to compensate for golf balls being hit a long way.  

At one point during the debate over the possibility of raising the height of the basket to bring back the little man in basketball, the late Al McGuire said something to the effect of "If you want make little guys more important, put the basket in a hole in the floor.  The higher you put the basket, the MORE important you make height."  He was right, and the same applies to the long ball in golf.

This premise is only accurate if those who are screaming that the sky is falling, are wrong. Which is it?

Adam,
I think the premise is accurate either way.  I DO NOT think that the sky is falling, but to whatever extent anyone else does, or distance in general needs to be lessened as a factor in GCA,  I think this premise/approach makes much, much more sense than lengthening courses.