Mark:
Great topic and really really good answers from others to your question.
In a strict design sense adding yardage is certainly one way to go (adding tee yardage) and that's the way a lot of architects have gone for about 40-50 years now. But some of those who responded to your question gave you other and very valid ways to challenge really good players (even touring pros) without simply adding yardage (and at the same time accomodating other levels of players). Designing golf holes with fairway features like bunkering, angles (rough), water, trees, whatnot can work in an ideal world for any and every golfer if they would simply play from the tees that are commensurate with their games! But of course they never do that for a variety of reasons. It is cumbersome and inconvenient to do that too. A group of recreational golfers who are like golfing buddies rarely use different tees! And in a tournament situation (certainly a class A player tournament) it is impossible to do that.
But in a strict design sense some of the ideas of architects like Steve Smyers are definitely clever and valid ways to challenge very good players and accomodate the average player and even the bad player.
There is a ton of detail in Smyers's design style to deal with the dilemma of how far the ball is traveling other than just adding length but so as not to get into it all I would state his basic premise and solution as I'm understanding it. That is to basically take the older design style (many of the old classic courses) that often rewarded length only for lengths sake and to turn that concept upside down; although they (the older courses) might offer some distance challenge (like a bunker). But they very often didn't really combine the challenge of both distance and ACCURACY.
That's what Smyers means to do. He isn't advocating shutting down the really long hitter, only making him think much more about accuracy if he wants to use the option of all his length! This is an excellent design compromise on Smyers's part because it gets away from this knock of taking the driver out of a player's hands. Smyers isn't doing that in a true sense; he's basically putting the use of a driver right between the player's ears which isn't a bad place to be at all!
JamieS for a perfect example of what I'm talking about might be the comparison of two really long par 4s. Say the 18th at Huntingdon Valley and the 9th at Commonwealth. On Huntingdon Valley's 18th a long ball hitter only needs to think about the basic diagonal carry or the topography and bunkering (some trees right) and hit it hard. If he does hit it hard he really doesn't need to think that much about accuracy (unless he want to be on the right side which they say is best but not that big a deal). A guy like Tiger from the tips could probably hit his tee shot with a 3 wood up into that big wide fairway all day long (with not much thought as to accuracy). But on #9 Commonwealth Tiger could hit his driver if he wanted but he would be running into a decreasing fairway width the farther out he went. But still the choice is his and if he wants the distance the premium is almost totally dependent on ACCURACY!
Also on that hole the dilemma on the tee shot really doesn't come into play for the shorter player since he should be going over that narrowing fairway dilemma for Tiger with his second shot.
Also Mark:
You ask; "Why are some of these old classic courses considered obsolete without added changes like length (tee yardage) that most of us don't like". The simple answer is that basically the people you say that and are making those claims have no earthly idea what their talking about!
They are looking at those courses one dimensionally or with a lack of understanding of all the ramifications of really good design and certainly some of the design assets of those course that just aren't being utilized. To really understand that you should carefully read again what Jamie Slonis said about Merion in the Hugh Wilson. Merion may have been a little over the top on some of their greens on one or two days of that tournament for the level of player in that tournament (some really good mid-ams and national caliber mid-ams) but it didn't have to be to really challenge them!
Frankly, those that saw Merion in the Hugh Wilson were right in saying that the course could have challenged the best players in the world on that weekend. And even more interesting Merion is coming to understand (accurately) that they don't even need to narrow down their fairways with high rough to make that challenge even more interesting. That they can actually expand their fairways back to their 1930 widths and couple that with restored firm and fast playing conditions "through the green", not just on the greens.
But to go in that direction evokes screams that the course is "over the top" or "tricked up". That is just not so! Of course it could be if they went too far but they don't need to do that. This is the proper and ideal "maintenance meld" into really great golf architecture! And this is what Jamie Slonis is talking about--and he's absolutely right!
You also bring up the dilemma of a how a general membership will handle something like that. Well, tournament set-up and everyday play set-up is also a very interesting subject and area and in the hands of a good super and an understanding and educated committee and membership can definitely be managed to accomodate all. Sometimes general memberships come to actually appreciate this kind of direction and playability. That is certainly so at Huntingdon Valley.
So there are all kinds of ways to deal with the dilemma of distance and length from an architect's or a super's or a club's perspective other than just adding length and tee yardage.
It just takes more understanding than is apparently out there generally, but I really do believe that more golfers and clubs or beginning to figure it out!
I'm also no advocate of designing or setting up golf courses so that every level of player can basically experience the same things and use the same clubs on golf holes. In that way I've never agreed with Alice Dye. That just isn't really golf to me--it some sort of weird attempt at golf egalitarianism taken to a ridiculous extreme.
I know this personally, because I played at a good level for a long time and I was always very short off the tee. Sure, in retrospect, I guess I would have liked to hit it out there with some of the long hitters but I'm very proud of how I was able to beat long hitters and those that were much more accomplished than me in certain areas of the game by using some assets I had that they didn't. It made me understand and manage some really well designed golf course with what I had.
That to me is the variety of the game and its architecture. I probably wouldn't have been able to do that on a bunch of 7400yd tracks. So in the end it probably wasn't just me that was beating those long hitters (and probably better players from the same tees and yardage)--it was the clever architecture, and that's the way it should be, in my opinion.
So again, I'm an advocate that architects, clubs and their stewards should look at what they have and how to use it. And for new construction use some of the clever ideas and concepts of guys like Smyers. Length may be one way to go but it's by no means the only way to go!