Given that the greens are approximately the same size, shouldn't the golfer be punished more for missing a green with a short club versus longer clubs ?
Shouldn't the adjacent hazards/bunkers be far more penal when a wedge is the intended club of choice, versus a fairway wood ?
Pat,
I find that this principle is ignored when I see Golf Courses change a hole from a risk-reward Par 5 to an OTT Par 4.
In my area, I have two specific examples, both in the upper 400 yard range. Both holes were reachable in 2, but the greens were defended in a way that made it a high risk proposition.
In one case, Out-of-Bounds is just 10 yards left of the green (and slopes towards it as well), with a front left bunker. When the hole was a Par 5, you knew the high risk trying to get home in two. For someone playing in regulation, the OB certainly isn't ominous. But the green wasn't a complete pushover, either. From the lay-up area, the green is elevated, so you can't see the surface (and the OB is still there if you yank a wedge). The green nicely fit the balance of defending a short Par 5.
However, one year, the course decided to move the tees up 10 yards and call it a 460 yard Par 4. With a fairway wood in your hand, the green definitely doesn't match the expected "regulation" shot demanded, especially when the surrounds are more ominous than most other holes you've approached with 7 or 8 irons.
In the other instance, the evolution was essentially the same (move the tees up 10 yards and call it a Par 4). In that case, the green had a fronting creek and usually required your second shot from an uneven lie (given the overall slope of the land, the ball was usually below your feet). Again, the risks appropriately defended a short Par 5, as you had to fight the creek and stance to get home in 2. But, as a "regulation" shot on a Par 4, the green surrounds don't match.
I understand converting a "pushover" Par 5 into a Par 4, usually because the green is too easy to attack and doesn't provide a challenge for the wedge approach. That would seem to fit in with your incremental punishment principle, but the above two examples do not.