I have to say that this is one topic that I really don't understand, i.e. I don't understand the assumption that a short 4 (say 320-360 yards) is almost by definition more interesting than one of standard length, or that it almost automatically provides a much wider range of options/choices.
I must be missing something, because so many experienced golfers and top flight architects around here seem to think so. But to me: given than nothing in the world precludes an architect from finding/creating an interesting and challenging green on a hole of ANY length (any short/long Par 4, any Par 3 or Par 5), what sets the short 4 apart seems to be simply and solely the choice to hit less than driver off the tee.
Is that indeed it - is that the option most are praising? Because if it is, it doesn't seem to me all that interesting or difficult a decision -- and it's a decision made less and less interesting and difficult with each passing year, as technology has led to drivers (even the 10-15 year old driver I have) that are easier than ever to hit, and to golf balls that seem to keep driver shots as straight (or even straighter) than those hit by 3 woods or hybrids.
So, unless there's a centreline bunker right at the 250 yard marker, most of us will fire away with a driver (easy decision); and if there is such a centreline bunker 250 yards out, most of us will hit 3 wood or a hybrid (no choice at all). What's left then is basically an easier hole, which I'm certainly not against -- over the course of a round, and in terms of flow and feeling and pacing, it's good to have a mix of challenging and less challenging holes, including holes that an average golfer of average length might birdie as often as his more accomplished opponent. But then, let's look at short 4s in THOSE terms, i.e. (relatively) easier holes, rather than in terms of being strategically more interesting in and of themselves.
But again, I must be missing something, because I find little 'automatic' appeal to a short 4.
Peter