Sometimes it is interesting to read the last reply of a thread and compare it to the first. Many times between the two the thread has wavered and meandered hither and yon; or at least off the main point. With this thread, I think I am the culprit.
Although I do think there is a feeling there must be something wrong with the golf world in general when a touring pro hits a great shot or posts a great number, I think I misinterpreted where Tom and Don were heading with this topic.
If it was about course setup in general, and major tournament course setup in particular, I am in complete agreement with the thesis that the 22 yard wide fairways, 8" rough and no chipping areas that are found in most majors are a disservice to the game, the fans, and the courses that they are played on. Majors would be much more enjoyable if they became thorough examinations (which would included chipping, not just chip outs; strategy such as where to leave a shot played from the rough, one that comes in "hot" to a firm green; and options, specifically, options as to what trajectory to use on approach shots to front pins where the bounce up is available; to just name a few).
If it is about the lack of relative importance of the architect's influence when a tour pro is "on" or has a "perfect yardage", I can see the point, but would add that isn't that when it is most fun to watch these guys play; when their talent KOs the noble intentions of the architect? (Think some of Tiger's fairway bunker shots at crucial points in championships). I would also add that at these points we are experiencing the essence of excellence in sports. It happens in every sport. When Roger Clemens is just unhittable; when Barry Bonds won't miss a "mistake" and won't swing at a great pitch; when Jordan hits 6(?) three pointers in the first quarter of a playoff game and just shrugs a shoulders as if to say, "What can I say?" when the great Earl Campbell ran through holes if they were there, or over linebackers if they were there.
Sometimes, the architect has to say, "Nothing I can do. That's too good." Because some of the suggestions would do more harm to the game than good ("Cut off the water, and roll the piss out of 'em." That would only ensure dead greens the next week.)
But isn't that okay for the architect to say? Isn't that the essence of sport? Sometimes you "win" and sometimes the opponent is just too good?
Now if the governing bodies just wouldn't glorify "Par" as the opponent of the touring pro, these tournaments would be so much better. But that's probably another thread.