I really don't see the design of the course making the very top players uncomfortable. They lose their comfort level primarily because of playing conditions including wind, very firm greens and fairways cut extremely narrow - all of which really have very little to do with the actual design of the course. I was at Quail Hollow this year and watched the very best play a pretty tough track and they were able to face some pretty tough situations without too much trouble. Of course, being out of position in the deep rough can make things tough but most of the time they could get themselves to a position where they could recover and make par.
Jerry,
Based on what I know, Tour Players are at least a bit uncomfortable if the shot, in Tiger parlance, "doesn't fit their eye." In their mind, it's one that fits their shot pattern and/or at least has all the signals that tell them the best shot type to play, then figure out the actual aiming point, amount of curve, height, etc. As most good players tell me, they like it when the wind, lie, ground contour, and target angle all suggest the same shot, i.e., fade, etc.
As Jim Colbert once told me, "if you come to an intersection and you have a stop sign and a green light, how do you know what to do?" Of course, golf is easier when they can "commit to their shot" and it's easier when they know what they should do, and feel like they can do it. Architects may vary on whether helping them attain commitment or confuse them. Pete tried to sow doubt, Rees perhaps felt it was a good thing to make them positive, i.e., even for them, golf is hard enough.
Certain shots, like having to aim out over water or OB to attain the target in a cross wind are nearly as uncomfortable for them as it is for us.
And, according to Scott Fawcette, a tee shot landing zone with turf (or tree line to tree line, water, gunch, or whatever is unplayable) at <67.5 yards can make them lose their absolute comfort level about using a driver. I suppose a turf LZ of about 60 yards would just make them take 3W, but somewhere in there (depending on wind direction) a LZ with somewhere between 63-66 might be enough to tempt them to take driver despite their increased odds of parking one into the weeds.
Or trying to hit a green whose dimensions are less than their expected shot dispersion of about 10% (12% for low handicappers) or 20 yards wide and deep for a 200 yard approach shot, etc. (perhaps adjusted a bit for typical winds, etc.)
The question often debated here is whether we ought to set up shots that they like (or at least have a reasonable chance to execute) or whether we ought to set up shots they find awkward and/or have a very low % chance of executing and hitting and holding the target. I think everyone allows for unreasonable weather conditions, and only expects that in normal conditions for the region they are playing. They, of course, figure that if they (as best players in the world) can't execute a shot reliably, what architect would expect average players to do so? (Or, more cynically, just how bad/silly does the gca or tournament organizer want them - especially those in the lower half of the field - to look?)
It's not just modern architects who pander to that. The general writing of Ross and others in the Golden Age (Thomas in particular) thought the targets ought to match the shot. The old school thought is philosophically to design targets that good players can attain. If you do that, then using all sorts of hazards to defend the attainable target area is fair game. If greens and fw are too narrow/sloped/small to hit, then even the total absence of hazards would be considered unfair by better golfers. Of course, it runs a spectrum, i.e., a shot you are less sure of executing is easier to try with no real penalty hazards. Even with water tight, going for a big green is tempting, if within their margin of error. And, as discussed in another thread, going for exactly which part of the green - far edge, middle, or tucked pin is the real - and valid - strategy choice, especially where the wind varies every day.
Again, I think they would view far edge, middle, or tucked as a fair and reasonable choice. A combination of elements that virtually dictates that they aim away from the green? Few would like it, but would accept it in either unusual weather conditions, their game being off, etc.
Yes, nothing is fair, and they have the obligation to play the course as they find it, but feel that the gca has the obligation to design holes where there is at least one way to actually get on the green in regulations (penal) with two or more ways of varying difficulty, depending on the tee shot being strategic or heroic and preferred.
Somewhere in
the gray areas (where this debate really exists) is whether the better of the strategic ways might be awkward, i.e., a run up shot rather than aerial approach. Most golfers accept those kind of shots once in a while, just as they accept the occasional really difficult weather conditions. (although many, and seemingly most often low handicap club players who want to be better competitors and are most likely to think the architecture should help, don't.)With now better known info about shot dispersion patterns, instead of guessing, we should be able to create a target even good players will reasonably expect to attain with their "standard" shots. (or, with hole balance, half, i.e., half of fw bend left, half bend right) If they know their statistical probability of success, the gca can estimate it pretty closely as well, putting them just on the edge of confidence. That seems okay.
Just my perspective.