Mark,
That last post comes off sounding "privileged" which in this day and age, isn't a great look, LOL.
You are right in that in a country with 14,000 golf courses, and with major metro regions offering over 100, the variety of courses should allow play to filter out to each and every taste.
But Ken is right, too. Not only in small towns, but larger ones, where the biggest distance issue is the distance from your front door to the first tee. Most golf is played within 20 miles of the house. Or, a blend. I play the closest few courses mostly, but go golfing once a year (or so) out of state, and maybe a few times a year to a course further out of town for variety, challenge, because a friend wants to play there, or to see new architecture.
As a result, I have often thought that local, play everyday courses ought to (or just do) "pander" (micro-aggression right there, given the customer is always right) to a fairly low common denominator. The typical example is the muni really being designed around the C-D player's typical game, vs. the club designed for perhaps A and B, but in reality, they need to accommodate C golfers, as well. Rounds are hard to obtain these days, and few courses are willing to ignore any golfer segment, much less the C and D players who make up about 80% of the customers.
Even the so-called country clubs for a day evolved to answer market niches like yours, i.e., the better player wants a challenge and is willing to drive to do it. But, C and D players will also play there. I don't know how old you are, but Ken M is 78. It's hard to say golf is the game of a lifetime if you set up courses that are just too hard for the senior set (of which I am one, officially as of last year) You will find soon enough that your own distance is declining, putting skills deteriorating, etc. It happens to all of us!
From the above, you look for features that don't hurt average players but still affect better players, avoiding forced carries, long rough, super fast greens, etc. While good players may balk at super slow greens the average green speed in the US is still 9.5, according to my sources. Some back tee players complain about having to look over forward tees for those of us with deteriorating (or never had) golf games.
It's all part of the balance between the good of the whole vs the good of the individual, and most courses probably should ask the A and B players to put up with a bit lesser challenge than they may be capable of conquering for the good of the whole. Obviously, they have the ability to move pins around for special days. And, as we have seen on several threads, even better golfers prefer a challenge that they can match their typical score or even shoot a career best, without feeling a bit guilty because the course was too easy.
It's a tough balance, for sure. And, each individual course answers that question differently, based on inherent design quality, etc. A mountain course may never be a walking course. A men only private club may feel free to toughen up the course (if any of those still exist...I suspect its 14 out of 14,000, maybe 140 tops.
So, butchering a course was probably too strong a phrase for Ken to use, although everyone gets emotional about architectural issues.