After the 2009 Open concluded, the question was asked if the British Open was the only championship that allowed a "strategic" golfer to be competitive. Brandel Chamblee answered that prior to the lengthening (read Tiger-proofing) of the course, the Masters was the one other championship which allowed the "thinking" golfer (vs the grip it and rip it, go hunt it down golfer of today) to be competitive. He specifically mentioned the names of Tom Watson, Corey Pavin, Mark Brooks and Justin Leonard becoming potential "stories".

My question is - as a spectator, would you prefer to watch golf on a "strategic" set up or just a plain ole' long course? I guess, in effect do you want to watch "old-style" golf or today's "power" golf with 500 yard par 4s?

I prefer a more strategic setup. In my opinion it encompases skill in all aspects of the game.

Strategic all day long.

Zach Johnson ranks 148th in driving, he won the Masters in '07, Augusta is not that long and shorter hitting players can win there.

Making courses longer makes it harder for every player, no player can just grip it and rip it in a major championship, you have to find the fairway no matter how long you are.

This was said during the US Open preview that "the best test of skill is a course/tournament that requires you use every club in your bag." Along those lines the length of a course should definitely encourage (won't say require) players to use driver from the tee. While there are pros that don't hit it very long they must make up for it with accuracy, if they don't, then they just aren't cut to win on tour.

These are professionals, they should excel in all perspectives of golf including accuracy and length. Today's golf is no less strategic than it was in the past, players are more fit, and technology has progressed that a 500 yd par 4 for professionals is reasonable.

I'm all for strategic, or at the very least, a nice blend of the two.

I was a little shocked to hear Chambers Bay is supposedly going to play 7720 for the 2015 US Open. I imagine it will play shorter than that with the firm fairways and everything, but that is a big number.

I prefer the longer courses for events that I watch. Typically, the shorter players have it a little bit of an easier time driving the ball because the longer courses tend to have fairways pinched in beyond where the shorter guys drive it. This means that the longer guys miss more fairways. The longer guys have less yardage into the greens but are playing from worse lies than the shorter guys who can hit it in the fairway. I think this brings more strategy in for the longer hitters. Often they will choose shorter clubs and concentrate more on accuracy. This helps to level the playing field somewhat, even though the longer guys will have shorter irons than the shorter guys from the same area in the fairway.

When a course is too short or tight for longer hitters to hit driver, they hit hybrids and irons all day because hitting driver is just not an option on most holes. I don't see this as strategy, it's just a lack of options. I enjoy the longer courses because it forces the longer hitters to make decisions while still allowing the shorter guys to post good scores.

A great course will require every aspect of your game. Length is a skill, but so is a deft short game and the ability to vary your ball flight in windy conditions, or fly it high and stop it quick.
What disappoints me about tour courses, specifically US venues is the uniformity of bunker sand, massive greens that don't require a lot of accuracy to hit, very little penal bunkering (landscape gardening as one ex British pro of high standing said) and the fact that you can knock it off line and still have a good lie and a route to the green.
If Phil or Tiger sprayed it at my home course they would need a good supply of balls yet in the US they can be a sand iron off line and still have good lie.
Give me Riviera, Harbour Town or Colonial over some bland stretch of desert any day.

I believe there is a flaw in the idea to "tiger-proof" a course by making it longer. Doesn't that just actually benefit the long hitters by separating them even further from the shorter hitters?

I believe strategic design trumps a course that simply rewards brute power and is much more interesting to play and to watch a championship.

The links setup like we saw at the Open Championship tests every part of your game.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. Cheers.

it seems the best thing anyone can do to make a course more difficult(as we saw at the us open and the open) regardless of course creation is to mess with the weather. mother nature makes the best courses.

The secret of the Open is that is allows the short accurate player to compete with a longer bomber, providing the latter keeps it in play or chooses their misses wisely. The Masters has probably shifted the balance away from the short accurate player unless their short game is red hot.

However, if Mark Brooks ever becomes a factor at The Masters or The Open again, I will eat my golf bag. I rather doubt we will see much from Watson or Pavin.

Strategic any day of the week. The length of some golf holes today seems ridiculous. Part of what made The Open so much fun to watch was the guys having to think about what to hit and where to hit it.