I think it's course dependent, but I mostly agree. Unless a public course has enough land to make a 7000+ yard track tipped (most don't) they tend to resort to alternative methods to make a course challenging.
After reading the thread I'm pretty convinced that there aren't really significant 'errors' in course ratings. The way I'm reading the surveyor/course rater's description is that ratings are mostly quantitatively driven, so even if one course were to play 'easier' than it's rating, there's probably other courses that play 'harder' and it all offsets.
Yep.
The issue, at least anecdotally, seems to be certain courses seem inclined to "pinch" landing areas to negate the courses lack of length. Combined with standard men's tees that almost always seem to be up, you've got a combo that forces decent players to lay up excessively. Courses with much more consistent fairway widths seem much less sensitive to where the tee markers get placed that day.
One absurd example - there was a 240 yard par 4. It's 'drive-able' per se, if you're tee shot holds the green. If not, hazards left/right/behind green. Creek @ ~130 because tees were up. The choices were (1) lay up with gap wedge or (2) attempt to drive the green, or put an iron near the front apron...but also it's not a straight shot to the green. I hit a 2 yard draw into the junk off the tee 🙂 the course map shows rough where there is actually just overgrown brush.