The assumption? I think it is more subtle than that. Your example shows that if perhaps there were two trails, say the one for the hasty short-cutters, and one for the others, the inevitable damage could have been minimized and a closure avoided.
But my comment wasn't about trail management, I'm recounting an anecdote from 25 years ago. The point was to check your assumptions against reality, and adjust accordingly.
I wish more trails I walked had "fast, hard, short" vs "slow, easy, long, pretty" route markers - and not necessarily in that combination! Sometimes a long trail is long because it's pretty, sometimes because it has low grade. I've walked with people in crutches and wheelchairs, warnings that "this trail has steps" have been invaluable (and really annoying when missed).
But my comment wasn't about trail management, I'm recounting an anecdote from 25 years ago. The point was to check your assumptions against reality, and adjust accordingly.