One of the interesting aspects of a golf course to me is how the architect chooses to use slope in a course. This typically happens on three levels of precision.
The macro level occurs with using slopes for sets of holes, a nine, or even a hole course. An example of this occuring at Huntingdon Valley on the A and B nines. Flynn uses the bowl nature of the valley to place premiums on general shots depends on which part of the nine you are on. Another Flynn example is at Rolling Green, specifically the stretch between 15 and 18 inclusive, where two ridges are used to create a number of different types of holes. 15 routed across the valley between the two, placing a premium on a well places drive to gain angle into a green. 16, a short par three placing a premium on distance control, and using the dominant slope of the ridge to dictate shot shape. 17 straddles the one ridge, following it along the top and perpendicular to the other holes. And 18 is a long mirror image of 15, using similar features with twice the premium on shot value.
The middle level occurs with using slope on a hole and within the realm of that hole. Any number of examples can be presented in this case, but for continuity, I present an Alps hole.
The micro level occurs with greens and fairways. Presenting and using slope in both to influence the shot before. A fairway may cant to one side in order to make the approach favor that side, etc. Greens typically present themselves in a fallaway or push up manner in which a premium on distance control and trajectory is placed.
However, the use of slope in many courses, both new and old has become far too systematic, especially in regards to the green site. The green or hole location will typically favor the approach from the angle the represents the lowest point of the green. But that lowest point almost categorically favors some line of approach between the green and the tee. The approach set therefore becomes a test of execution and not so much stretegy. The strategy instead being executed from the tee.
"Get to point A, and then pull the trigger."
I feel it may be advantageous for the architect use slope such that they set up amorphous target blobs that may include, the green, bunkers, fairway length chipping areas and greenside rough.
Consider a green that is best approached from angle A, however, the tee lies at Angle B, which is a good 100 degrees away from Angle A. The approach at angle A offers a few yards of fairway with a bunker gaurding the approach from Angle B to that fairway, but not in a punitive "hit here and die" sort of way. Instead, the bunker is positioned such that it still lies at the optimum angle to the hole, just requiring a different type of shot than from the fairway or rough. The green slopes toward angle A, but only in such a way that a well executed shot from Angle B would hold.
A different hole location on the green could offer a different set of options that now make Angle A less desirable than maybe even Angle B.
I think a lot of architeture places too much of the decision making on the tee (or the second shot on long par fives) and not enough in the fairway approach.