Wayne,
I was surprised to hear that they actively consider it. In competition, they strongly consider all factors that will work to their advantage, and certainly, keeping the ball under the Texas wind is a big one, if the green accepts the shot. And frankly, these kids are playing a bunch of country courses around Texas that aren't classics in many cases. Its a treat for them to play one of the newer cousres with some design features.
I agree that the best Golden Age courses integrated some surrounding areas into the greens. One example often given (and sometimes debated) is bunkers a bit further from the greens. That said, from looking at your numerous Flynn drawings and some Ross and MacK drawings often posted here, I am not sure that distant bunkers were all that common. After all, a greenside bunker can catch a fly up and run up equally and it makes sense to keep bunkers near the green from that perspective.
I am not sure that approaches are now as overwatered as some suppose. With irrigation, I suspect its more constant, whereas in the old days, you couldn't run in up in April, but it got greater as you got to the peak of summer. For that matter, back when greens only were irrigated, it might have been easier to run it up, with a hard front and then a soft green that allowed you the comfort of knowing the ball would slow down considerably! Now, as Brent hint, perhaps USGA greens mean that the frontal opening might be wetter and the green might roll out more with its 10+ stimp. You have to hit it hard to make it jump forward and then NEED the green depth to stop it. Sounds like back pins might be the best candidate for the bump and run under some conditions.
It may be different in Philly, but with the watering restrictions you have there, I tend to doubt it! I don't see it down here in Texas. Granted, the run up shots these guys are talking about may be landing ten yards in front of the green rather than twenty or thirty that might have been typical before irrigation, but its still a bump and run and great judgement is still required. Its just a little different than it used to be.
Still, the point isn't to debate the virtues of modern vs. old. I was simply struck by a bunch of what would equate to top club players talking about how they play the game and how the architecture affects it. Small greens equals limited options in their mind.
Seemed esp. appropriate on Harbor Town week, since that course gets a lot of raves as a modern, in part because it reversed the 60's trend of big greens to small ones. Some of Petes stuff (including TPC) has bigger greens, but the complaint you sometimes hear there is that the contours are so convoluted in front of those greens that the run up option is taken away as the best choice, depsite sort of looking Scottish.
It seems like the way to encourage a modern version of the ground game is larger greens to soften the problems of distance control, and making sure we integrate the outer contours as was done in the Golden Age to allow the bounce in to reliably work laterally as well.
Just MHO>