Pat & Doug,
I believe that my comment about Tilly's design philosophy is being misconstrued by you both.
Pat, "I've noticed a good number of AWT holes with steep falloffs at the back of the green have a unique berm located a couple of yards below the putting surface to catch or slow down balls hit long..."
Doug, "The Red's 4th hole (par 3, 171 yds) has steep falloffs on two sides--left and rear. The front bunker does wrap around to the side, which, as Pat says, serves as the "safety net". This is an intimidating hole..."
The original question was, "Do greens that have a severe falloff at the back of the green intimidate golfers..."
My answer was, "I don't think so, or at least that they don't as much as they should..."
Most players today, even great ones, have learned the game in this time of high ball flight and dramatic spinning and stopping ability created by equipment technological advances. A good example
Consider the 11th hole at Augusta. With all of the lengthening of the hole one would think that any thought of ever playing a second shot into the middle of the green, let alone directly at the pin on the left-hand side, would be an even worse option. But that is not what is now done. More and More players are playing to the hole locations left despite years of Ken Venturi saying how Ben Hogan only hit "his second shot on the green by mistake."
Players today take front and rear features of the green into consideration less and less because their ball flights and spin allow this.
That is why I said, "I believe this is another area where modern technology will eventually effect great old architecture and challenge architects in designing modern courses..."
It was because of that comment that I brought up Tilly's design philosophy of the green entrance being the most important area of concern on any hole and that it was those features he concerned himself with FIRST.
In his day the ground game was both a viable and important playing option and therefor something that needed planning for in the design process.
That doesn't mean that I was stating that he didn't design greens with severe back and side drop-offs; to the contrary! Look at Winged Foot West as an example. So many of those greens have drop-offs of a surprising nature. Anything that is long or off-line is doubly-punished because of that.
In the 1929 U.S. Open both Bobby Jones and Al Espinaoza hit there drives to the right side of the 1st fairway all five days. They even stated that playing from the rough was abetter option than playing from the left-hand side of the fairway because of how the green sets itself up angularly for the shot being played into it. The green entrance was designed with a series of undulations that roll back up the green. A ball that lands on these coming from the left-hand side of the fairway will always kick and roll to the right and into either the bunker or the rough, but that is only when the ball flight is shallower than today's. That is why more and more good players choose to hit it longer and left knowing that they have just a short wedge into the green.
If you want to see the dramatic difference in playing philosophy that just a few years make, reread Schaap's (?) book on the Massacre at Winged Foot and how badly the 1st hole beat everyone up. Carefully read the players comments, including Nicklaus' own and you'll quickly realize that their second shots were being played with much longer irons than today adn with lower ball flights with less control.
So again, not that players don't fear design features such as severe back of green drop-offs; they do. But I believe that they have much less to fear and show it in the very nature of their play because of technology.
By the way Doug, a better example is the 3rd on the Black. Middle of the green and right if long used to be your ball would careen downhill into impossible woods. Better and more full grass and many fewer trees have greatly reduced the terror of this tee shot result.