JME,
Yeah, you can overthink it. Some of the pros I have worked with are really dogmatic on the idea of aligning all the road signs - wind, lie slope, target areas slope, angle of target suggest the same shot. I understand the concept - if a fun course makes you hit all the shots, then setting up a variety of shots (with a strong combo of signals for any one shot) also makes sense to me.
But, I hate greens and fw that don't fit the topo so that is why I end up with some greens that don't fit the strong criteria some believe in more strongly. On a left angled site, I won't build a green angling to the right, etc. If faced with counter signals, or variable winds, my tendency is to build the green to fit the land, but make it wider and perhaps deeper and allow golfers to have at it any way they choose.
I also agree with Kelly that on generally windy sites, an open front is the most flexible form of design. But, the targets deserve some consideration. I have seen greens that are nearly unhittable, downwind, shallow and wide, and a water hazard in front where you have to carry it to the green, but the tail wind reduces spin and most shots end up over the green.
Is it formula to examine likely play conditons and then size and shape a green so that the typical approach shots are generally "doable" by most golfers?
Dick,
While I doubt Old Tom designed internal contours specifically for wind, I think modern gca's do. It probably comes with the more aerial game and equipment that makes it more of a need than in the old days. But, even GeorgeThomas wrote about contouring for specific shots - suggesting narrower greens on downwind holes where the tail wind would tend to straighten out the shot, and flatter greens for long iron approaches that would roll on, vs. steeper up slopes where a wedge with spin and check was required. So, contouring greens dates back at least that far, to the age when courses transitioned from being found to being designed.....