Tim,
I always wonder why people call for "rolling the ball back" when most of us have been doing it for years.
Mike,
I can be more specific when you are......you seem to be making a lot of posts lately that are somewhat cryptic, seemingly pretending to know something without giving any specifics your own self!
I also agree with you that it is very specific, but disagree that its not possible to talk about the concept of random and micro contours outside a specific example. And, I agree with Tim - we have both spent enough time on public courses to know what slows down play and for a public course, there is good reason to design for the expected level of player, vs. you Wolf Point, designed for one player!
That said, one green I am thinking of is Dallas National No. 5. I went out there with Notah Begay III and he pointed out how someone of his caliber play couldn't make the chip from the right of the green, due to one of those "accelerator ramps" side slopes in the middle of that green. Because it was in the middle of the green, if the pin was just below the slope, there was simply no way to get a shot or putt close if above the hole.
Later in the day, when going around to take pictures, I saw Lee Trevino at the same green and said hi. Unprompted, he said they should blow that green up, citing the same reasons. He was particularly sensitive, having played it with a lot of ams, to the fact that many were playing from that side of the green, with their slice, and then chipped right through the green, necessitating at least one more chip, and if that went to just above the little slope, perhaps a putt off the green, rechip, etc.
The reason I am against over use of micro contours is that if guys of that caliber don't like them, and can't play them, then its good enough for me to not put them in a design. It seems to be a question of whether the golf course should reward a decent approach shot, or whether it should just keep challenging the golfer with a hard putt? I will grant two things:
1. There is room for both in the big world of gca
2. In the example above, it might be the specific location of the sneakly slope in the middle of the green that is the problem over the concept itself. It might be neat in just the right context, but is an interesting example of following the land (perhaps that slope takes up some contour on the natural cross slope) NOT necessarily being good architecture because it creates a situation that doesn't reward good play.
I agree with Jason in general -if the splines come in from the edges, they are the best defense against going for a tucked pin and create strategy. I also agree greens ought to slope with the general contour. But, most golfers view the center of the green as the safe part to hit and the random contours diminish that somewhat.