I think greens are too fast when if you're putting downhill you have virtually no chance of stopping the ball around the hole (let alone on the green). A skilled player hitting a putt should be able to hit a perfect stroke and at least keep it around the hole.
This is just a bit too reasonable for my tastes ... I think it is okay to have a couple of holes a round where hitting it above the hole is a real mistake. However, if you get to the point where an uphill putt that misses turns around and comes back to you, that is obviously unfair. (That can happen because the greens are too fast, or because of a really bad hole location.)
A common expression is "you want to make sure you don't leave it above the hole" but in my limited experience I've seen that players are rarely good enough to hit greens consistently let alone hitting specific areas 1/4 the size of a total green and most players are more concerned with just getting on the green because their short games aren't skilled enough to get up in down more than half the time, uphill chip or not.
When it comes to setting up a course for a low handicap/Tour event, I think faster greens keeping the players approach shots in check makes more sense, but for an everyday course set up anytime you can't hold a putt on a green either the greens are too fast or there is way too much slope in the green.
Also, was "make sure you leave it above the hole" a concern with classical designers? Even on severe greens was it ever an issue with the slower green speeds of the time?
How fast was the average green in 1920 or 1930?
Pat:
The average green in 1920 or 1930 was maybe 6 or 7 on the Stimpmeter, as near as anyone can guess. So, as you imply, the game was not as difficult around the greens in the old days ... but, it WAS more difficult from tee to green, so there is some balancing of interests with faster green speeds today.
Your question made me go back to the best contemporary account of architecture in the 1930's I could think of ... Bobby Jones' description of the design intent of Augusta National, from his book GOLF IS MY GAME. The quote I was thinking of is this one:
"It is not our intention to righ the golf course so as to make it tricky. It is our feeling that there is something wrong with a golf course which will not yield a score in the sixties to a player who has played well enough to deserve it.
On the other hand, we do not believe that birdies should be made too easily. We think that to play two good shots to a par four hole and then to hole a ten-foot putt on a dead-level green is not enough. If the player is to beat par, we should like to ask him to hit a truly fine second shot right up against the flag or to hole a putt of more than a little difficulty. We therefore place the holes on tournament days in such locations on the greens as to require a really fine shot in order to get close. With the greens fast and undulating, the putts from medium distances are difficult and the player who leaves his ball on the outer reaches has a real problem to get down in par figures."
Mr. Jones' fuller description still never mentions "staying below the hole," though from the end of the quote above, it is clear that he considered the danger of three-putting a legitimate defense of the hole.
I can only wonder what Bob Jones would make of modern golf and of Augusta if he were alive today, but I do not think he would cry for more fairness. The problem with the standard that you and Jim Eder are proposing is that most Tour players hit near-perfect putts as a matter of course, so there would be little if any concern for them if they wound up above the hole. The great thing about faster greens is that by requiring players to worry about staying below the hole, you check their aggressiveness and make them aim ten feet away from the hole instead of RIGHT AT IT. Anywhere they get to aim right at it, you're going to see a lot of scores in the low 60's.