TD,
I have seen that "eliminate the lucky bounce" comment, particularly with Redans or any kick plate. One golfer even told me using those wasn't real golf! "You aim at the pin, dammit!" or something like that. I view those as options to the target, and am with Lou. Its how many you take to get there, not how, and letting it happen a few different ways is always nice.
I believe the gca does have an obligation to provide some sort of proportionality and fairness. To start, if a hole has a 300 yard forced carry, or a green the size of a desk, then no one can play it, and few would argue that is our minimum definition. Given par is the measure, while there can be exceptions, most holes should be reachable in regulation (no dog leg par 3's!) and with fairway width and green size that allow more than half the players to hit the target, i.e., make golf "doable" within the confines of the rules.
After that, its all subjective. Are hazards too tough? Too easy? The differences are what make golf a great game.
I agree that any course that is too consistent can get boring. As Mike Hurdzan pointed out in his book, if all greens were sized to that USGA slope chart, every shot would be the exact same difficulty, even with differing lengths. If there were all easy hazards on penal holes (a concept I am having trouble grasping at the moment) or deeper on short holes, shallower on long ones, there would be no holes that stand out.
I could go on. Again, I have no problem with architects trying to provide some sense of proportionality and order. My problem is with golfers who constantly demand more of it. I came to the conclusion long ago that the rub of the green will NEVER be rubbed out, but others might invest ever greater sums to eradicate it. It just won't happen.