I love this kind of topic...even though it's a rabbit hole.
My culprit for this? Tour set ups with smooth medium fast and flat greens. makes those 6 footers for par really easy for the guy approaching from the wrong side of the fairway.
Thought I answered on this topic, but obviously not. Some thoughts:
First, 6 foot is the 50% miss/make distance for pros. They are not "really easy." Especially under pressure. Will also reiterate that I believe basing any design solely on the Tour pro (and especially the top 20 we see on TV who are playing at the top of their games) is goofy. I can see designing for the average Tour Pro, and the stats show these guys still struggle on average out of the rough, the sand, the greens, etc. I can see using Senior Tour stats as a pretty good proxy for low handicap ams, really.
Second, I have been thinking of throwing in a grenade here, a topic with the title "When will Bareski, Fawcett and Broadie replace McKenzie, Tilly and Ross as the experts on strategy?" It may never happen on golf club architectural nostalgia.com, but I think it has or will happen in the real golf world, starting with pros, and working down to ams after the stats based strategy becomes more widely publicized.
Third, and remember these observations come from over a decade ago, so we can't blame continuing distance advancements.
I ask every pro I know about their strategy. Lanny Wadkins (in 1995) on whether having an open green front matters: "Not much. If I am between clubs, it helps as I can go down a club. If I don't have an open front, I club up with more spin. Its a bit harder because I also have to look at the back edge and see if there are any rolls I can use to spin the ball towards the pin. When asked about one side of the fw or the other on tee shots? "What's wrong with the middle?"
When designing Colbert Hills in 1999, on one hole, I pointed out the better angle to the green was from the bunkered side of the fw, as it provided an open front. His reaction? Not really. He prefers aiming to the side of the fw where he needs to come over the bunker on the theory that he aims at the outside edge of the green and curves it back. He added that he didn't consider ground balls, LOL.
That is similar to those who tee close to OB on the tee, as it doubles their miss angles from X degrees to more than X degrees, and its safer. The only thing he needs go guard against on those approaches is "overcooking" the fade or draw, or being too aggressive to get close to the pin.
And, Larry Nelson, circa 1986, prior to Pro V 1.....he never looked at hazards at all when planning his approach shot. He looked at contours that might affect his approach within the green. He didn't allow it to enter his mind he would miss by that much. Both he and Colbert loved rolling edges on the greens that allowed a safe play to the middle, but where those rolls could affect you when you went for the pin. Similarly, all of them would only "tolerate" a few tiered greens per round, reasoning that a contour in the middle of the green had to tendency to take the safe shot well away from the hole if it hit the wrong tier. They thought that made it pretty easy to make par, but a lot harder to play aggressively to the corners and edges.
Notah Begay III, Litzke, Elkington, JC Snead and others felt pretty similarly in most areas. You could throw a blanket over their opinions of what constituted good architecture for them. Steve Pate was a bit more flexible in his opinion.