This is a really interesting subject and I'm excited to see what everyone has to say.
I have some thoughts:
Firstly, I'd suggest that the vast majority of templates are
historic templates, simply because a template creeping its way from being a popular hole to being part of the golf canon usually takes a lot of time. I would suggest that many historic templates utilize ground interaction simply because the equipment had much more ground interaction at the time when they were gaining attention.
I think equipment changes and course conditioning changes have shifted many historic templates from being
really good holes to something more akin to curiosities or cultural experiences. I think templates come to prominence via the playing conditions of the day, and I would expect to see new templates to come to more prominence, existing templates to change, and some to fade as time influences how we play them. The common run ups discussed are, thus, often archaic, and some templates are much more effected than others by this lost ground game.
The Biarritz makes little sense with modern launch angles (which
I've written about).
The literal Eden hole got butcher in 2015 because modern green speeds removed hole locations, however, the Eden template is amenable to flattening, so it makes sense we should see flatter versions.
The Redan (and Gibraltar) suffers from both launch angles and green speeds, which has effectively removed its strategy from the predominant Redan at Riv. It's still possible to play a Redan in the traditional way, but it makes little sense try when a high lofted hybrid or three wood can land soft at those distances.
Simple liability has made many of the blind templates less prominent, say, Alps and Himalayas.
16th at CPC suffers only from having topography that is
difficult (at best) to replicate. Long suffers from more width than most courses can practically offer, especially if lengthened to the point of making it even comparable to how it played in MacMacRayBanksColt's eras.
I think Cape, Road, Leven, or Double Plateau holes should mostly be unaffected by modern technology. As they offer a choice to players instead of asking them to pull off a specific task. Though the backward creep of tees may eventually render many of the original holes obsolete.
Some templates that I think the modern game and agronomy is making more common is Short, Golden Bell, the Postage Stamp, punchbowls, and the 17th at Sawgrass. The higher and straighter shots that modern irons provide works well with these shapes, and means these templates should thrive.
In contrast, the Short hole is defined largely by the fact that it is a forced carry over something.
I would note here that MacKenzie specifically points out that running the ball up on Short is an effective strategy when the hole is in the tournament position:
A well-played run up shot will climb this ridge, curl round the edge of the bunker and lie dead at the hole, but unless the ball has sufficient topspin to climb the ridge it will turn off at right angles and be deeply buried in the bunker to the left
Anyway, like the 7th at Trinity Forest, extremely modern templates do exist now, and they play to the modern game. I think what we consider to be formal templates, versus what we just see as iconic holes, is probably defined by where the designs exist in the zeitgeist even though they are, in my opinion, effectively the same thing.