"Wayne,
Obviously rough, trees, and bunkers are different because you can recover from them. This is something that bothered me from before I ever heard of Flynn."
I had a feeling you were talking about recovery. Why didn't you just say so? Recovery is an important part of design but it isn't expected to be everywhere. Why not add some variety and offer challenges, sometimes with shot tests, that require a do or die? Under these circumstances the bold and confident player has an edge over the less capable (physically or mentally) player. Golf should be a complete test of a player's ability under a variety of conditions. I'd be less than satisfied if there wasn't some stern examination of my game that didn't have grave (a watery one or otherwise) consequences. I really don't see why you see the presence of a feature such as this as being the sign of an amateur architect. Your thought process is so narrow in scope that it reminds me of some of the anti-tree extremists. There are wonderful holes with features that don't have recovery abilities. Pat mentioned some but there are many more. Even some by an architect that wrote against the feature. Again, things weren't so all or nothing and I don't see why our views should be.
By the way, I forgot to say the 13th at Huntingdon Valley. There are other examples. The 3rd at Kittansett is one that is a water hazard fronting the green at high tide and a sandy waste at other times. What a great feature. It is two hazards in one, just not at the same time. BRILLIANT!
Which 13?