What's the diference between your Riviera experience and mine at the par three seventh at Cypress, where I hit what I thought was a brilliant shot, hit the green, but was a foot short of the ideal and finshed twenty five yards down the slope in front of the green?
Does that make Cypress unfair?
Simply put, the design of the hole clearly warned you of the safe (or higher margin of error) side to miss on. The fall off of the CPGC 7th on the right dictates that you avoid that side less anything other than a perfect shot will result in a tough second shot. That is fair because, IMHO, it is clear and obvious that the right hand side offers a severe risk/reward ratio. That ratio is also substantially different due to the distance of the shot (likely a mid-to-short iron)
The KK at Bel-Air (specifically to the left of the green on #4) is unfair because I landed in a FLAT OPEN SECTION, just to the left of the hole (with a long four-iron second shot). The grass's traits and the subsequent buried lie made it unfair. That could be a result of bad maintenance, but no other area nearby looked any different.
I would play anywhere, anytime (after-all, would one pass on Pine Valley if your accuracy or sand game were missing??).
I just feel very strongly that the KK diminishes the value of Riveria and BACC because it is so erractic and often unnecssarily penal for balls that are otherwise decently hit.
Would Muirfield, RCD, or Shinnecock be so highly regarded if all the greenside areas were knee-high fescue or 6 inch bluegrass? That is my point. Nearly every architect of any time would leave some room around the greens, especially on long par4's & 5's, for some type of recovery shot that would have some form of consistency. Penal doesn't offend me, only gross inconsistency and surfaces close in and regularly in play that permit no variety of shotmaking.....no ground game is sensible from the KK.