This term, which Matt has used several times this week, is a new one to me. He seems to be applying it to any sort of approach shot where the change in elevation is enough to throw off one's distance control ... And, from the context, Matt doesn't like shot distortion very much. [Pure altitude and wind are other things which "distort" shots, but I don't think Matt was including those in the same category.]
So how do we all feel about shot distortion?
For my own part, I've never been a big fan of courses which feature a lot of "drop shot" holes, I think for the same reason as Matt, that getting close to the hole is largely a matter of guessing right about the yardage. I've never minded uphill holes for the converse reason, but we all avoid designing them knowing that no one likes too many uphill walks, and the visuals are bad because you can't see the target very clearly.
However, the site I am working with in Palm Desert is very hilly and there will be many strongly uphill or downhill holes. I've been thinking that was a good thing, because it will make the long uphill par-4's play much longer than the card says ... like #11 at Pasatiempo ... and some of the downhill par-4's will be in that awkward drive-and-half-wedge category.
The visuals on our uphill holes will be much better than normal because all of them are playing directly up into a mountain background, which is so steep that it's VERY hard to perceive just how much uphill you are looking. It will take a lot of local knowledge, but I'm sure it will cause problems for the one-time visitor or rater.
It wasn't so much that I was looking to do this in the routing, it's just where the most interesting holes were, and about the only way I could make the golf course fit onto the site physically. But I'm sure there will be "shot distortion." Is that a bad thing, a good thing, or just a fact of life on a hilly site?
P.S. The poster child for "shot distortion" is the Plantation course at Kapalua.