I tried to make the same point as Shivas maybe 5 pages ago. His example is even clearer, though. By your (ridiculous) thesis, wind should indeed affect Tiger more than me, because the effects of wind are certainly more random than the influence of a highly contoured green.
Dye's greens at Mystic Rock are not even remotely close to being flat greens. They are the only Dye greens I've had the pleasure of playing (saw The Ocean Course in person, but it was closed because they didn't want me tearing it up before the World Cup last year
), but my gut feeling is that his greens are more severe than most.
Look at that list again - Faxon didn't three putt at some flatter greens (relatively speaking) and he didn't 3 putt at Mystic Rock (which in my book have very good contour). I guarantee you that I will 3 putt on flat fast greens, but I will 3 putt more often on contoured greens with any kind of speed whatsoever.
The only way your thesis holds is if the flat greens are so dead flat that they are a joke, and the contoured greens are contoured so much that they blow away anything in existence currently in the world, so much that putting becomes a flat out (no pun intended) random occurence.
I have seen - heck, I see, every time I play, lousy golfers 4 putt easy greens. You are kidding yourself if you think that they aren't going to putt that much worse on highly contoured greens. There is a lower bound to how low you can go, but there is no upper bound for how high. That is a big part of what you are missing, with your highly fallacious assumption that a lousy putter isn't going to do much worse on highly contoured greens.
I will state my generalized thesis again - anything that makes golf more difficult for the top player will make the game incrementally harder for the lousy player. If you think Fax is going to 3 putt more often on highly contoured greens, then a lousy putter will 3 putt way more often. And no made up numbers by you or Rich can convince me otherwise. If we had a real life putt off and the numbers supported you, I'd be the first to say I was wrong, but I'm sure not accepting hypothetical numbers as some sort of proof.
One thing I disagree with Shivas on - you are in fact all wet on this one!