"Is this a stupid question---"In a perfect world, golfers don't face uphill shots""
Actually, no, it's not a stupid question at all, although the answer may be!
If one starts to think about that question and deeply, it just may be one of the more fascinating questions (without at first appearing to be) ever asked on here.
Why is that? Because that question very much reflects a tendency, a trend, perhaps even a philosophy or worse yet an attempted standard or even formula to essentially create that kind of thing and offer it in golf course architecture.
And what does that mean? In my opinion, it means that golf course architecture has evolved in some interesting and perhaps unintended and somewhat unacceptable ways over its entire evolution.
Were uphill shots and blind shots acceptable in the old days of golf? They certainly were, matter of fact they were even "prized" in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. So what happened, why did they become unacceptable "in a perfect world"?
Because both man and golf architecture went too damn far in attempting to create a more "perfect", a more "fair", a more "idealized" environment and presentation to the golfer. This is precisely what Max Behr called the "game mind of man" and he felt that tendency on man's part was in fact the enemy of "naturalism" in golf and golf architecture.
Are there uphill situations in raw nature? Obviously, so why remove them in golf if you want to maintain Nature's part in the game (Behr called golf a sport just for this very reason)?
This whole subject can go even deeper and even into what many may feel are beneficial influences on golf architecture. But it may also be seen not to be so beneficial if examined carefully.
Look at one of the premises or principles on Landscape Architecture of English "Naturalist" landscape architect Humphrey Repton for instance. He maintaind one of the desired principles in landscape architecture should be to REMOVE something natural that for whatever reason may not be pleasing to the eye. In other words, even a Humphrey Repton recommended as a goal in LA the intention of creating an "IDEALIZED" version of Nature.
Is that really a good idea in "Naturalistic" golf course architecture? Behr certainly didn't think so. He thought it was a bad and dangerous thing because if golf architecture followed that trend, that tendency, that philosophy, principle, standard or formula too far eventually it may end up at a point where someday, someone may actually try to justify something like "In a perfect world, golfers don't face uphill shots".
Jump in here, Tom MacWood----this kind of subject and question is right up your alley. How would the British A/C Movement view this kind of thing---this kind of question? I think you and I both know how.