Ok a few responses...
I wasn't trying to make this an angels thread, although those that have played would recognize that the concept would occur frequently for a player with errant iron play. As for the discussions with Bruce and greens we had a ton the only exception being the fifth. That concept made complete sense out of the gate and had little modification. There were also a number of ideas that were proved, unfitting, and thus rejected. The number of layers of thought that went into that design would take hours to explain and I don't think the general public will "get it" in less than twenty playings at best. I wonder if they will have the patience to do so.
When it comes to the concept of "risk reward", I believe the risk can be more than just carrying a feature. For instance a short par five that has a feature in front of it that is reachable by a fairly struck ball that reaches the green does not, by its own merits, deserve a run at a simple putt, particularly if the green is of significant size. I believe that, in general terms, there is a reasonable area for green sections that is dependent upon anticipated approach lengths, but I don’t think feature development should be restrained by any sense of obligation to aid the player in getting conveniently from one pinable zone to the next. Better said, congratulations player, you just hit a three wood over the junk but missed the pin zone by more than 20 yards; you’ll need a perfect putt now to recover from your less than perfect three wood. Another level to that discussion could be that the player who shows restraint should have a better opportunity for par/birdie than the player who aggressively took the risk and failed to fully execute the shot, Judgment also need to be rewarded by design. Punish the greedy not the needy. I also believe that good design can vary the required approach shot shape, not just distance, as the pin moves by providing features and slopes that provide some level of forgiveness to players who are willing to use them.
As for extreme greens; to me that means greens that have features can’t be mowed by a triplex unit. That said greens cannot be void of pinable zones of adequate size for player dispersion. The other thing that make be dub a green extreme is if a player couldn’t putt from one zone to another due to shape or grade etc… I think that should e avoided at all costs. There is a corollary to this little postulate as well, any green that is dependent upon a minimum speed to have interest probably isn’t very good either.
I don’t know why a short par five should have to be receptive. I don’t know why a shot that fall 40 yards short of the pin on a par three shouldn’t result in a significant remaining challenge. If the player missed a 6,500 square foot green by 30 yards he’d expect a challenge, yet if he finds putting surface under foot the player’s level of expectation is somehow changed.
Cheers!
JT