one of my favorite topics, and I started thinking about it every since Dick Nugent uttered that phrase.
In general, I think there are several components to what a good player would say is a good shot value for any given shot.
KN had it about right to start, but there is also:
Doability: This is the general "big green for a long shot concept. I think Tour Pros figure they can hit a target about 10% of the total shot length both wide and deep (about 20 yards deep, 20 wide for a 200 yard shot), whereas the USGA green size chart says about 15% wide and 22% deep for average players and low handicappers are somewhere in between to achieve a clear majority of golfers in each class hitting a green.
Seaonality: Seemingly less important than it once was on most sites, a course should play nearly as well in all seasons it is in play. This is the reason Scottish cousres are so wide open for the varying winds.
Does that mean that green sizes need to adhere strictly to the formula? No,first because if we did, every approach shot on the course would be equally difficult (providing a reasonable tee shot on each hole) That said, if a long iron approach has a smaller green then it has tougher shot values on that shot, and a course full of them would have tough shot values all around and would probably be dislikde. There are some basic physics involved and golfers are known to hit with certain amounts of accuracy.
As such, can it be good design to build a hole that a majority of golfers can't play decently for them? There should be exceptions to the rule, but they only stand out as great if they are exceptions and even then they should offer at least SOME hope, IMHO. In other words, the Troon Postage Stamp green at the end of a 470 yard par 4 is probably an exageration of a smaller green on a longer hole (I have built small greens on long holes quite often, but don't elevate and bunker them like that, for instance)
Reachability: In general, if you ask a golfer to carry a hazard, it should be an appropriate distance, like 270 yards for the pros (adjusted for conditions), down to no more than 90% of typical carry distance for other tees, down to no more than 90 yards from the forward tees.
Bail Out Ability: Since any shot will be just beyond the ability of someone, always or nearly always have the option to play safe somewhere close to the target.
Play Options: Its fine if a hole strongly suggests a certain shot, but there should be an option for those who can't draw it around a tree for example. Similar to the Bail out, there should be room for the guy who fades the ball to land in the fw or some portion of the green. Forcing a certain shot type off the golf course has a low shot value.
Comfort: Some shots are more comfortable than others. Discomfort (and I know TePaul will disagree that we should avoid this) comes from having to aim over OB or water and bringing it back. Comfort comes when all signals point, to say a fade, and the target is built to accept a fade. Signals include wind direction, slope of ground, angle of target, etc. Most golfers love it when all the signals point the same way and think that is good shot value, whereas too many shots that must be played with a fade to a green built to hold a hook will be considered poor shot values, even if the gca can't really control the weather.
Proportionality: In general, a player who misses by a lot should be punished to a greater degree than one who misses by a little. This can vary on either side of the hole, i.e., missing right by a foot can be more dangerous than missing left by five yards, but missing by three feet on the right should be penalized more than missing by a foot (I am probably cutting this example too close)
Risk Reward: Few will risk a nonrecoverable hazard if nothing is at stake. If you ask a golfer to carry water, the reward ought to be at least one stroke with the possibility of two. For other hazards, perhaps they ought to be shallower. Do we have to follow this formula closely? Again no, but a hole with a 20 foot bunker just for the heck of it would have tougher shot values, etc.
Balance: Lots would argue this one, but in a competitive match there ought to be some semblance of balance in demands, so its not preordained that a long hitter or good chipper will have a distinct advantage. Obviously, striving for this also imparts variety, which while not a shot value, per se, makes for a better course.
The USGA rating system tries to categorize these things with numbers, much the way the magazines try to rate courses with numbers, more than most here would care to do. In the doability category, yeah, most greens ought to be basically sized for the shot at hand, but as noted, if they are, then every single green might end up with the exact same shot value in terms of doability, which is wrong. A great course would have at least a few harder and a few easier, IMHO.
We can debate whether there needs to be 100% carryability, but in the end, its seems pretty lame to ask anyone to try a shot they know is doomed to failure. Similaly, in the end, its not bright to ask a competitive golfer to pull off a shot at the high end of his/her skill level if there is no real reward in doing so. Lastly, while not always a requirement, balance and balananced balance (not nine hook holes on the front and nine slice holes on the back) would be generally supported by most.
I think the biggest sticking points in the above general outline are proportional punishment - which just can't always be achieved and the idea of a comfortable shot, again, simply not achievable on most sites, especially where the wind is variable.
At any rate, that is my take of Dick Nugent's words 30 years later, adding in the philosophies of all the better players and Tour Pros I know. I know many here would point out the exceptions, but as Dick Nugent also said - exceptions do stand out, but if you make too many of them on one course, at some point it turns from a nice test to a goofy one. I still think that is basically the correct take, and of course, the magic is knowing where that sweet crossover spot is.