Mark,
I came up with the philosophy of "does one thing well" during several remodel projects. In a way, the philosphy is for mere survival, and limiting the potential design options for a particular hole from infinity, to a more manageble number! :)It intends to limit the endless options members want to, in my professional opinion, "overdesign" into the one or two holes they happen to be doing.
At one club in particular, that used to host a PGA tournament, (maybe it still does) they were remodelling one green and wanted it to play as a five for members and a four in the tournament. Then, they wanted part of the green to be covered, and kick a ball away (for the pros) and receptive in another area for the members. The long and short of it is, that if the design expression "started out to design a camel, and ended up with a horse" wasn't coined for that green, it should have been.
The actual phyics of ball flight and green design usually do indicate it will favor one shot over another. for instance, it can only generally tip up or down as it faces the golfer, meaning it will hold an aerial shot in the former, and require a run in in the latter case. Actually, my research shows that any green with a front to back upslope of less than 1.3% is not likely to hold the average golfers shot.
It can also generally slope left to right or right to left, meaning it will "hold" a hook or fade proportionately better.
Usually, if my green axis angles left, I make the right side high, for vision, but also so a hook can run out, and a fade has more upslope to give it bite. If the key hazard is also front left, you can try to:
A. Hit a fade
1. carry it closely, and stop quickly, to get below the hole
2. take extra club, accepting a downhill putt
3. hit it harder with more backspin, or f
B. Hit a Hook to follow the axis of the green with a draw and t
1.trickle it down to the hole from the center of the green
2.flirt with the front left hazard, in an effort to get below the hole, or
3. play safer out to the right, with a resulting downhill putt, or chip
Voila, one basic green slope, two options, each with sub options. I generally think a hook to a green angled left is the better option, but to each his own. No need for the architect to design in a bunch of options on every hole - the golfer does that very well on his own thank you.
Obviously, there is room for all types of holes on a golf course. I actually prefer some that require a hook, or fade, etc. to get in the best possible position. I prefer others with multiple options. I always like a few holes that offer stark options, and some that offer "death by degree options" where things just narrow up.
I guess I'm thinking about it because I just sent Paul Daley the peice he so kindly requested for his book. When you start writing it down, its hard! Then, you end up classifying various options just to describe them, nad they sound simplistic! But you gotta call them something!
Again, based on my experience with armchair arhcitects, I feel that when given their first chance to design, they do in fact try to put too much into a hole in many cases. (often called six pounds of hole in a five pound bag)