Josh - I have no idea of who likes what or of how many people will consider a hole controversial (or of how many is TOO many in that regard); but since I'm not an architect or client I don't need to worry about that. In fact, I don't think ANY of us need to worry/think much about that question. IMO, the much better/more valid question is this: how well did the architect(s) ACCOMPLISH what they INTENDED to accomplish on any given hole. A bad example of what I mean: if an architect designed what he thought was a driveable par 4 that is NEVER driveable, by ANYONE, under ANY conditions, then all the blather about how "controversial" a hole is/isn't or whether it is TOO controversial is completely besides the point; the hole fails on other and more meaningful/signficant grounds. If a golf hole -- as part of a stretch holes that alternate between gentler and touger tests -- was intended to be a very difficult test and a very hard par, and it accomplishes this intention admirably, where in that lies the potential "controversy"? Is it because the hole "fails" or because "we don't like it"? This first seems a valid critique, the latter a kind of catergory mistake (a kind of mistake that i think all of us tend to make in just about every area of life). The challenge for architects, of course, is that not many of their big money/high profile clients want to hear anything about 'category mistakes', and even if they did would never admit to making one. The architect's other challenge is that most GOLFERS are equally unable/unwilling to notice this mistake, and are often even more adament in their error.
Peter