Had a call from TePaul today, reminding that Mac and CBM both said it was a good thing to be controversial. Discussion followed.
I allowed that things are more standardized today, because of another century of experience of what works well and what doesn't. Also, CBM in particular felt he was educating an entire nation on what was good design, not just an owner. Lastly, they were both good marketeers, and somewhere in me, I have to think their statements are meant to stir up press, good or bad. The need for press is much different these days, as golf architecture reporting has matured, too.
The stuff I have done that owners thought were controversial were the Biaritz green (I get an email from MN every spring from the super asking for the over under on when the ice melts in the swale) even a Redan - where a good player who was owner rep objected to letting "lesser players" use the bounce in, and even a punch bowl, derided as far too easy. Late on the owner changed his mind, after his son declared it his favorite hole - "Dad, I can hit it anywhere and it ends up near the pin...how cool is that?"
Oversized greens are often controversial for cost, parallel fairways or connecting fairways for safety (I lost a cool job by proposing 1 and 10 mimic Inverness in Toledo as the committee couldn't get past the safety potential) Enough people know blind shots are bad that they must have a visible option or be well marked. And, whenever I do a very wide fairway, with hums in one half as the subtle hazard, it only takes a few years for those to be mowed back to the more "logical" flat area only.
I have gotten a lot of comments about unusual holes, greens, tees as "they are different from the rest of the holes" and my answer of "isn't that the point?" doesn't always set well.
People really are afraid of change, and that does seem to drive a lot of the controversy.