Interesting that Jeff mentions using wide greens for long par 4's. I've long thought such greens have merit if used for par 5's, my reasoning being that the best will have to do well to hold it with a long second shot while the average golfing can hit it in three with a wedge.
I'm afraid I'm utterly lost when Jeff starts talking about greens being receptive for pros or why there should be any consideration for the pro who can't run a ball on to a green. The concept that a shallow green on a firm course is too tough flies in the face of some pretty neat golf holes here in Britain. Perhaps I'm being harsh but it all sounds like adhering to an aerial mentality to me. If you can't hit it and hold it, it must to bad conditioning, right? Well, no.
Paul,
In reality, the short five and long four have about the same reasoning going for them - the average Joe can stand a smaller green on a short third shot approach. But, on a long par 4 or 3, it represents a chance to test longer iron play of better layers without punishing average ones. So, I guess we agree a short 5 isn't a bad place for both angled across greens and perhaps a reverse slope, with a frontal opening, as long as not all 2-4 are that way, just for variety.
When designing courses with Larry Nelson, later reinforced by Notah Begay, one of his broad general instructions was to include one par 5 with the green turned against, and he noted Norman could probably hold that with a towering 2 iron, but he couldn't. So, he wanted one with a longer green and narrow front opening where he could run up a 4 wood, playing to his accuracy strength. Similarly, NB3 changed a 545 yard par 5 at Firekeeper, where I had done basically a fortress green. Like Nelson, he wanted a narrow opening because 545 was near the limit of what he could reach in two. (290/260 or so)
I don't really design for pros, but figure shorter hitters like those two, Jim Colbert or even Steve Pate fairly represent the higher level ams that probably would play the course. IT is really only the top 10-20 pros overpowering golf courses, and others play more realistic games, sometimes, quite well.
As to the aerial game, lets face it, that is how its played, and If strategy is all about options, why limit the aerial one that most would use and want most?
There is a fine line between offering the option of a run up shot and requiring it. Better, IMHO, to do a longer green, accessible by all, open front, and maybe some cross slope like TD and Paul suggest, that allows a creative running shot to use the contours to get close to the tighter pin, which may be better than the aerial assault, rather than a slope that makes it harder to hold.
I have read all those books by the Masters, and few wrote about creating greens that were too hard for people to hit. Most wrote about encouraging better (and a better variety) of shots. Its a fine line many have trouble with in design - encourage good play vs. punish mediocre play, but I favor the former.
When Ross, for example, did an occasional reverse slope green (like at White Bear or Oakland Hills) he left plenty of room out there to bounce one in, and I would do the same. Oddly enough, OH 14, playing as a long 4 in the PGA and Ryder Cup worked very well and players did bounce it in because they had to. On a shorter hole, my experience is they would simply put MORE spin on their mid irons to hold it with an aerial shot.
Just my thoughts......