Tom, what I was referring to was when an architect uses an amphitheater tee in an attempt to make the same green on a par 3 play like two different holes, like 6 at Tobacco Road, 3 at Royal New Kent, or 16 at Deer Creek in Omaha (an Arnold Palmer Course where I worked as a teen). Of the best par 3s I've played or seen, I can't recall any that use that strategy for the teeing ground. I'm sure someone somewhere has done the amphitheater tee well, but the ones I've seen are gimmicky and oversaturated. On top of that, those holes are inherently less walkable when you're having to trek across 100+ yards of tee to get to the far end (I suppose if you're on a carts only course it doesn't matter).
Also, I wouldn't want my comment on angles and compromise to be lumped into a bigger statement on reversible courses, short courses, or sheep ranch type courses. I think that's a different conversation because those are examples of a different course, hole, length of hole, or routing playing to the same green.
And I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that I believe there's an objective "right answer" when it comes to building a golf hole. Hope it didn't come across that way.