Ally,
I agree that flatter (or consistently sloped to make the shot somewhat predictable) makes sense as encouraging the ground game more. I have heard often that Pete Dye designs look linksy, but in fact, all the contours in front of the green actually discourage the ground game for any thinking player in today's golf.
I understand the appeal of adding (or saving natural) a bit more chance and fun bounces, and using contours to defend par, etc., but it doesn't make sense to most players playing for score.
I agree with Pete that yes, almost any opinion can be overstated, to the point where it is assumed as fact.
My old joke was that I would design more for the ground game when I saw ads for clubs and balls that "fly lower.....with less spin!" That said, I remember Jack Tuthill saying about 1980 that he wished approaches were more contoured and that they were the most ignored feature in golf course architecture. This was partially in response to the HWW 1965 article in GD about bringing back the Ross mounding, which had also been ignored in the RTJ era. But, if you are going to build subtle contours around the back and sides (which seemed to be Ross motif) why not in the approach which has the most effect on play?