A crowned green, for the most part, is likely to be a green that is very large in terms of square feet, but plays much, much smaller. That's ok on a very short hole, and ok as "variety". But very much of that becomes tedious.
And you can say or think what you want, but for most golfers, "Greens Visited in Regulation" as a steady diet aren't much fun. It's one thing if I miss my target on the green and end up on the wrong side of the pin with a very difficult putt; it's something else entirely if I hit the green and end up off the green. It adds difficulty in the extreme, but to no great end that I can think of. And the next shot from the collection area is likely to be very difficult as well, so pace of play becomes an issue.
As mentioned, higher green speeds have really made this an issue. It's one thing to play crowned greens that are receptive bent grass; it's another thing entirely to face the same shots into greens that are firm Bermuda, especially if you are landing the ball down grain, which is, of course, impossible to know from the fairway.
This isn't a rant against crowned greens; far from it; it's just an explanation of perhaps why there aren't more. I just played Tot Hill on Monday, a course that I dearly love and one that has more crowned greens than almost anywhere outside #2 that I can think of. But I've played with golfers who hate it, and simply won't go back, period.
AG,
A lot of us are saying similar things here from slightly different angles. I can see one per course, maybe up to 3, in the right places, i.e., usually a short approach. I can see it even more on a shorter par 5, where perhaps the crown, deflecting shots to hard places might make the intentional layup a more sensible shot. Others don't feel that way, thinking its their "right" to reach a par 5 green.
Sean A is a weird duck compared to the retail golfer, who somehow expects every hole to be to his/her liking!
And, in general, the attitude of many amateur gca's (and a few pro gcas) is that we shouldn't give golfers what they want, as if the customer isn't always right. What business actively tries to piss off it's customers (even after allowing for not being able to please everyone?) I have to ask why purposely designing something they don't like or is too hard makes for "great design?" Design is not art, it must be functional to its purpose. Landscape architecture is molding the land for a distinct, human use, and gca is part of that. It's a question worth asking anyway
[size=78%].[/size]What would those who suggest such holes trying to achieve? I believe that variety is a good thing, had design value, and helps keep interest. So yes, take any design feature and it might be worth doing once per course. But it's iffy to put in even one questionable concept regarding playability, really, and any course that goes design rogue too often will end up being called goofy golf.
Even for good players, its not great. Most of us instinctively feel like hitting for the middle of the green is safe, and corners are challenging. Putting a hump in the middle really does mess up that dynamic. If the green is large enough to have a hittable target on both sides, that's okay. Actually some of the larger greens mentioned I would consider being "false sides" greens.
And, as always, specific events in my life bring me to my opinion. I mentioned a narrow green no the course I worked summers proving impractical. The superintendent who had been there just before my 2 summer tenure had rebuilt several greens. Each was a masterpiece of drainage, being crowned in the middle and draining all directions. Those greens were the reason they brought in Killian and Nugent, because golfers never liked them, even back then. A green designed solely for best drainage rarely checks all the other necessary design boxes.
As always, just MHO and part Mike Young, throwing in a hand grenade to see what happens, LOL>