Lots of important theoretical discussion going on.
Here's what would help me: would someone please name a hole or two that we would consider a "good" hole that almost never gets birdied. Talking about a real-life example might make the conversation easier. Thanks.
I can think of plenty, on courses I've played, but they won't necessarily be known by everyone in the room. More importantly, it depends on definitions of terms.
"Par" and setting par have been part of this argument. So I'd just go with this: holes with few scores better than the most common score.
"Skill level" plays into this, but should it? if I play a course above my skill level, there'll be holes that play out this way. But I find them good holes, fun to play with uncertainty of scores. So if they can be good holes for the wrong skill level, can others that play this way be good holes for the right skill levels?
"Good hole"? My definition is a hole for which, when I stand on the tee, I'm uncertain what score I will get, and (1) that score will be mostly result of my decisions, execution, and skill, and (2) will not be primarily due to "luck", such as too many trees in the fairway.
Every hole labeled "par 3" but on which more than half the scores are 2s, fits this. And as long as there's a reasonable risk of not getting those 2s, it can be a good hole. We could label it "par 2", but that doesn't change its effect on the competitive results.
Chuck's "birdie means scoring" argument has some merit. But these are landmine holes -- you can't gain on the field, but you risk losing ground to the field. I enjoy them. We have holes on a private course that guests seem to enjoy, that play this way. As I said before, I wouldn't want an entire course of them, but a few offset those holes that yield too many "birdies" (real or inflated).
Define "birdie" or "good hole" or apply "skill level differently", then perhaps the answer is no, there aren't any.