There is no increased risk associated with a growth strat, simply because it is viewed as a growth strat. If the target gains are the same, the acceptable risk should also be the same. Nobody ever said the growth strat has to allow for unlimited gains. Take a strat with unlimited gains and impose hedges to limit those gains to the same amount as your proposed income strat, and your risk should now be equal also.
True income investments are those that generate guaranteed income, such as your dividend example. Even then, the same instruments might be used for growth if the dividends, coupon pymts, etc are re-invested.
First off, every investor should seek to be optimally invested regardless of targeting income or growth. His port should not fall below the efficient frontier as it were.
Your second statement isn't necessarily true. I've got a "growth" retirement account that is in money market right now. Why? Because the perceived downside risk outweighs the estimated upside potential in the other growth funds. The money market instruments are growth still because all disbursements are immediately re-invested for compound growth. A single T-bill can't be a growth investment because gains cannot be re-invested in that bill. A fund that allows for re-investment of gains can be growth though, even if it is entirely made up of T-bills.
You missed the point. Your proposed long-term port that allows for big drawdowns is also allowing for larger gains. Put a limit on those gains so that the gains mimic your proposed income strat and then tell me what you get.
There is no such thing as a growth style income strategy because the only thing that differentiates the two is re-investment of gains.