Does scorecard simplicity equate to good golf architecture

[Mike_Young]

After seeing the other "equate to golf architecture " threads, I was thinking of what most courses that I truly enjoy have in common.  And ...that is ...most have simple, die-cut, single color scorecards.  No pictures or descriptions or 40 page books talking about which Indians had a teepee on a particular hole.  There are a few exceptions but in most cases I can use this formula to decide b4 playing, how the membership views the course.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

The smallest scorecard I've ever seen was Muirfield's card for visitors c. 1982.  Just a hole number and a place for your score, no yardages at all!

However, I have often thought that some of GOLF DIGEST's Memorability scoring could be traced to which courses had the best yardage book.  Panelists trying to remember each hole would look back at the book and say, oh yes, that was a pretty good hole.  The original guide to Harbour Town [written by Charles Price] was still one of the best -- a two-sentence description of the design of each hole.  It was the first thing I read about golf architecture.

[Mike_Young]

TD,
I think that scorecard saya much about the Muirfield memebrship.

Do you also remember some of the first tour yardage books that one of the caddies made?  I have forgotten the name but they were to the point and good.  The first one of those I had was from Harbor Town (just played it yesterday BTW)
Mike

[Bill_McBride]

Funny, we were just talking about a new scorecard for the soon-to-be rebuilt Pensacola Country Club.  I made the observation that the greatest clubs have the simplest scorecards.  Our little committee will attempt to observe the KISS principle: "Keep it simple, stupid!"  

[Craig_Rokke]

I think that some of the simplest scorecards, like Stonewall's
for instance, reflect a good caddie program.