It took me a while to place a handle on an architectural style that is definitely pretty, very comfortable to play, and offers instant familiarity right from the first play. The best description I can make of this architecture is inoffensive. There is nothing overly wrong with the work, and it seems to be very popular with players, but there is nothing about it that stirs the soul. You never face a moment of angst or agitation from having to make a decision from incomplete information. You simply know everything about the work from first play. And you play the round like your on prozac, not a worry in your head. May be a better term is comfort architecture.
The biggest problem I personally find with these courses is the lack of discovery over repeated plays. When you know each strategy from first sight, and the risk reward scenarios are at a minimum, you simply just play. I’m not sure how much fun golf is without risky options, alternate routes, overcoming extremely difficult scenarios, or paying the price for too much courage. I know I chose never to return to any of these courses a second time, I prefer my own muni’s to these well maintained big budget layouts. At least at my muni I get some quirk. The game is not meant to be fair, yet this architecture treats the game as if it is supposed to be fair. This recent architecture offers little in the way of options or interest; it is simple as comfortable as your favorite chair.
Somehow, I don’t think that is what Alister MacKenzie had in mind when he said “A first class hole must have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to be condemned at first sight even by the best of players.”
Walter Travis mentioned that it is the architect’s responsibility to improve the skills of the player by challenging their ability to overcome difficult tasks. He felt that the more challenge they were asked to overcome, the more their skills would improve. He felt courses should evolve and add trouble as the membership became more familiar “and comfortable” with the layout.
Why did golf headed in this direction? Is it the fear of criticism? Is it the desire of architects to please rather than push the player, which leads to a short-term popularity of the architect? Is it the marketing end of the business and their terrible influence on the golf industry dumbing down the game? I can’t quite figure this one out, but I do know that in time these layout will be forgotten by all but the members that play them. I certainly feel there is a new movement pushing the game away from this area, but it still remains a popular style.