So, you tell me a few times that you will answer my questions, yet now you refuse. Classy move. One might surmise that you are afraid of what the answers might reveal. Why else agree then renege? If you are so comfortable with the efficacy of your approach you shouldn't mind answering a few questions.
But forget about Black Rock. How do the design elements I listed fit into your evaluation of any golf course? Surely that is a fair question.
The land / site is the first among equals for me because the site is generally the element that causes the most attention on first glance. Then comes the overall routing and finally the element of shot values. Got it.
No, I dont "got it." In fact I dont even think it makes any sense at all. You said above that aesthetics is a secondary consideration, so you cant be looking at the land/site for its aesthetics. The land/site is the element that causes the most attention at first glance??? What in the heck does that mean and why is it so important??? [Since Matt probably doesnt have an answer, if anyone understands this at all, please chime in.] I dont get it one bit.
How is the land/site important to you if not to help the architect create the severe test you call "shot values?"
And every time you talk about routing it always relates to stuff like whether the par threes face different directions and are different length, or whether there are enough long hard holes playing uphill or into the wind, or whether the golfer doesnt play similar shots in a similar direction consecutively. I agree that these routing factors can be important, but they are all part and parcel with your "shot values" definition. You think they are important because they help you get to a higher level of "shot values."
After all, you certainly have made clear that you dont care much about other aspects of routing. For example, you dont care if the holes are anywhere near each other or a long cart ride away. You even dismissed John Kirk's comments about Stone Eagle because they related to the walkability of the current routing, as if this was a factor that was entirely peripheral to the quality (and routing) of the golf course.
So isnt it fair to say that, for you, the quality of the "routing" and the quality of the land/site are just additional routes leading to that "shot values" test you so love?
Matt, far from being third among equals, it seems to me that your "shot values" category may have swept the medal stand.
Profiency is part and parcel of the game of golf. I never expect mid to high handicaps to play like low handicaps but clealy a commensurate challenge is appropriate and likely sought after by most golfers. A talented architect makes it a point to provide a layout that can provide challenges (shot values) within the reach of those playing the course from the appropriate markers.
Assuming it is possible to provide "commensurate challenge" through multiple tee boxes (and I dont believe for a minute it is) this really doesnt soften or broaden your requirement much at all. Your idea of good golf course architecture still boils down to the same thing-- a thorough test of all aspects of a player's shot making ability. The weaker students must take the same test, only a little bit shorter.
If anyone else is still out there, I am being unfair to Matt? If so how? I just dont see it.
Matt, the conversation might not bore you so much if it were actually a conversation. A conversation involves a back and forth, an exchange of ideas,
questions and answers, a willingness not only to state one's beliefs, but also discuss them.In all the times I have tried to get you to discuss your approach you have refused to have a
converation. Instead you just simply state the same old thing over and over again.
And you cant call it my "word play" if they are your words.