"Tom - from your last post I get the impression that the "competitive game-sporting experience" divide that I'm asking about might have more to do with the maintenance of a course rather than its design, i.e. whether playing alone or in competition, the firm and fast conditions demanded a greater participation in and focus on 'nature'. Yes? Maybe?"
Peter:
In my opinion, there is no question about it---none!
This website appears to be big into the philosophy and playability of firm and fast. But in the end that's just a term.
What does it really mean in play, in satisfaction and in interest to the golfer, whether alone or against other golfers? That's one thing I believe (on a whole lot of reflection over the last 5-6 years) I'm discovering. It's not just to have it or not, that's for sure---it's to have it (F&F) to what DEGREE and on what topographical conditions (in a general sense)?
In other words, is a golf ball that bounces and rolls out fifty yards on a fairway five time more satisfying than one that rolls out ten yards or is something like that even important to ask?
Probably yes and no but I would say the former is a whole lot more fun and interesting and engaging for the golfer than the latter whether it's five times more or twice as much.
Then what about topography with varying degrees of firm and fast? Is it twice as fascinating to watch a ball scoot sideways on a golf course than to watch it scoot straight down a hill?
Is this even important to ask? Probably not but I don't see why it shouldn't at least occur to us and perhaps be appreciated in some comparative sense. After-all these are the kinds of canvases that golf course architects can create and do create. These are questions and thoughts that are very much at their disposal to affect in various ways whether they make them or use what they find.
Of course maintenance is central and key, in my opinion.
My words "Maintenance Meld" were very carefully chosen. I thought I needed words and a term that showed that it was particular maintenance practices that MELD into architecture to make it play as good as it can and not necessarily look as good as it can in the sense of lush green and super immaculate that generally does not allow a golf ball to bounce and rollout in varying distances and directions.
Firm and fast is the ground game of golf---it's the bounce and rollout of the ball and in my book the more the better.
Is the ground game in an historic or general sense half the game of golf (as opposed to the aerial game)?
Frankly, at this point, I would say definitely it is, maybe it's even more in a visceral sense. I think that is for us, particularly in America now, to begin to determine again. I think there's a ton of potential in this for golfers and for a potential renewed interest in golf.
Another question, and a huge one is how does firm and fast playability affect the sensibilities of golfers playing alone vs golfers competing against other golfers?
The air versus the ground as they relate to a golf ball struck? These things are probably just so fundamental and basic that we hardly think much about them anymore.
I love aerial shots---they're fascinating---they require skill and practice and in a certain sense the air is nature too. But the ground and its eternally varying configurations are more fascinating, so much more fascinating to me anyway.
One can see the ground and all its configurations and ramifications. How important is that compared to the air with aerial shots? The air is the same to me all over the world and I don't know about you but I just can't actually see the air even though I do love to try to sense the unseen wind.
Can you even imagine what a huge and potentially controversial subject it would be to explore the things the ground can do to golf balls when players are competing against one another vs playing alone? It gets directly into "fairness" and "unfairness" and the apparent necessity to isolate one golfer's skill against another's simply to compare two human competitors in the currency of strokes.
That necessity virtually does not exist when one is playing golf alone against that other sometimes overlooked competitor----Nature herself----eg the golf course.
Or does it?
Perhaps over time golf has developed even a third competitor for our interest or maybe to our detriment even when we play golf alone.
Most call it par.
I love playing golf alone and I obviously really love the experiences of a Mallow. I said above I've never been so transfixed to see a golf ball bound around a golf course like that. It so much made me engage with the ground, the golf course---Nature.
What I didn't say was as good as that was and it was super great, never far from my mind was that thing we call Par.
In a sense I'm almost sorry to admit that now.