Pat Mucci,
Well stated. As for the notion of which course would be a more enriching daily course, I don't think either one but for different reasons. Frankly, Sand Hills it is far too remote to be anyone's daily course. But these courses were unlikely to be anyone's single course, unless of course you lived in or near Mullen, NE. I think all of the founding members of Pine Valley belonged to multiple clubs and I'm pretty sure that's almost universally how it is today. Very few outside of Pine Valley Borough residents only belong to Pine Valley. So, it is probably not a point worth arguing. However, if forced to choose, as I think Pine Valley the one of the three best clubs in America and since I only live about 20 miles away, I'll take Pine Valley.
"I'm shocked that while others on this thread argued Wayne's definition of "architecture" (as I would), no one questioned the contention that Shinnecock required more "architecture" than Pine Valley."
Tom P,
I read that sentence as Tom Doak not agreeing with our definition of what is architecture. I don't remember the contention that Shinnecock required more architecture than Pine Valley but it does bring up some interesting points to discuss.
Consider the amount of architecture Flynn used on the flat portions of Shinnecock Hills versus the more topographic portions. There were a lot more bunkers, mounds and ground/aerial options on 7 of 10 flat holes. The hillier portions of the ground had less hazards (one example of architecture) and relied on the natural contours to a greater degree with half of the 8 holes requiring aerial approaches. Look at an aerial of Shinnecock Hills. The areas of more architectural features is clearly in the flatter regions. With great ground, you don't need as much architecture and Flynn showed outstanding restraint.
But let me caution people, for great naturalist architects, it isn't always apparent what is natural and what is architectural and made to look natural. Flynn did an excellent job in making the excessive bunkering and undulating sandy waste areas in the flat portions look natural. The club has done an excellent job of maintaining the bunkers but they were originally less formal in appearance with more vegetation and less distinct margins. The 14th hole at Shinnecock Hills is a good example. While it looks as though the hole was simply laid out on the natural ground, a ridge was removed short of the green that exposed the greensite in its natural setting. It looks completely natural but it is not. Architecture was involved.
An even better example is the Cascades golf course. In an absolutely beautiful setting, to many observers (even those that have seen more than 1000 courses) it appears that Flynn utilized the ground in a manner in harmony with the natural features. If you read the engineer's report about the amount of architecture and construction involved, you'd be amazed. 300 yard ridges were blasted away, stream beds moved 100s of yards, entire green sites were blasted clear of rocks and fill used elsewhere to build up features. Yet this was done in a naturalistic style. This is how I differentiate between minimalism, which overwhelmingly uses the natural features (with Sand Hills as a leading example), from naturalism, which uses the natural features as much as possible but utilizes a lot of architecture but makes it look natural. Then there is a kind of architecture that looks overtly man-made. This appeals less to me than minimalism and naturalism even if the playability is outstanding.