Doug R: I don't think I missed the point on the terrain. If a course is really in the mountains, with large portions of the property having grades in excess of 10 percent, then that terrain has to be "overcome" because you can't play TO it, only OVER it.
Tom;
Not entirely true.
A favorite hole of mine began with an interesting option. From the tee you could choose to play a fairway wood/long iron to a landing area that was flat and somewhat above the green, as you followed the side of a drop off to the left. Or you could play left to a 'fairway' which would feed you much longer to a low area, where you must play back up to the green, and because that fairway leaned to follow the hillside, you would have a considerably shorter, but downhill and slightly side hill lie. Now, the green was set in the side of the hill, with a front protecting bunker from the low side, and was long but narrow for the high side shot [from the right], with a fall away to the valley on the left if you missed.
Sorry, I am not good at describing this, but I want you to see the nice options, and the drawbacks of each.
Sadly, this was while I was just learning golf, and I did not quite appreciate what now is clearly a nicely thought out hole. The use of the 'fairway' on the left, which was indeed not holdable, was to move the ball back right along the hillside, and leave a completely different type of shot than the higher approach. There was an option only a vertical dimension could have offered.
Now, if only my memory would make me certain where I was playing at the time. I remember the hole in detail. Because such things did not hit me as hard when I was learning, I cannot recall the course, though it was when I was living in Knoxville, TN, so maybe someone from that area might recall it. Hmm, could it have been the State park course at Fall Creek Falls?
Tom, my point again is that mountain courses can offer options in three dimensions. It is then up to the imagination of the GCA to find new uses for them. As you pointed out, mountain courses are less developed, as of now. But the potential for a '10' is there, IMHO, except in the mind of most folks here it could never be more than '9'. Doubtful all that verticality can be made more than marginally walkable. That doesn't bother me, as I can find other courses if that is my desire. I consider walkability to be a nice plus but not an important consideration in the design ideas.
But then, I do not design courses, I am just that parasite of the great artist know as 'critic'. Well, tough job, but someone has to do it!
Charlie;
Tell me another course with a more challenging and interesting front nine that Eagle Ridge [the 155 slope for that nine means a lot to we 20+ handicaps]. It contains two par-5's [#4 & #7] such as no other course I have played. #2 and #6 take thought to play well, and #5 is all options.
I admit many people are not at all comfortable with ER. It is very different than most golf they have played. I know those who say the land is just not suitable for golf. BUT! I also know of groups who come from Michigan, Illinois, and even Canada every chance they get to play in Eastern Kentucky. Yes, they play Hidden Cove, Old Silo, and Stonecrest, but they come specifically to play Eagle Ridge.
Because it is extreme, it is a 'hate it or love it' course. I love it!
Doak Scale 8, Doug Scale 9. I will advise anyone to come to E KY to play golf. If you hate ER, you will still enjoy the others I mentioned here.
Oh, and Charlie, if you look in Golf Digest's book of courses, you will see it has been misnamed, and it's 'Walkability' rating is given as 'Unlimited'. ROFL! Clearly no one from there has EVER been to ER. That IS funny!
Doug