Note - In was thinking / typing this when Geoffrey and Wayne were discussing Finnegan.
Dr Childs
I hate to alwasys be harking back to my field of (arguable) expertise but can I use an analogy?
I have had trouble with my various record companies over the last 20 years when it comes to choosing the lead cuts, the songs to be singles, or the ones that go to radio. Part of the problem is that I don't put filler on my records.
I'm not alone, neither does Bruce Sprigsteen. He works on a project until all of the songs are up to scratch, and sit together to make an album (read routing). Consequently there are are less, or often no 'stand out' tracks. Are his albums not great? Some would say they are not, some would argue that they are. 'Darkness on the Edge of Town' comes to mind. It was voted by rock critics 'album of the year' and yet it had no significant 'hits'. Springsteen went years without the big hit that was expected of him and only got it when he finally gave in to the record company and gave them something that folk could dance to. It's a funny story because the lyric tells show he felt about it 'This gun's for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark...'
Was the song any better or worse than songs from 'Darkness'? Worse probably, but it succeeded because the company were unanimous in their support for it as the 'signature' track from 'Born in the USA'. This album went on to sell 5 or maybe 10 times as many as 'Darkness'. Is it a better album? I'd say no.
Now look at a band like Bon Jovi from the 1980's. The albums are unashamedly vehicles for 'signature' songs, there will be 3 or 4 such songs on each record. They will stand out, because the rest is filler. The record company will have no problem with their strategy for promotion and the band are not really in the same business as Bruce... which is fine. I'm sure you don't spend a lot of time playing Gary Player courses in Myrtle Beach. But I'm guessing they do quite well for themselves.
Now a course like Kingston Heath is an interesting case. It has great holes, plenty of them and arguably not a single weak one (the members and Mike Clayton disagree - there is one hole they believe he should 'toughen up', he thinks it is fine) but few 'stand out'. Few also make the lsit of 'top Sand Belt holes' because just down the street you have RMW, and courses like Yarra Yarra, which is much weaker, overall than KH, do have stand out holes... Is Yarra Yarra a great course? Absolutely not.
How the architect chooses to aim for greatness depends on whether or not he is willing to accept filler. RMW has several let down holes (please don't ask me to name them because I cannot remember the course that well) but the placement of them in the routing is very canny and one comes away from a round with memories only of the grand holes. Pebble is similar, surely many would agree that if it finished with it's first 5 holes, it would not be as effective in inspring awe. Another example would be Royal County Down which looks, for 15 holes, like it is going to be the ultimate course and then finishes comparatively weakly. If those 3 weak holes could be placed between some of the stronger holes, wouldn't it be rated more highly?
Merion has so many great holes, and that is why so few of them draw attention to themselves.
Great courses must have great holes is a truism. Whether or not a course can be great without all world holes, yet not having conspicuously weak holes is an interesting question, I think.
Hemmingway wrote (I think - I'm paraphrasing heresay here as I can't find it in Google) When you think you've finsihed your work, find your best paragraph and take it out. If it no longer holds together, maybe you didn't have a story in the first place.
I'm not coming to a conclusion here myself either, because I like both types of courses. Pebble and Merion, but I do prefer Merion.