JohnS:
I don't know about a bet they had with a penal designer but if you know anything about that some of us would love to know about it. Logically, if that did happen it was probably with Joshua Crane who they had the on-going "penal vs strategic" debate with at that time.
As for that course you're referring to it may've been Lakeside by Behr. Mackenzie called it one of the best in the world. It's still there albeit changed now. Matter of fact, the current USGA president, Jim Vernon, belongs to it. I have a feeling that one of the best expressions of their concept or dream, though, was the original iteration of ANGC with only 22 bunkers on the course and massive width. And I don't think anyone has ever said that ANGC didn't always have great greens!
I consider Bob Crosby of Altanta, the best around today to rerun all this particular information. He's working on it and we spoke yesterday and we both mentioned that both of them (Behr and Mackenzie) were visualizing a design concept with NO rough, and a few albeit really strategically placed hazards in the "Line of Charm", or more appropriately in the "Line of Instinct." And with all that width with no rough around and those few strategic hazards, the irony is they felt that with those selectively placed hazards and all that room to miss them (albeit be out of position for the next shot to some degree) that those few select hazards both could and should be really penal!! Their theory was that with all that room to miss them you really had to pay if you directly challenged them but that the choice was the golfer's in the degree he did or didn't do that. Their logical philosophical next step was if you didn't challenged them directly you paid sort of indirectly in what came afterwards which inspired you or tempted you to deal with the whole concept of degrees of recovery to make it up. But the real deal to them was the the golfer always felt the choice was his and that he made it and that his journey was dictated to him to accomplish.
Again, this might be the really ironic marrying of what is the truly strategic with a pretty penal aspect in golf architecture and golf, and it is also about the polar opposite of what we call individual shot "shot dictation" architecture----where there isn't much golfer choice and there's just basically physical rote shot execution that's demanded throughout!
But, I'll tell you, John, I've been studying this stuff and thinking about it for the last ten years and I'm still trying to figure out how to take it from the theoretical into the actual! 
It ain't easy, that's for sure, and at the end of the day it may never be more than sort of a "glass-half-empty/glass-half-full" kind of thing in some important ways!
And, then, there's my "Big World" theory which only means all golfers never like the same things and they probably never will.
Tom,
Sorry for the delayed response, been out most of the last few days. As soon as I get the book back I will check. That is my recollection; but you know, memory... I'm not sure that he refers to an actual wager per se, but I do believe they brought up the challenge. And, I do believe you are correct that it was Lakeside.
I too have thought long and hard about how to pull off the "bunkerless, rough-less" course, for years now. We should put our collective thoughts together. I still think it starts with the greens, and then proceeds from there. And yes, it would be a real challenge and possibly a real gem.
John Sheehan,
Tom Paul,
I agree completely with you on this one.
The greens are the personality of a course, its soul.
John Sheehan,
You made your first mistake.
Never, never, never agree with TEPaul.
Would you say that greens are the personality of GCGC ?
Would you say that the greens are the soul of GCGC ?
Or, is it something else ........ architecturally ?
Anytime that you think that TEPaul is correct, go back and reconsider your evaluation and final opinion[/color]
Patrick,
The same mea culpas to you - sorry for the delayed response. Okay then, in order:
1) "You made your first mistake. Never, never, never agree with TEPaul." ---
--- Uh, too late for that. But thanks for the warning. I may have to rethink my opinions of him. Is he dangerous? Does GCA have a security detail I can beseech? I actually find his opinions very well thought out and very interesting. Am I in danger?
2) "Would you say that greens are the personality of GCGC? Would you say that the greens are the soul of GCGC? ----
---I’ve been thinking about this subject and what I wrote for a few days now, and was already coming to the conclusion that perhaps I had overstated my case, that perhaps I had oversimplified what is in fact quite complex. Afterall, I’d rather engage in an interesting discussion like this than be correct. With a gun to my head, I would still choose greens as the single most important design element. But I do think that the subject of a course’s personality or soul is quite a bit more complex.
In his response, Mark says, "I read somewhere that the greens are the face of a course. I think it a much better description than personality or soul." By sheer coincidence, even before reading these replies, I had been ruminating about whether "face" is a better word than personality or soul. “Face” is closely related to personality – as in the overall personality or feeling of a course – or the way a good portrait artist captures a subject’s personality or soul in the painting of the face.
It’s all very subjective, of course. But in thinking more about it, perhaps the personality or soul of a course is really a combination of various elements: the setting, the “lines of charm” created by the use of hazards, the hazards themselves, and contours. And by contours, I don’t mean exclusively on the greens and surrounds. The contours and the strategic use of them also add quite a bit to the personality of a course. Conversely, the lack of natural looking contours detracts from a course’s personality or soul. All of this harkens back to TEPaul’s comments about the “bunkerless” course. In creating one of those, the use of contours would be paramount
And this kind of brings us back full circle.
Not having had the pleasure of playing Garden City (assuming that is what you mean by GCGC), I'd be smart to take a pass on this one. I'd be pilloried for daring to make an assessment without having played the course, no? However, the fact that Emmet and Travis are part of the lineage of that course and those greens, I'd be surprised if the greens weren’t an important factor in the personality or soul of the course. I haven't found great course yet with poor greens. Since GCGC is on my personal short list of courses I could likely be persuaded to commit homicide or worse to play, I have high expectations of it, including the greens and surrounds.
Seriously though, since I have not played it, I don't think I am in an unimpeachable position to say.
I would be interested in what you think.
3) "Or, is it something else ........ architecturally ? ----
---Well, again, I can’t really knowingly comment, since I have not had the pleasure. As part of my prevarication in my previous post, I did say that "if I had a gun to my head" to choose one and only one design element that separates the good from the great, I would then choose the greens. With the same gun to my head, I'd make the same choice. I prefer to think of the (somewhat stealing again from TEP) "melding" of the design elements that separates the good from the great.
It was in thinking of this exact question that I decided that the greens are the most important single element, because all else follows from that. Therefore, as I said previously, a bunker, or any other hazard, no matter how aesthetically pleasing or even stunning, means little if the green doesn't support its being.
To continue along the same lines as my response to your previous question, the more I have thought about it, the more I think that hazards are indeed one of the more important elements in creating the overall feeling we get from a course. Specifically, I was thinking about a local municipal course that I reviewed in the past, Callippe Preserve. Because the greens do support the placement of the hazards, the hazards work. And because the hazards include multiple cross bunkers, everyone I brought along to play the course while reviewing it felt that the course was one of the most thrilling courses they had played. There is a sense of exhilaration that is perhaps unrivaled in golf in successfully carrying a cross-bunker. The opportunity presents itself so many times at Callippe, that one leaves the course with fond memories of driving over those hazards and being justly rewarded for assuming the risk. So in that sense, the greens play an almost supporting role in the architect’s creation of Callippe’s personality or soul, but an important role nonetheless.
4) “Anytime that you think that TEPaul is correct, go back and reconsider your evaluation and final opinion.” ----
---Done, and….done…I like the way TEPaul thinks. Hopefully, with interesting subjects such as this one - and I find it a very intersting one - I will never have a “final opinion.” My opinions are a continually evolving process.