Tom:
A few replies ...
I like when architects incorporate the "turning point" dimension into the drive zone. Few really do it well -- you get the presumed classic school thought types who think simply having a 60-yard wide fairway works. It doesn't. It simply means a desire to grip and rip without further identifying anything other than who can beat the ball the farthest.
Ballyneal's 13th is a good example but let me mention a weaker version of a long hole there -- the 2nd. Yes, it's long and no doubt a bear when the wind comes out of the north -- but it's just crank it up and let it go. There's plenty of bob and weave on the fairway itself but simply adding one center-placed bunker in the 250-275 range would make the bigger hitter just think a bit more.
You ID WFW as being only able to do what it does through the usage of mature trees. No doubt there are trees on the property but if they were eliminated the substitution of rough and / or bunkers towards the favored side would work just as well.
The point is a very simple one -- architects need to have holes turn 30-45 degrees in some form or fashion in order to marry shot control with whatever distance the player can bring to the table. It takes real skill to do both things on one swing consistently.
As a long hitter -- I am always thinking of shortcuts when playing any hole. I am always thinking of seizing the hole by the throat and shaking it for what I want to get. Unless architects really understand the pivotal nature of what real first rate driving is about -- the desire to back-end the product with severe mounding and fierce putting contours is really only half the total equation in my mind. I also think some modern architects -- possibly yourself as well, have a real aversion to distance because it's something they might not don't possess with your own game.
Let me mention another issue -- the idea that good players can fly elbows. Tom, the angle I am speaking about is not 90 degrees -- it's only half that or even a bit less -- somewhere in the 30 to 45 degrees area. A classic example of that is the 18th at TPC / Sawgrass. The good player cannot bomb it over the corner of that hole because the corner is not at right angles or close to it. You do need to work the ball and allow it to follow the flow of the way the hole goes. Those who don't opt for the aggressive play off the tee with that type of shot control can always bail out to the right -- however, those doing that will only leave themselves a far longer and more demanding second shot to the target. The weaker player is not impacted -- they will likely play to the right with their tee shot, hit short of the green and be left with a fairly straightforward pitch shot of 40-50 yards. The easy bogey can be attained but par is not automatic for the good player. That's the kind of balance I am speaking about and what you mentioned how higher handicap types can do likewise when playing at severe places like WF.
If trees cannot be used or incorporated there are various other defense mechanisms that can be used -- angling greens in such a way that a miss to the more favored side will result in a more daunting approach. Even if WFW didn't have trees on a number of the holes -- if you missed too far when attempting to get the best angle you would be screwed by the error in far more ways than you might imagine. I have no problem with courses creating unkept area with ragged areas where offline shots may go. The idea of having uniform rough or the traditional placement of bunkers needs to be altered so that a player with sufficient length is uncertain of the way the ball will lie. Bethpage Black used to have such areas until the desire to create a wall-to-wall greenway throughout the property took hold just prior to the '02 US Open.
Tom, keep this in mind -- when Tillie first opened WF the size of the trees was nowhere near what it later became -- however, WF was always a stern test because you still needed to angle tee shots into favored positions and the tight nature of the pear-shaped greens allowed for playability for those not able to reach them in regulation because should they be short in two blows the wherewithal to hit a 40-50 yard 3rd shot would not be that demanding when compared to the guy who's looking ot reach the target in regulation. The WF model is still a very apt one and can be done by those who see what it offers.
Let me remind you and others Bethpage Black is more about the straight ahead power model. There are far fewer holes at BB that turn in the manner one sees at WFW and for that reason, among a few others, I see WF as the more complete examination of golf. Try to realize that none other than Tiger Woods has been baffled since encountering WF in the majors he has played there to date.
In answering your two questions ...
No, I don't agree because driving is the first shot to be played and therefore has a meaning -- one just cannot add length for length's sake. That's what Augusta did and frankly it only played into the hands of Tiger and those very few souls.
Modern technology has certainly permitted the wherewithal to hit straighter shots because of the size of the clubheads and the nature of the balls used - but there are tools for architects to use to once again make driving of the ball the ultimate skill it needs to be.
In regards to the second question - Tom, you make the incorrect assumption that while I do like a number of Engh designs I have been quick to point out a number of items I have found to be less so -- the severe nature of what he did with Sanctuary placed Engh on the map for those with difficult sites but I found the totality of what is there at Sanctuary to be far less so. The storyline there is more about man overcoming a site than what the actual site produced in terms of meaningful and long lasting architecture.
I have also stated that I found the desire to provide containment mounding in and around a number of the putting surfaces and even drive areas to be a redundant feature that's carried to excess -- a good example being the 200-yard par-3 type with its heavy emphasis on high mounds that surround the target -- the 17th at Lakota coming quick to mind but there are others. The 6th at Pradera being another that happens. There are other examples I can mention.
I have mentioned the qualities Engh has provided with his risk and reward par-5 holes. Many of them are well done and provide the possibility for eagle but also double or triple bogey. The 16th at Black Rock being one of Engh's best holes I have ever played. I've also mentioned the fun and strategic elements of the 18th at Lakota Canyon which some on this site view in terms less than endearing. Yet, I have also mentioned my dislike for what he attempted to do with the closer at True North. If anything Engh has shown a weakness on the long par-4 front -- although there are a few examples that run counter to that -- the 11th at Pradera being one of them. One would think that being a "bomb and gouge" player as you described him that he would have done better on this front.
On the flip side, Engh has done far less of the containment mounding and other such things with his most recent public access course like Four Mile Ranch. He has allowed the natural character -- an item you believe is critical to any course design, to be the center point of the design there. In fact, there are no bunkers present and given the wherewithal of today's skilled player to render most bunkers useless I think it works especially well and allows the natural character of that property to take center stage.
To his credit, Engh has made it a point to evolve his work with a number of his newest efforts -- I see that desire to evolve as a fundamental element in demonstrating the capacity to go beyond the mere spitting out of previous efforts time after time.
I don't see any architect's work as bulletproof. I have often mentioned Engh's name on GCA because far too often the groupie mentality has taken hold with the promotion of just a few architects who provide some really good stuff as well. I like what Engh has done in the public realm because he has provided a number of designs -- many of them are located in Colorado -- which are fun to play and clearly affordable for nearly all income levels.
Tom, try to keep this in mind - my tastes in golf design run the gamut. I am not one of those zombie-like cult drones who only see one type of golf design as the be-all / end-all. I am rather pragmatic in what I like and I think my listing of courses to play will not suit others and I free admit that. I am just as comfortable playing a Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV with its wild ride architecture and can enjoy the detailed and compelling work you provided at Rock Creek. They are vastly different courses but I often like food choices that are far different - from a good ole American steak that's first rate to rather hot and spicy Thai food. In many ways, I follow the dictum Tom Paul frequently mentions - with his one big world theory for architecture.
Let me finish with this -- Tom, you have made it a point to almost run away from courses that can be difficult from the tee perspective -- are you simply creating courses that tend to favor your game -- with the artful chip and pitch shots and the wherewithal to demonstrate your self-admitted prowess with the flat stick?
I wonder why the need to expand your design motif now? Do you feel your work product needs to go beyond what you have done from previous works? You may dismiss my contention you are seeking a Grand Slam of sorts but I admire people who can avoid the easy to apply tag lines of sameness. As I said before, I salute the really top tier Raynor works but find much of his other projects to be carbon copy lesser versions with little and no imagination applied. Why should anyone play a future design when the far better originals highlight the case in much stronger terms.
Tom, think back of the classic photo taken with Mackenzie watching Jones drive the ball on the soon-to-be-created 8th hole at Augusta. I wonder if Alister wanted to get a better handle on what strategic elements he wanted to include at Augusta and having Jones serve in the player's chair gave him a far better appreciation of what would ultimately be the final product at Augusta.
Who knows, maybe you and I can collaborate on combining those two elements into a course which can do both.
Forgive my poor stab at humor ...