Periodically, someone on this board asks me if it's important to me to build a course that hosts a professional tournament. I always say no, and no one wants to believe me.
The past week's event is precisely why. I haven't seen the course on the ground, so I don't really know if I'd like it or not; but from what I saw on TV, it looked interesting, it tested the players well, there were some great shots in the semifinal and final matches, and it looked like the guy who played best, won the event. What more could an architect want?
And yet, there are a lot of players moaning about the course, and there are guys on here espousing their preference for subtle greens, and blah, blah, blah. And that's with JACK NICKLAUS designing the course. If I had designed the course, some great professional [perhaps even Jack!
] would package all the same criticisms as how I was never a great player so I don't understand shot values, and blah, blah, blah. So, really, can anyone tell me why would I care to be involved with all of that?
P.S. to Mark Fine: When I made my comment earlier about the green contours "defending par," I was saying that's why Jack Nicklaus has adopted a stronger approach to contouring greens. That's not why I like contoured greens ... I like them because they can be a lot of fun to play, and they present a lot of cool short-game shots as well as approach shots. [My perspective would maybe be different if I hit 15 greens per round like you and Jack, but of course, most people don't.] Jack doesn't really build anything with fun in mind, so I think our application of contour is somewhat different. The only course I've seen of Jack's since Sebonack is Dismal River, and there were not many greens there that looked like I might have built them.
I can tell you all this ... none of those greens this weekend were anything like the 18th green at Old Macdonald! I hope it survives Mr. Keiser's walk-through tomorrow.