Anthony,
I hope so. I will trademark it.
TD, I did say "maybe." I guess I do have that perception mostly because of TT, which was designed for college tourneys, just like I designed Colbert Hills for college tourneys, at the risk of making it too hard for the average guy. As a matter of fact, all of these conversations I have had are a result of designing a new course 100 miles away with specific instructions from a business plan to not make it as hard as CH to attract play.
Phillipe,
Another couple of good points. I recall many saying (including Pete Dye) that the reason Pinehurst is so popular is that you can't lose a golf ball. I think he is right. And, as I said earlier, RM proves that MacKenzie, among others did design a course that is challenging but playable. For that matter, why do we like GA courses more than say, Doral? It might be fewer water hazards, fewer OB and fewer lost balls, period.
But beyond that, I still say its a matter of degrees. As someone pointed out there is a bigger gap in the pro game and even top ams now. I recall that Frank Beard year on tour diary. He said the difference was that pros could pull off a certain shot 7 out of 10 times to maybe 4 out of 10 times for a top am. Now, pros have so much more distance that they can pull off shots no one else has a shot at. They also get more spin, more this, more that, etc.
Its still a matter of degrees. Lets say I design a carry bunker. Making it 3 feet deep instead of 6, and requiring a carry of 260 off the back tees instead of 275 may open up the carry strategy to infinitely more golfers. Like the former Augusta, if they opt to go far outside the bunker, the extra distance and maybe a moderate bunker are still likely to cause a bogey, maybe 33% of the time instead of all the time. Is that rolling over dead?
Lastly, I think we all acknowledge different design styles - the US Open style seeks to punish most missed shots with rough and bunkers all around. The muni style is a highway. Even in between, some architects tend to punish, some tend to reward. Some defend par/targets (partially or fully) and others set up features in combinations to encourage certain types of shots - high, low, etc.
I am certainly not ashamed to be in the encouraging camp of architecture vs. the defending par mode.
Don is also right. My managers comments were truly along the line of keeping his customers satisfied. A lot of it is maintenance. In another discussion a good player wanted to retry another of my courses later this year when it firmed up and played fast (to get more roll of course)
Of course, the only statement of irrefuteable fact here is that I suppport a lowly southern hockey team.....
