Jeff B - your post #3 was really good, thanks.
I was struck by a number of points (and the "more blends in their designs than a trendy coffee house" is a keeper!!). I'll focus on one: you metion that there are different overriddng architectural philosophies, one of which is the "help the golfer" mode. If an architect is in that mode, if that's his over-riding principle, do you think he can ever actually come up with a course like the one you describe designing on the plane, i.e. one that calls for an almost equal number of fades and draws etc, even before factoring in the wind? I guess what I'm saying is that the course you're designing sounds great, and I can see anyone who's primary concern/ethos is to help the golfer can design such a course. Am I right?
Thanks
Peter
Peter,
If you have read any of my recent posts (you have digested them all, no?) you know that I am interested in, well, hmm, design interest AND that I don't think its black and white as some do - i.e., if you allow reasonable chance of making the putts, the game is too easy, the golfer too coddled.
As someone else alluded, when speaking of a controlled draw or fade, helping the golfer (not hurting them) means to place a tree at 190-210 off the tee to suggest a fade (or draw) but leaving enough room for those who hit it straight or another pattern and making the only punishment extra distance. So, if helping the golfer means generally (not always) giving enough room for any type of shot, rather than punishing the non-desired shot, then I am okay with helping the golfer and don't think it detracts from the course at all.
I think you can set up an interesting back pin position, and still use a bunker behind to keep a ball from bounding down a hill where a two foot miss turns into a twenty yard miss. It's still the same challenge on the shot no matter how severe the penalty, right? So, if helping the golfer means generally (not always - I grant that overcoming "mental hazards" like carrying the 4th at Royal St. Georges is a challenge in itself) means keeping hazards generally benign, or mixed I don't mind helping the golfer that way.
I certainly have less objection than many here to fw's that are (generally) level enough to hold shots on them or even - gasp! - concave, and in fact, many of my greens have concave fronts to mildly assist a shot to hold the green (check out Mac at CP in the "front nine thread" - he does a lot of this too)
And lastly, if a golfer manages to get on the green within reasonable distance of the pin (say 15'), where stats say they will miss more than half the time anyway, even if putting on flat surfaces, giving them reasonable to read and make putts rather than throwing in a shovel full of sand to throw putts off an inch, then generally, (not always) I don't mind helping golfers that way.
As I read posts here, I often marvel at the underlying premise that somehow, golf is just too damn easy! For whom? Even the 144 Tour guys every week, only 72 break par and make the cut. Only a handful, if any, of those reach double digits under par each week. But, we see them on TV and somehow think every design in America ought to be focused on those half dozen guys (who, except for Tiger and a few others, are actually a rotating band.....when we see them, they are playing the best they play all year)
Perhaps a simpler way to say it is that my belief is that the best courses are a notch or two below the most difficult courses in the world, and an unrelenting test has little design interest to me. No hole sticks out as much as if just a few are really hard. And risk/reward only works if there is, um, a reward!
The US Open mentality of punishing nearly every miss is a downer, as is the muni freeway mentality. But there is a broad middle ground there where the vast majority of golfers get a little 'atta boy" from the architecture rather than just another kick in the pants.
That makes the course more fun (even for the big boys) and IMHO, a better course.