What I found most interesting about TW's comments is how he uses Arnold Palmer, much in the way Jack N tends to do, as an example of what he's NOT -- i.e. Arnold as the (rare) golf professsional who plays golf and loves playing golf AS golf, as the GAME of golf, and not primarily or solely for its competitive aspect, the chance at COMPETITON that it affords. There's nothing wrong with that -- the game can and does serve many and different functions for people, and if it's all about competing and winning for pros like Tiger and Jack, that's fine; but I'm guessing I'm not alone if finding AP's approach more understandable and appealing -- how the great man is still in love with a game that in the last decade has probably caused him more grief than joy. What's ironic, though, is that these two very differernt approaches seem to find a common expression when it comes to architecture, i.e. for AP, he wants to design courses that the average man can enjoy (because he himself enjoys the game in and of itself); for TW and JN, they too want to design courses that the average man can enjoy, but in their case I think it's because there is in their minds two DISTINCT kinds of golfers and golf courses -- on the one hand, those golfers who play for fun and enjoyment (and not competition) and the courses that allow for that, and on the other those golfers who want to test themselves in competition, and the courses that are best suited to provide that test. Maybe that's one of the things that golf course architects who AREN'T professional golfers bring to the table, i.e. they understand in their bones that it doesn't have to be BINARY, that most average golfers don't want to be beat up badly by a golf course but at the same time want and enjoy the competitive aspect, testing themselves against the course and other players...and so design their courses accordingly.
Peter