David, reading your title, I thought you would give examples of great courses that don't depend on great greensites. Instead you gave examples of a few holes. Do you know of any great courses where all or even the majority of greensites are not great?
Good point Jim, and one I tend to agree with, I could list plenty more holes though.
To answer your question first, Kingston Heath and Garden City would be the two highest rated courses I have played without many good green sites (although both courses are a joy to play, I wouldn't call either great). Only maybe the 15th and 7th at Kingston Heath show much interest. The others are on gently sloping land.
BUT:
I asked the question in relation to holes, because I am interested in what architects do with the least interesting part of their sites. Take Riviera for example. I haven't played it but from what I have read and observed, it seems to me to be a great golf course with some great green sites. But the most famous hole on the course (and perhaps the best) - the tenth - appears to have possibly the worst green site on the course.
Are modern architects kicking the same goals on such land? I would love to hear some examples, preferably ones that dont involve digging a big lake.
I have three suspicions, however.
1. Some contemporary architects might be spending too much effort finding great green sites. Doak's St Andrews Beach and Coore and Crenshaw's Sand Hills are two very good courses that attract criticism that the golfer plays up to a lot of greens sitting above them. Are some architects trying to hard to find great green sites when the examples of holes that I have listed show that great green sites are not required on all holes? As an add-on, can this lead to disjointed routings with long walks from green to tee?
2. Some contemporary architects use 'low profile minimalism' as an excuse to not push the envelope on such holes. For example, read the following sentence from one of Ran's reviews: "In a fine change up from the heavily bunkered hole prior, the simplicity of the fourteenth adds to the overall variety of the course." I think this is making excuses for a bland hole where the architect hasnt made the best to construct something on some average land. I haven't played a heap of courses, so I am asking, is this the norm? Or are architects out their creating holes of the interest of 10 at Riviera?
3. Coutenr to point 2, a lot of architects overcomplicate things on poor land, going for style over substance.
I would love to hear and study, some examples of where architects create great architecture with average green sites.