TEPaul,
I have been thinking over your last response for a couple of days. I post this Sunday morning because we proomised to keep the thread alive for when some return from a busy weekend!
First, I assumed Jones was commenting on two relatively equal tee shots by good players, with one planned and played thoughtfully to the better position, rather than at random. As to why Pavin beat stronger players, I assume that he both found some advantageous places to play the ball, and that Shinnecock also equally rewarded his short game prowess over stronger players. Smallish greens with tricky surrounds are, I think, one of the best tools to reward accuracy and cunning over brute strength.
As to Bob Crosby wondering why the Golden Age courses dominate the rankings, I am not sure it has much to do with the original "strategic design" as those bunkers are not in play anymore. They are hard courses, almost solely because of trees narrowing the fairway, sloping greens at high speeds, and now too short doglegs that force players to work the ball. I am thinking of Winged Foot as I write this......
Your first paragraph sums up the argument pretty well for non tournament course design. It is really impossible to cover every possible golfer these days, even with multiple tees, since the disparity is so wide.
And, as in the prevailing wind discussion, the designer must make some assumptions that, if he is lucky, will be present more than half the time (with the wind) and maybe 2% of the time with individual golfers. I often wonder how many tee shots actually end up within a yard of the theroetical "dog leg" point we put on our drawings and stake in the field. I know its not many!
Your post goes on to wonder about many things in a general way, and you are correct - they may be unanswerable. But designers (at least the good ones) spend considerable time on airplanes and alone in hotel rooms, and their thoughts, I assume, turn to all things design related. At some point, we have to decide what we base our design principals on and make a firm decision each time we design a hole or course. We need to make a clearly defined decision like Chipoats, who knows he would design a course that did not overly reward the long hitter, for example.
That is perhaps a bold statement, and one not many architects would make that specifically. But am I the only guy in the world, who, after reading a statement like Tom Doak's quote of Crenshaw, "I studied the left to right wind and set the green up for a fade" (approximate quote from above, I can't find it) who wants the architect to go on and say "by canting the axis of the green to the right." In other words, be specific?
I have read all the books, and some of the best quotes come from Thomas. Why does he extend fairway beyond the greens on long par 4's? Because a 3 wood that hits the green and goes long is a better shot than one that comes up short and shouldn't have a tougher recovery. I like that kind of specificity. That is why I like this thread so much, so far.
I suppose that other architects are better at marketing than I, and always make it sound as if there design ideas come from sitting at the right hand of God (insert appropriate number of lightning bolts striking Jeff here). But, I like to be specific. And of all places, I would think a golf architecture discussion group would encourage specifics!
When I posted some of my specific thoughts on some uses of strategy here, I have to say, I stewed in my own juices a bit when you labeled them as "even some design formulae", as that has some real negative connotations.
Really though, pre thinking your basic philosphy reduces the possible options from infinity to about one million or so when surveying the land before designing a golf hole! It also helps avoid an unthinkingly unplayable hole later! You have referred to "blank canvass" thinking before, but I think that is acheived with a little canvass preparation in advance!
Anyway, this is the type of thread I enjoy. As Tom MacWood says, its always enlightening to see how many different opinions there are on a relatively narrow subject. I suppose if we debate more - or even all - the narrow subjects in golf design we would be better able to come up with the big picture than looking at the big picture itself!
Sorry to ramble, and I will be more specific next time.....if there is a next time. I'm off to chuch to ask for forgiveness on that "right hand of God remark". It appears sunny, but I see one dark cloud hanging ominously at the end of the block!