could we say great architecture, no matter what the length is, lead to great winners.
I don't beleieve in this concept. I don't believe great architecture leads to great winners. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when I hear people trying to make this link.
Do you agree that for architecture to be called great it must be a great test of golf among other things?
If it is a great test, no matter what the length of the course surely the person who wins must have passed that test by the greatest margin and therefore be a worthy/great winner?
I meant it more in terms of how some people think the best players in the world at the time rise to the top on the best courses. I don't think that is true.
If the winner is "worthy/great" for a particular tournament surely it is more likely that the winner will more often than not be one of the so called "best players in the world"?
Are these so called best players in the world really the best or just the players who suit the courses which tournaments are played at the best? Would more shorter hitters win more regulary if shorter courses were used and then they would become who we perceive as the best in the world?
Do we really care if these "fluke winners" have their 15 minutes of fame? I believe Bob Rotella says something along the lines of any players hot streak is not a fluke but them showing their true potential as a golfer. Their true potential may be better than most of the best in the world, but unfortunately for them they can't tap into that potential as often as they would like. If this is the case is their win a fluke? I am rambling now....
The more I think about it the more interesting it becomes!
Every course will throw up the odd "fluke winner" as people call it, but I personally believe great architecture is more often than not going to bring the best out in every player and therefore it is likely that the best will rise to the top.
I don't believe this always happens on the overly long penal golf courses that we often see on tour in recent years.