Jamie
Are you stating that Crump et al built some boring greens unless they're kept at a fast consistent speed? A speed that in turn makes some of the other greens too severe...which then have to be altered?
Steve Curry had this right, 12+ years ago here on GCA. Cut the greens to a height that accomodates the most severe contours on the course. If that means the more subtle greens are a bit boring then so be it.
Although I don't understand why the most severe greens on a particular course can't be maintained slightly slower than the rest.
No. Not at all. Perhaps you've missed my point. I stated before that I think Crump built perhaps the finest collection of greens found on any course in the world. No matter the actual green speed, they aren't boring in the least. I'm saying that regardless of how great they are, for me they are a lot more fun to play and are more challenging when they are set up at a pace of 10-11 ft as opposed to 8 ft. I don't enjoy playing on slow greens no matter how great they are designed.
Years ago, people played greens set up at 8 ft and thought they were fast. That is no longer the case. Like I posted before, I really think that clubs with good leadership understand that there should be an endpoint with greenspeed so as not to jeopardize the architecture. At PV there are slopes and contours that are dicey when speeds are fairly tame and they become brutal when quick. A change of 1-2% in slope is a big deal for clubs that have excellent conditioning and can get green speeds quicker. There might be other top courses that have gone too far in flattening slope & contour to maintain higher speeds. I just happen to think that PV has not lessened the architectural integrity of Mr. Crump in any way. They are sympathetic to maintaining his vision and have been very conservative in any changes to the greens.