continued broadening of the spectrum of golfers in the modern era ?
By pass/fail architecture I'm refering to situations where the architect demands performance.
And, not just in situations where length is the primary criterion.
I was having a discussion about Pine Valley with some friends the other day and was telling them on that certain holes, like # 5 and # 14, the architect has demanded performance in the way of an architectural test and that you either pass or fail that test.
Holes like # 5 and # 14 are fairly obvious in that regard, but, so many other holes at Pine Valley present a performance test, albeit in different forms.
Holes like # 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 each present their unique tests.
Then, I thought of holes like # 2, # 3, # 4, # 8, # 9, # 12 and # 18 at GCGC which each offer their version of the pass/fail test.
And, at NGLA, holes like # 2, # 3, # 4, # 6, # 8, # 9, # 10, # 11, # 13, # 14, # 16 and # 17 which also present their version of demand performance tests.
Holes like # 2 at PV and # 8 at NGLA present the golfer with a test not disimilar in principle to that of a soldier attempting to siege/storm the castle, that sits high above the soldier.
In golf, the defense is the high hill, laden with bunkers, which will repel and punish failed attempts.
There's something thrillling about the sight of those elevated, well protected greens, as viewed from the fairway and there's something even more thrilling about hitting a solid shot that finds the putting surface. It's a thrill far more satisfactory than one earned from just hitting a green at grade.
The 3rd hole at Sebonack has that element as well.
Now I realize that the topography has to be "right", but, with all of the earthmoving equipment available to today's architects, why don't we see more of these architectural situations presented to us ?
Is it because the game is being made easier for the lower 10 % to 25 % of golfers ?
Even the 17th hole at PV has that siege/storm element.
It has one of the widest, most forgiving fairways in golf, leaving the golfer with a short, uphill shot from the upslope of the fairway, yet, that test is far more difficult than the yardage would indicate.
Now PV was created and designed for the "championship" golfer, but, today it's enjoyed by a far broader spectrum.
Although, if you're not a solid striker of the golf ball, PV will punish you severely.
When I look at courses like PV, GCGC and NGLA, the number of pass/fail tests presented to the golfer is significant in number and not occasional.
I hear so many people comment that they don't mind a feature if it only appears a few times, but that they don't like a feature if it's repetitive. Yet, PV, NGLA and GCGC have the pass/fail feature in abundance and no one can question the merits of those three courses.
Has modern day architecture failed to present those tests in abundance in an effort to cater to the lowest common denominator ?
Has modern day architecture reduced and/or eliminated those tests in the name of "fairness"
Has modern day architecture abandoned those tests in favor of tests that focus on length instead ?
Would you rather play the short but dangerous par 4 17th at PV or a 460 yard par 4 somewhere else.
Would you rather play the short but dangerous par 3 6th at NGLA and 2nd at GCGC or a 240 yard par 3 somewhere else ?
Are you a fan of benign architecture that gives you a hall pass or demanding architecture that will give your performance a passing or failing grade ?
Lastly, don't even mention slow play as an impediment for their creation.
Play at PV is in under 4 hours, thus debunking that theory.