Well there were no even 'okay' answers to convince me there.
I can see the sense for maintenance issues to rest ground, especially in the UK.
Having a different route each day will do less not more to attract visitors.
I think many architects have a romantic issue with a reversible course, I too kind of like the idea but whilst in one of our current projects a couple of pairs of holes reverse nicely, there are still a couple of
![Roll Eyes ::)](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)
(whats the points). So we are not there for our ego's to try and make one we are there to do the best job. Of course if the client wants a reversible them that's different but I think it is a bad call.
I think less than 1% will worry if a course is reversible or not. I think it is highly likely that in trying to achieve a reversible course at some stage a compromise will pop in to the equation. Greens rarely play well from both sides but yes it does happen sometimes. I am not sure that can be achieved all 18 times. Backdrops to holes are part of great courses and so by definition a great backdrop for a hole either natural, man made or by time evolution is not easy to achieve in both plans.
That aside it is something to watch TD try an achieve and in a few years from now his comments will be interesting if he can pull it off. I have always loved the history of the routing of TOC and would like to play the reverse, but having walked it, it is to be honest a dog, as half the holes are pretty crap with the reverse 7th the only better hole IMO though a few get close to matching.
I hope I am wrong on this one, but IMO the answer to the original question..."the potential of reversible courses" is
NOT MUCH