Going back to the original article, there are some good words here on what constitutes fun.
In the context of golf course design, a ‘simple’ approach doesn’t always yield an ‘easy’ course. Good design is smart design.
It doesn’t rely on gimmicks or trickery because it doesn’t need to.
It understands that creating a course designed to punish the wayward shots of a 14-time major winner shows a staggering level of ignorance to the requirements of the masses.
It understands that ‘fun’ doesn’t necessarily mean breaking 70 but, instead, creates enjoyment and an urge to play another 18, and another 18, and another 18.
It understands that the best view in the world is scant consolation for losing a sleeve of balls on each nine.
It recognises that length scares nobody but, instead, only succeeds in inhibiting enjoyment.
It knows that golf is an inherently simple game that, in the wrong hands, can become an elaborately complicated monster of Frankenstein proportions.
Also
[/size]What makes a golf course ‘fun’? That, naturally, is entirely subjective. For me, it’s mostly about playability, and that relies on sensible design and set-ups that encourage creativity. I have zero interest in 250-yard carries and hacking around in shin-high rough. I’m not sure anybody does, not even the pros who are forced to endure these bland, devoid-of-imagination slogs most weeks. Instead, give me a course I can play. I’m not asking for it to be fair. I’m just asking for it not to be unfair. There is a difference.