I don't think selecting and designing the best hazards at accommodating all levels of players necessarily equates to reduced drama in the hands of a creative designer.
Jeff,
Can you think of a single example of a hazard that "accomodates" all levels of players that also includes any drama?
Forget all levels...give me a range from 0 to 18 handicaps.
Obviously, my opinion is that for a hazard to accomodate an 18 it must be nuetered in the eyes of the scratch...and that a dramatic hazard for the scratch is likely death for the 18...
Jim - the examples are countless:
- Almost every hole at the Old Course but particularly the stream on 1, the 11th, the 12th, the 14th (hell bunker), 16th, 17th and 18th.
- Pebble Beach 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18
- Augusta National - almost every hole. 15 is an exception. 12 may be an exception but I do not think so. An 18 handicap has hope on that tee
- TPC Sawgrass - nearly every hole
- Royal Dornoch - every hole
- Sand Hills - I cannot think of a single hole that does not give the 18 handicapper a good chance
- Royal Melboune West - the entire course
- pretty much every CB Macdonald/Raynor Template
- Crystal Downs - Every single hole
Need I continue?
Jason,
Thanks for making the answer for me. Obviously, Jim doesn't have what it takes to be a "creative designer" because, among other things, he makes snap judgments and eliminates possibilities too quickly.
Funny but all the courses you mention are considered great courses, to boot.
Mark Fine
It is not a black and white question, and design rarely ever is. You could certainly pass up certain holes and features and have a duller course than might otherwise be possible on some sites.
However, I acknowledged you could use a HHA if found naturally and damn the torpedo's, as it were. I never said the word always accommodate, or accommodate all players every hole, did I? The great thing about architecture is the variability in every situation and how different architects might handle them.
Of the world's 30,000 golf courses, I am sure many have passed up dramatic opportunities to better cater to the average guys who would play them. And, we have to acknowledge, that while it might be in almost any architects' best interest to create a memorable hole that plays hard, in the end, the clients interest may or may not align. In other words, passing it up might be the right choice, even at the expense of a possibly higher ranking.
I think Jason's examples are more than enough that it is possible to create a great course without any given "pet feature" you might personally like. There are just so many good architectural concepts to use, that I hesitate to use HHA, because its not one of the best. Again, if I found it, I would use it (look at the tee shot on the Quarry at Giants Ridge No. 6, for instance). But that is one of nearly 1000 golf holes I have designed. (there are probably a few more, with environmental ponds out there that I have been forced into)