So, based on the thoughts of proponents of this idea, I have to conclude:
1. that (as per my recent thread) there is indeed NO EXCUSE for an average courses being built today, since apparently all architects are always free -- and in fact are encouraged -- to find/create classic holes like the Eden, Short, Redan, Biarritz, Plateau, Double Plateau, Alps, Valley, Hog's Back, Road, Bottle, Cape, Leven, Punch Bowl, and the Knoll on WHATEVER site he/she has available, with no exceptions; and
2. that (in direct opposition to sentiments expressed thousands of times on here over the years), golf course architecture can be OBJECTIVELY judged and experienced, and that if one simply and consistently plugs this length and that angle and these principles into an equation, a golf course of the quality of Lido will necessarily be produced.
That's great - thanks. It takes all the messy greys, all the HUMAN-NESS, all the magic out of the whole process and any nuance completely out of our discussions about that process. It becomes simply: THIS is what characterizes a great golf course, and THAT is how one goes about creating it.
Okay, understood now. I can now go to the Golf Digest Top 100 list and know for CERTAIN what courses are objectively the greatest ever produced. I should get on my horse and start knocking off those top 100 right away, starting from the top and working my way down. It is very important to me to be able to agree with everybody else.
Joshua Crane - paging Joshua Crane. It's Mike Keiser and 2015 calling -- we want your scientific formula back.