......... I am wondering whether there is in fact MORE to designing for the 1% than simply adding hazards and length and rough. Maybe there isn't, and maybe even if there IS a Tom D or a Jeff B know it as well as an RTJ II or a JN. I'm just wondering.
.......If a golf course was designed/re-designed almost exclusively for the 1%, how does that time and talent get "re-focused" when dealing with not a range of average golfers but with a single and very definite sub-set of golfers who can, to a person, approach a green, any green, from just about ANY angle with almost no difference/disadvantage felt, and who can spend a week getting to know any sets of greens no matter how smartly done and then spend the next four days being incredibly precise at hitting targets on those greens, and for whom currently NO hole not matter how long seems to be TOO long?
Peter,
Was away and sorry not to answer your question as some of it was seemingly directed to me. In short, I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing.......not really a big part of my thought process in every day design.
First, I have never been asked to design solely for that 1%, so I doubt I know much. What I think is that Dye added water mostly to create 1.5-2 stroke penalties to offset all the other good play. In other words, you can't stop the birdies, so really penalize the few bad holes to bring the score up.
Second, even for the best players, I would focus on presenting a wide variety of ideal shots. If one hole favors a high fade and another a low draw, the match/tournament probably comes down to who hits their least favorite/strong shots the best, which seems to be a nice, balanced test of golf that would determine the most complete player most of the time, which sounds good to me. We only have to separate the winner by one stroke, not ten, and over 4 days in stroke play. In fact, it's better if the margin is only a stroke, for excitement. I guess I wouldn't care if that one stroke was the difference between -15 and -16, or +1 and even par.
Third, once you take out the design criteria of really high scores for good players, then there are a range of designs that still challenge them while not being overly harsh on average players, and we tend to choose them. The prime example is the cross/front hazard, which rarely troubles the good player, but kills average ones.....so why use it very often?
Lastly, the game is still be between people, whether -15 and -16, or +1 and even par. And, it is still 90% mental. In other words, the competition can screw up their heads even if the architecture doesn't. If it's the PHX Open and they know they have to make a dozen birdies a day, that puts as much pressure on as a course where they can only make a few bogeys a day and hope to win, no?