I have to admit, I use this line myself when talking in particular about older golf courses. I often state that the primary defense of many older courses is the green complex as top modern day players can overpower many of the older designs.
The point of this thread is twofold. The first is are we giving too much credit to the greens and in how and why they were designed? As we all know, much of the contour on older greens was added to create surface drainage, to make sure there was no standing water on the green surface. Furthermore, the subtle contours on many older greens came from settling over time (the dead guys weren’t laser measuring green slope and building in every little “strategic” nuance that we give them credit for). Some like Mackenzie are known for their lines about getting "the town drunk to shape the green”. Tillinghast for example, enjoyed napping under a tree with a bottle of Scotch while his greens were being shaped for him. Don’t get me wrong, these guys knew what they were doing (I think)
, but I wonder how much they really believed that the greens they were building were the true defense of their golf courses?
The second point of this thread is that these days the average or even above average golfer has enough trouble just getting to the green let alone finally reaching the surface and then having to deal with clown’s mouths and ski slopes on grass rolling at 11 or 12 on the stimp meter. It is a very hard game in general for all but the best players in the world. Doesn't the game need to be more fun and faster and more rewarding for most. Do we really have to “defend par and the golf course with overly difficult greens”?