Albeit trolling, there is something to be discussed in all of this. First, when the term “great architecture” gets used, it is subjective, and influenced by personal preference. If JK wants fast greens as a priority, then he should go where that is the courses’ hallmark. I would prefer slower greens, as long as the architecture and the set-up made it interesting, i.e. pins cut on slopes, edges and corners. And, as my friend Jeff Warne points out often, let’s keep the short-cut around greens to appropriate places, not on every damn green complex. But, see, those are my personal preferences....See Peter P.’s quote on the bottom of my post for more insight.....
We have debates on playability/ difficulty issues all the time when designing/ building.While there is a big variation in abilities to hit the middle of the club and having it pointed the right way, I am coming to the conclusion that the wider gap between differently skilled golfers has more to do with clubhead speed. That’s why JK prefers fast greens...he can hit the ball hard enough to impart spin, which makes approach shots and recovery shots more possible. The low clubhead speed golfer (who cares why? It may not be plausible to “fix” that in aged/ handicapped/ etc. golfers) has a whole different set of challenges than JK, and all fast clubhead speed golfers do(es), but his post(and many architects) don’t take that into account.
Add in the theories about why better putters would/ could separate themselves from the field if the greens were slower to the discussion as well. Interesting topic for a troll-job.