There've been a wealth of threads lately spawned off the thread "Shallow greens should be extinct".
I don't exactly want to start another one of those although I sure do love discussions of design philosophy. Tom Doak came right out, as he thankfully generally does, and said his feeling about shallow greens is that they should not be surrounded by hazards and generally shallow greens should be designed with an optional way of bouncing the ball onto the green, or, at least there should be some way of recovering from something other than a hazard if one should miss such a green. Obviously there were all kinds of differing opinions and expressions of the pros and cons of greens like this, as there should be.
My point here is there're a fair number of shallow greens out there, particularly from the old days, that're surrounded by hazards, generally bunkering, that're wonderful holes and generally recognized as such--and mostly by all.
My feeling is most of those holes, although generally short holes of any par, are holes that very much fell into the category and philosophy of what was often called in the old days "shot testing". In other words, any golfer playing that hole, regardless of their level of skill had to execute an aerial shot to that shallow green, and a pretty good one, or suffer the penalty consequences of landing in and recovering from a bunker, for instance.
Personally, I like this type of hole, probably in limited doses, but they make for variety, in my opinion, despite their total lack of run-up/ground game option. On the other hand, I do recognize what Tom Doak (and others) are saying that if greens and green-ends can be designed in all kinds of interesting ways with a ground game option, so much the better. I don't dispute that!
But there clearly are conflicting or at least differing design philosophies here--and even to that I say so much the better, for ultimately I think difference in architecture and even architectural philosophy is a good and healthy thing for golf and architecture.
And, obviously, it's not possible to have something for everyone, all the time, in all courses and all architecture. I think it's a good thing to have courses like a PVGC that clearly were not designed and intended for all. Those are off-set by courses like even a Pinehurst #2 that are more accomodating of run-up options, and such, although possibly no less difficult.
I hate to do it to you all again but in this vein I might just offer my "Big World" theory of architecture again, as the ultimate answer to this question and these conflicting or differing architectural philosophies. That would be that there should be all types of architectural philosophies and designs, those for the elite, those for the non-elite, and those that somehow accomodate both well somehow. It just makes the whole fabric of golf architecture and it's spectrum that much richer.
But, by this "Big World" theory of architecture I definitely DO NOT mean that all courses and all architecture should attempt to accomodate all levels all the time in a multi-optional sense. I do believe that single shot demand in a "shot testing" sense has it's place in golf, particularly in a limited sense on courses!
The only problem is there will be courses that some can't play easily, if in fact at all. So what? There'll always be plenty elsewhere they can play more easily and with more accomodation.
There's no question asked here--I just thought I'd make this statement as it's been on my mind reading all these threads (off of the shallow green thread) and, again, I do love discussing architectural philosophy. But there's a definite conflict in philosophies here.
PS;
Barney, in case you hadn't heard, the "Big World" theory is based on the phrase;
"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"
