Classic holes..famous holes..passing the test of time..controversy...

[TEPaul]

....and the benefits of the 'controversial' in architecture as articulated by the likes of Macdonald and Mackenzie.....are they all essentially one and the same thing?

If you think so tell us why; if you don't, tell us why as well.

[TEPaul]

I suppose the underlying question must be---is some form of controversy absolutely essentially to great and highly respected golf architecture?

[Anthony Gray]

  Tom I think it usually helps....Road Hole...TPC 17...Alps. But also hurt 14 at Bandon Trails and 15 at Cruden Bay.I think over time the fair/fun factor will prevail.

   Anthony

 

 

[Kyle Harris]

Sufficient, but not necessary.

The old 8th Hole on the PSU Blue Course was sure controversial. Was it good architecture? Probably not.

HOWEVER, the controversy and difficulty of the hole did make scoring on the first seven holes quite important. 

[Mark_F]

I suppose the underlying question must be---is some form of controversy absolutely essentially to great and highly respected golf architecture?

Yes, it is.

Otherwise you end up with Lost Farm.

It's just too nice.

[Jim Sweeney]

Anything out of the ordinary or new is likely to be controversial simply because it is not normal. But what is normal in golf golf course architecture? That we should always be able to see the shot in front of us? That we should be able to advance a ball toward the hole from a bunker? Who gets to define "normal?"

The "abnormal" invites controversy but also interest. If too much of it exists on a course, the market will regulate it; people will not play. They will also not play a course with no interest no controversy.

Controverys is what makes people talk about course architecture.

[David Whitmer]

I agree with Jim. It seems to me controversy stems from people disagreeing about something, and therefore almost everything will be controversial to a degree. Whenever two or more people look at a golf hole, an aspect of a golf hole, or an entire golf course and have differing opinions, you have controversy.  Great and highly respected golf architecture is talked about more than lesser-thought of courses, so consequently some form of controversy will be the result.

So I guess my answer to the question is not that controversy is essential to great and highly respected golf architecture, but it is more a bi-product of great and highly respected golf architecture. Like Jim says...I think it's good for the game, because it gets people talking about it.

[Sean_A]

To me, a controversial hole or two is often the difference between championship golf and very well respected "holiday" or second tier championship courses.  I like controversy in a course and think its a great shame when clubs eliminate what little is left - see Sandwich and Hoylake these past 30 years or so.  Thankfully, the most famous quirks are so famous that it is now difficult to get rid of them.  All that said, no, I don't believe controversy is necessary for architecture to be great, but it sure can help one feel they are on a course which pushes the boundaries a bit. 

Ciao

[J Sadowsky]

Sufficient, but not necessary.

The old 8th Hole on the PSU Blue Course was sure controversial. Was it good architecture? Probably not.

HOWEVER, the controversy and difficulty of the hole did make scoring on the first seven holes quite important. 

I was going to disagree but I think you mean necessary but not sufficient.  For that I'll agree.  Not sure I would want to play the golf equivalent of dada architecture.