Tim
It is MacWood with a capital W, but you can call me Tom.
I don't have the fogiest idea if Pelican Hills is strategic or not. I was only trying to answer Mark's odd question comparing why the average Joe enjoys playing this great game on their local goat track and the larger question as to why courses designed by golf architects should be designed with strategy or not. Obviously I am of the school that says that the average Joe will apreciate and enjoy golf courses with strategic choices (even if he is not conscious of architecturial strategy) more than courses without interesting choices.
All I know about Pelican Hills is what I've seen on TV, the poor review of the course from Tommy (not a fan of Fazio), the poor review from Tim W. (a objective fan of Fazio) and evidently you hold the course in high regard. But I really don't know or care about Pelican and only used it as a hypothetical example. But I'm confused is this thread meant to defend your opinion of Pelican or is it meant to defend Fazio who has been accused of building courses lite on strategy or are you trying to say that there are only 1-5% of the public that understands strategy so it is unfair or unreasonable to present strategy to the remaining 95%. Or maybe all three.
Is it important that a golfer be consciously aware of strategy? I don't think so, at least intitially. You yourself claimed that the 10th of Riviera presented no strategy to you, it could be said that you were unaware of the strategy (not unlike your 95%), but did that prevent you from enjoying the hole or getting a thrill from playing the hole? And there isn't much debate that most students of golf architecture believe the hole is one of the great strategicly designs.
If a poor 95%-type golfer finds himself off a green at Pinehurst #2 or The Old course, and contemplates whether to use a wedge or a 5-iron or a putter is he unfairly taxed? Might he fail to execute whatever he chooses? Would it better if he were not given that choice?
I do not agree that 95% of all golfers are idiot hacks, there are certainly golfers of differing skill levels and differing knowldge of the finer points of architecure, but I give the average golfer much more credit that those from the 95% school. Of course it doesn't help when they continue to be presented with strategy lite courses. The more a golfer is presented with courses providing strategic choices the more apt he is to be aware of the concept.
I wonder if golf architects who design 'playable' courses or strategy lite courses don't expect these courses to be played more than once and design with that in mind. Perhaps they are consciously or subconsiously designing for the traveling golf rater who only sees the course once or perhaps they are designing for the photographer who snaps the single picture and then leaves - the course is designed for that single image, that one moment frozen in time.