Phil McDade,
If you are playing to enjoy the company of your friends, that is all well and good, but only a competition (even a friendly competition) can bring out the architecture of the course to it's fullest.
If you are really interested in architecture, you should be interested in competitive golf. If you are interested in competitive golf, you should be interested in how far you have to the hole.
David:
I believe exactly the opposite.
Ask a really good player -- say, someone on the PGA Tour -- and they tend to ignore the architecture. They are interested, solely, in scoring, and getting from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. Tom Lehman -- who is doing some interesting architectural work in Nebraska -- once said as a pro that he pretty much ignored most architectural elements, and instead just focused on how to best get to where he needed to be for this next shot, be it off the tee, or from the fairway, or on the green.
Besides, as a sub-standard golfer, I get to see more of the architecture of a course than most players.
I'd used this course as a pretty good litmus test as the dividing line for how people view golf architecture and playing the game:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39987.0.html
Phil,
When a PGA Tour player formulates his plan from A to B, does he not have to consider the architecture?
For instance, laying back for a level lie, laying back to 100 yards, busting one to try to get to a speed slot, Hitting a hybrid off a tee because it's too narrow for a driver, or wanting to leave a full spinnable shot in.
Going for a green in two,knowing where to miss (even if that's a bunker)..........
Hitting to a certain side of a green for a good angle in, not shortsiding themselves.....
Granted many of the PGA Tour sites and setups have lacked imagination, but every decision off every tee is based on architecture (or lack of it),even if the architecture isn't overwhelmingly subtle and is "all out in front of you"
Just because he doesn't know a Redan from an Eden, doesn't mean he doesn't figure out what shot is needed, even if a lazer gives him the info where he figures out where to land it the second time around.
Just because many pros don't like certain features (blindness, greens running away) etc., doesn't mean they don't consider them when formulating a game plan.(they may not be educated or patient enough to like it,but they consider it)
Totally agreed there are many pros who like courses where all they need is a number and a target, but the same can be said for many bad golfers too.
In other words I'm disputing that pros "ignore" the architecture, even if they don't embrace it.
That said,many modern courses and/or setups are so narrow and uncompelling that "down the middle" becomes the strategy which is the decision for the entire day, not each individual hole
I really like the pictures of the courses you posted and wish there were more of those as they demand a different kind've course management,but rest assurred a TOUR player would figure out how to play it in a few plays,
Caught in a firm and fast mode, it would make for great viewing in a tour event.