Tom,
Thank you for the explanation.
Yes, I'm a little sensitive, but I do tire of the inference that courses with very little play somehow can't be judged or viewed the same as courses with heavy play. I believe there are design considerations for both, and I think if a designer does what is needed to get the most out of both situations, then he is serving his client as he should. I think that was done at Wolf Point.
The bigger issue is what has been the mechanism for the "dumbing" down of golf. I know some here will say that has not happened, but I will disagree. I think in today's design world, what is desired is a very attractive, but simplistic golf course. David Kidd thinks he got that right at Gamble Sands, but I find his quotes about how "golf should be fun again" to be nothing more than marketing hype. What is he saying, he forgot it was a game people enjoyed?
I think the dumbing down goes deeper than complaints. I think it is a matter of playing it safe as with so little work who can afford to take chances. Also, with so many architects so starved for work, there is an ambulance chaser mentality out there as well. Sorry if that offends, but I've seen it first hand.
And to bring my post back to the beginning and Wolf Point, I have had many visitors who have offered criticism. Tom's idea that no one who plays with me would criticize is just plain inaccurate. I've had a number of architects out and every single one has had some sort of criticism or difficulty in accepting what is here. I've also had some raters out and some have written, unsolicited, letters to me to give feedback and even recommend improvements. But here is what is interesting, none of the feedback is consistent. Every single bit of feedback, criticism, or head scratching has been different. So what are we to do, blow the course up and start over?
I've had one architect ask me. "why are those bunkers there?" when he easily carried them in an unusual wind. I know in the prevailing wind the bunkers in question are very difficult to carry. But in his single experience, they made no sense. That comment made me happy as it reminded me of what I had heard in Scotland about some of the bunker placements. If trained and experienced professionals can make such an observation, it tells me many have no way of understanding a golf course in one short visit. Tom, you felt the native rough at WP was too penal. One of the raters who returned a letter (he played on a beautiful windless fall day) felt the playing corridors were too wide and didn't reward driving properly.
Ran said his favorite green was 17. Another visitor said it ought to be blown up. So what do you do? What sense would it make to take all the feedback and try to appease everyone. What would we be left with?
We now have so many experts. We have guys who read a book, or contribute here, or go to a rater seminar, or serve on a green committee, and now many think they are somehow qualified to offer architectural suggestions. It is an interesting phenomenon and I don't know how to nicely say they should just play golf and leave the damn golf courses alone. Golf courses are not supposed to be perfect, but anymore it is a constant search for flaws. Even the Confidential Guide seems to start at 10 and then grade down from there. Do courses get graded up for interesting holes and features, or graded down because somehow they don't offer the proper composition to the eye, or the shot values are not right. I think it is more about taking away points then adding and I think most are on the look out for perceived flaws. With everyone on the lookout for "mistakes" and not afraid to offer "constructive criticism" is it any surprise that the best solution is to take a conservative approach? How is that working out for the game, and for the business?