A serious question:
If a course is primarily about site, routing, green contours and hazard placement, why are all these restorations having SUCH a difference on the way these courses are getting evaluated.
Taking all of these transformations mentioned in earlier posts, which of the four elements above have had so much significant change that it changes a course from a dog to a world beater?
Ally that's what I was trying to get at when saying Pinehurst #8 was closing for the summer next year and the primary objective is to return the firmness of the turf. Not sure why they aren't touting it as a renovation or restoration (maybe some sort of agreement with Fazio). I would imagine they'll move some bunkers and tees.
I've only played one of the courses Tommy mentioned, USNA. It was a good course but pretty soft and slow. I haven't played it since it's re-opened but I assume the primary changes are going to be with the turf.
Admittedly I do think the firmer turf allows the architecture to shine. It doesn't really matter what direction the fairway and green tilt or where little bumps are if the ground is soft such that shot just kind of settles like a bean bag. Good turf has a distinct thud when dropping a ball on it, even if the greens aren't rolling incredibly fast.
If you took many of the courses in the UK and set them in the US with clay or silt turf would they be as revered?