This year's majors have thus far provided golf that some have found fascinating, while others have seemed to find boring and wanting. Similar criticisms exist, to a lesser degree, of both Open venues this year, Oakmont and Carnoustie.
Needless to say, I am in the fascinating camp.
When I first became interested in golf course architecture, it was after reading The Captain, by Geoff Shackelford (thanks Geoff for getting me started), and I was intrigued by the hole diagrams with multiple fairways.
Then one day several years ago, Tom Doak dropped a bomb on me by posting an observation that few alternate fairways worked well because the options are usually too obvious, the defining differences too stark, and that cross bunkers in the fairway often suffer from similar limitations.
Wow, I thought about that one for a long time. I still think about it pretty frequently, when deciding why I feel the way I do about certain courses and events.
My own recent views on interesting golf are largely shaped by a small handful of courses and events - the 03 Open at Sandwich, the 03 Am at Oakmont, the 04 US Open at Shinney (see tagline), this year's Opens, etc.
I've been in a 6 month discussion now with Brent, Sean and Garland (with my arguments occasionally buttressed by favorite posters like Tom P, thanks Tom), about strategic architecture versus penal architecture. We seem to be at an impasse, no one really willing or able to concede the other side's points.
So here's another attempt by me to explain my own views, distinct from the traditional old definitions of "strategic" and "penal".
For me, architecture provides interest primarily by offering interesting shot challenges. Sometimes that means picking out a particular route to the green, and sometimes it means simply standing in the middle of the fairway on a hole with a challenging green and thinking, what's my (or anyone else's) best short at par?
Shinney, Sandwich, Oakmont, Carnoustie and Augusta this year have shown me that, while trying to engineer an artificial outcome of par winning a tournament may be a fool's challenge, there's nothing quite as interesting as giving a golfer a bunch of tough choices, regardless of whether they're strategic or penal. Hard can indeed by beautiful.
By contrast, I don't find calculating the carry distance to a certain bunker or water hazard very interesting, nor do I find "What's my yardage?" to be a very compelling summary of a golf shot, hole, or course.
Width can provide many interesting choices, but I don't find tacking around a death penalty hazard to be particularly enticing, no matter how "strategic" the placement of said hazard.
Well, enough of my BS - what holds your interest on a golf course?
Multiple defined options?
Less visible, indirect options?
Specific carry options?
Scenery?
History?
Cart girls?
What? What? What?!?