"Many do in terms of penalty strokes, but most architects that have written about the subject reject such a definition and instead focus on the definition in my first post - does the hole dictate it be played in a particular way or does it not?"
Jason:
In a general sense, and today, if a golf course is one that gives the player constant situations of visually apparent shot dictation with no real ability for the player to make some farily distinct alternate or optional choice on his own of an differing way to play the hole, and the course penalizes directly any shot that does not conform to that visually apparent one dimensional shot dictation then you pretty much have a real form of penal golf architecture.
The essence of the strategic school of design is architectural arrangements where any golfer very much feels he can make HIS OWN shot choices and pick his very own ways to go. The latter is the essence of the "indirect tax" theory on which the strategic school of golf is based.
I don't see why everyone on here needs to argue about strict definitions before a discussion on this subject can be entered into.
The latter will definitely do. It has been available for years. It seems to me this website seems to enjoy arguing about definitions sometimes more than they do about the essence of some subject. Even if they don't enjoy constantly arguing over strict definitions, it certainly is what they do too often. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the differences and distinctions between penal and strategic golf or architecture.
