Look Adam, you are there and I am not so you certainly know the watering situation better than I do. So I dont doubt you when you say that the course would play better with a little less water. No one likes to play in slop.
Yet I disagree with the way we on this website sometimes try to wedge every fun modern course into the neo-classical, firm-fast camp. Whatever Ken Dye is building now, he just did not build that type of course in Farmington. I very much doubt he would disagree with me.
As for your specific questions and comments:
David, Are the words Fand Fast anywhere in my posts on PH?
I dont recall. But I do recall you talking about playing run-up shots, playing balls off of mounds and watching them bounce and roll, and using kick plates to get to certain pin placements.
Do you remember the course or not? How many is many?
I think I remember the course very well, but it has been a number of years since I played it so please correct me on any details I misrecollect. As I remember, virtually all of the fairways on the longer holes rely extensively on mounding and grass hollows, with the possible exception of what used to be No. 10, the downhill dogleg left with the water right of the green. (I recall a long bunker down the left side but dont remember what was on the right side or through the dogleg.)
Also, I remember that the vast majority of the greens incorporated grass mounding and hollows into their surrounds. The exceptions might be the old No. 10, the par 5 in the middle of the old front (guarded by water left of the green), and the short par 3 over a rocky arroyo to the long thin green complex cut into the side of a hill.
So, to answer your question, 'many' means dozens. Possibly over 100 if we count mounds and hollows seperately.
I recall the mounding on the back tier of what was 18, but never had occasion to use it as a kick plate. I can see how this is possible, but even so I think this is the exception and not the rule.
I do [take TEPaul's words as gospel]. But that's because I knew exactly what he is talking about when he gave that exact description of the ball bouncing out of thick rough, BECAUSE THE SUB SURFACE HAD THE RIGHT CONSISTENCY. If ytou had seen it maybe then it would be a [?] Fundamentals are universal.
Fundamentals may be universal, but application of those fundamentals is certainly not.
What do you like about it architecturally?
As I remember . . .
-I like the routing. The site seemed like it may have been difficult, yet the course flows very nicely.
-I like the constant variation in holes, direction, and terrain. (same as routing, I guess)
-I like that he could have overdone forced carries and greens/tees perched on rocks, but that he showed restraint. The few holes where he does use forced carries and the rock arroyos are done nicely without killing the high handicapper.
-I like that the water on the course isnt there for cosmetic enhancement, but instead is placed guarding greens, very much in play. I also like that one can negotiate around it and not be forced over it.
-I like the walk . . . very enjoyable and not too difficult given the site.
-Most significantly (in my opinion) I like that he did not fight the land much when building the course. While I found the humps and hollows over the top, the course still feels somewhat natural and certainly flows up and down and around with the land.
-And I like very much that he did it for 1.2 million, or whatever it was.
David, I think Ken Dye drew on many genres and created a golf course that is enjoyable for all levels of golfers. The fact that you don't see the versatility in the design must be a function of how many rounds and under what conditions those rounds were golfed under. I won't sit here and tell you your opinion is wrong, but I do think your recollection is off.
Perhaps you are correct regarding my recollection. I have played the course a minimum of 15 rounds and probably a few over 20. Always in the spring or early summer, never in bad whether. The course was never firm and fast, but was never soft either.
I agree that the course is enjoyable for all levels of golfers, but this can be accomplished in a number of ways, not just by designing for the ground ball.
Frankly, I see a pretty consistant 'genre' throughout. I dont recall many non-three teir greens. I recall most of the greens had a shape like Mickey Mouse heads in a fun house mirror-- A central roundish tier with two additional roundish tiers extending off the central one. I see repeated use of fairways lined with humps and hollows and greens guarded with the same.
As for the Ran, he needs no defending. Insults usually say more about the speaker than the subject.
__________________
Matt, I recall some vertical strategy; whether to go for it on the longer holes, what club to hit off the tee; negotiating wind and hills, etc. As for horizontal strategy, I can see how favoring one side of a fairway would come in handy if the pin was on the opposite ear. I guess I was considering this more necessity than strategy, but it is fair to call it strategy. Still though, it would be too much of a stretch for me to concede that the course was 'extremely strategic' (the words used above.)
I do agree that different options are available from different tees, but I dont consider this as enhancing the strategy.