Forrest:
When you say the "variation is lacking" how would you know that from playing the course only once? Might it be possible that you rest a good bit of your case on the fact that #2 doesn't have the visual stimuli and "obvious" eye-ball situations you would be able to unearth from other courses simply because they are greatly assisted with better overall terrain than #2?
Given what I have just said doesn't #2 fare even better when compared because the land it has does not provide the kind of false veneer you see with so many other courses -- even the top ones?
Forrest -- when you say "it's one of the best" can you tell me where it fits in to your overall standing of courses you have played? For example -- if "x" courses are ahead of it by your own definition which courses would they be? Also, if #2 is ahead of other top courses give me an idea of which ones they are as well.
The reason I ask is to get some sort of feeling in how you place #2 when compared / contrasted to others. When people say "one of the best" I have no idea what that means until they place it against other courses.
When you say "one of the best" and then in the very next graph say, "No. 2 lives quite a bit on reputation and hype" I have to ask how do you jive the two together? What reputation and hype are you basing that statement upon?
#2 didn't have an Open until '99 and to the credit of Club Corporation returned the course to a standard (albeit a very expensive one) of supreme achievement. It is both very fair to all types of players and let's be honest doesn't need to OVERDOSE with visual stimuli and penal rough to be a very challenging layout that rewards skill rather than a heavy emphasis on luck.
Forrest -- let me say I believe it's fair for you to apply the over-hyped tag to Pebble because no course -- save for Augusta National -- gets the annual TV time that PB gets. The course also has a split personality with half of the holes merely being pedestrian at best and the other half being world class. #2 has known of the exposure points PB has garnered over the years and it certainly doesn't have an ocean to create the kind of blimp shots from the sky that cause golfers to shake with awe at the visual stimuli.
Forrest -- you and I judge things a bit differently. I don't doubt that off-course elements have a role and a standing when analyzing a course but the CORE -- the essence of how the 18 holes are tied together is always IMHO the first among equals.
Let me also say that without a fair representation of an architect's work -- more than the # you mentioned concerning Ross -- you present a critique that is rather limited and of little overall value in understanding what the architect has done previously and what they have done after that project. Getting that "perspective" provides me with an understanding of how the architect is progressing and where that particular work fits into their overall portfolio.
By the way -- I'm not taking you to task -- we are learning on this site -- right?