Interesting topic, Neil, I predict a lot of heated debate here.
I think it is absolutely garbage that you have to be a great player to be a great architect.
I do realize nobody has claimed as much, necessarily, but it certainly seems to be a popular notion.
I love the part in Mckenzie's Golf Architecture about how he took Mr. Lapham out to swat some bombs during the final stages of construction.
I think it is essential that an architect know what a great player is capable of, but why must they be able to pull those shots off themselves to understand strategy?
I find it akin to saying that a good architect must be a good greenskeeper. I think the architect needs to be aware of how the condition of the turf will affect play, but how profound of a statement is that, really?
That story about Fazio and Nicklaus is great. I mean, what does Jack get that we do not, simply because he is the greatest player who has ever lived?
My feeling is that because of his career in competitive golf, Jack has seen, and played, most of the great courses of the world. He has been exposed and has been forced to take apart the greatest holes in existance. Of course this exposure is beneficial, but anymore beneficial than when you or I play the same course?
Before signing off I will add that it probably is beneficial to know what type of feature, or hazard, if you will, challenges the best players. Yet still, even the USGA knows that tight fairways, long rough and small, steep and fast greens challenge the greatest players in the game most thoroughly.
Seems to me if you know what challenges the best players, and what is playable to the hack to boot; to blend the two together would be a pretty nice package.
Oh, and Tom Weiskopf sounds like a horses ass, not just based on this thread but numerous stories that I have heard