You of course realize I could very well mean that Flynn's method yeilded "very good" and that Raynor's method yeilded "excellent" right? I purposely left out any sort of qualitative measures for that very reason. We're discussing the best of the best here.
You make a sweeping statement without any support. I question you and you think the basis of that question is my regard for Flynn rather than the weakness in your argument, which you never support. Why don't you explain your statement and not look to a false predisposition on my part to shelter your lack of ability to support your premise?
I recall the plans for Boca Raton South had many bunkers, moreso than is typical for Flynn. Raynor's flat site golf courses use far less bunkers, but still call for similar strategic choices. So in one term (ease of maintenance) the engineered look gets similar results with far less. The flat site Flynn's I've A: seen pictures of or B: seen plans for (Cleveland Heights, Indian Creek, Boca Raton South) use a large amount of bunkering compared to his work in and around Philadelphia. I also realize that Shinnecock was very heavily bunkered at one point. If this is wrong, please tell me and cite other examples.
What makes you think that Indian Creek is flat? How flat is Cleveland Heights? While some of it is level, there is more than 50' of elevation change. Is that flat?
Also, if a site is flat, than a flat bottomed bunker would be well integrated with the surrounds, no? ;-)
That statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of what you would call Flynn's method. At Shinnecock, Boca Raton South, Indian Creek and elsewhere, these were not flat bunkers but undulating sandy waste areas and contoured discreet bunkers. Honestly, facts don't have to come into play in these discussions, but they ought to. I am less perturbed by your regard for Raynor than I am your disregard for facts.
Now, as to the quality of BRS, we cannot tell as it is NLE, no? I also have no idea as to the terrain that was on Boca Raton South's site - did it lend itself to such design?
Wrong. I do have an accurate understanding of what the terrain was like at Boca Raton South. From having walked the property, studying oblique photographs and knowing what I'm looking at when considering the drawings and archival materials relating to the course. You ask Ron Forse if he couldn't tell the quality of the design by merely looking at the drawings. His analysis is insightful and the product of a deep understanding.
Please Wayne, let Flynn's work speak for itself. You sound foolish trying to denounce my side by using logical fallacies like appeals to authority and strawman arguments. We all know you're the Flynn guy here and that you've spent far more time than anyone ever probably will on the subject. Use that knowledge, not the fact that you've acquired it. I'm trying to get ideas out of you and pick your brain. I said I believe that Raynor's method on flat sites would be better than Flynn's and you attack me instead of actually considering why or why not - you're above that. If you don't have the time, give me a figure and I'll send you a check for your manuscript. ;-)
I let Flynn speak for himself unless his work is misunderstood and therefore misrepresented. But I may just reconsider that position since it doesn't encourage debate when the retort is that I am biased.
If you are trying to get ideas, then I think you should guard against drawing conclusions such as you make without doing so in an informed manner.