Pat, you'll just have to accept the fact that it isn't the case for every golfer.
Then, WHAT IS ?
I mean that every golfer does not think that Raynor and Banks are among the very greatest architects and that their courses are not considered among the most innovative and foremost courses.
No golf architect, let alone two that are so narrowly defined, can have universal acceptance.
Why not ?
Though is should be apparent, I guess I'll have to explain it. Because they use many of the same hole concepts on each course, if one doesn't appreciate that fact, it would be difficult for the remainder of the course to overcome that perceived flaw. If one doesn't like geometric forms on the greens, in the fairway lines and in the bunker shapes, by definition, there wouldn't be universal acceptance.
For me, none of the Raynor or Banks course that I've played to date pass the relatively low threshold of the Mucci Test.
"Relatively low threshold" ?
When the challenge and the fun of playing the golf course are combined to the degree that the golfer wants to immediately replay the golf course, that's the ultimate test.
I shouldn't have said low threshold, it is rather more a simple test, easily understood. As you said,
You can analyze the routing, each hole and every individual feature and formulate your opinion, but, the ultimate opinion lies within the golfer's desire to immediately replay the golf course because of the combination of the challenge and the fun, and not through an intellectual exercise.
It is a simple and effective way to consider how one feels about a golf course. It is not how I feel about any Raynor and Banks courses I've played to date. I have only felt that way on two Macdonald courses, NGLA and Creek Club.
That's where the rubber meets the road.
I thought that was Goodyear.
Of the Macdonald courses I've played, I've only felt that way about NGLA and Creek Club.
I find it interesting that you didn't feel that way about Yale.
On the other hand, some find Yale a difficult walk due to the terrain.
And, Yale when you played it was probably quite different from Yale when CBM designed it.
The 2nd and 3rd holes are radically different, # 5 diluted, with the overall quality of the Bunkers compromised and conditions poor for many years, I can't say that I'm surprised.
When I first played Yale I felt that it could be a world class golf course IF the resources were committed to maintain and restore the golf course.
We're all aware of Geoff Child's efforts in that regard.
You and I differ on our opinions of Yale. I played it two years ago. I can look at a golf course and see past the conditions and consider the architecture. I can also determine what is Rulewich, especially when I am lucky enough to be out there with Geoff.
But, if you understand the site and what it took to build the golf course, your appreciation for its merits should grow.
Oh, but I can and did. Especially after my study with Flynn. If one can understand the design, engineering and construction of courses like Cascades and Indian Creek, both feats more difficult than Yale in their own differing ways, I think it is easy enough to imagine the same sort of work that went into the design and building of Yale. I take it into account and it is but one reason why I consider Yale a notch below NGLA and Creek Club in my eyes and well ahead of all the others.
Sorry, it has nothing to do with Flynn. That's how I feel. I haven't played or seen Fisher's Island so I remain open minded that there may be one that I'll feel that way about.
You just told me that you felt that way about NGLA and The Creek, and now you contradict yourself and say that there "may be one that I'll feel that way about." Which is it ?
Come on, Pat. What is the matter with you? This should be easy. NGLA and Creek Club are Macdonald designs. Fisher's Island is a Raynor design. If I ever get to FI and regard it the way it is almost universally regarded, then that will be the ONE Raynor course that for me would pass the Mucci Test.