If we agree that the object of the game is to get the ball from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible, does the architecture really matter ?
If there were three (3) football fields layed length to length, with a tee at one end and a cup/hole at the other, and four golfers were betting each other on who could take the fewest strokes, wouldn't the spirit of competition and the general challenge be sufficient to fuel everyone's interest ?
Four golfers traversing 360 yards to get that 1.68 inch ball into that 4.25 inch hole in as few strokes as possible seems like it would keep them sufficiently occupied such that they'd want to repeat the process over and over again.
Five times ? ten times ? 18 times ?
Let's say 18 times.
In order to create a little diversity to the challenge let's create 10 sets of 3 football fields, 4 sets of 1/2 football fields, and 4 sets of 4/5 football fields.
Thus you'd have ten 360 yard holes, two 120 yard holes, two 240 yard holes, two 480 yard holes and two 600 yard holes.
They could be arranged in any order and direction so as to use the wind as an additional element to the challenge.
Would you spend a few hours playing that game against your friends ?
I would.
So, without any architectural additives you still have a very interesting game.
Now lets say that you couldn't find perfectly flat land to accomodate your football fields, so you had to lay them out over the natural terrain, and let's also assume that there are NO trees.
With NO bunkers and NO greens how much addititional interest is generated by the terrain over which the course was layed out ?
So, without any architectural additives you still have a very, very interesting game.
Let's suppose that the area within 20 yards of the hole had to be mown lower, like a green.
Now, you have a slightly different field of play.
Still, there are NO architectural additives and the game has taken on greater interest.
So what part of the interest in the GAME does architecture actually play ?
Is it over rated ?
Under rated ?
Is architecture MERELY the ICING ON THE CAKE ?
Would the best courses be those where the topography is the most interesting ?
Or would the best courses be those that are best sequenced over the topography ?
Or, would the best courses be those that are best sequenced and best layed out over the topography.
Let's say it's the latter, that those who can most creatively use the land to lay out and sequence their holes produce the best courses.
In the early stages of golf, isn't that what happened with an OUT and BACK configuration ?
Wasn't the real challenge, in creating a field of play, presented when golf moved off the flat sites next to the sea, to inland sites ?
Is it safe to say that the MACRO plot plan (architecture) is THE critical element in designing a golf course, with the MICRO portion being mostly window dressing ?
Your thoughts ?