"What I want to discuss is the subject of whether there IS such a line that can be crossed, or whether there is no such thing ... and whether golf course architecture has to push that line (and how far) in order to be really good."
TomD:
It just occured to me that to answer your question, even a little bit, of whether there is a line that can be crossed (The Precipice)....and whether golf course architecture has to push that line (and how far) in order to be really good, the answers are probably staring us right in the face----eg just look at the history and evolution of golf architecture and the courses that have done it and become hugely respected and those that have tried and failed.
My take is golf architecture in a general sense should not try to push that line in order to be good. Golf architecture in a general sense should probably head in the opposite direction from The Precipice in the future!
But can selective courses push that line to The Precipice and get away with it and become highly respected and considered great, even the greatest?
So what does the history of architecture tell us about that?
It seems like enough golfers feel that architecture generally has gotten too close to The Prepice in difficutly whether it be sheer length or a degree of penality that is too high and too much (OB, water etc).
But look at Pine Valley; look at Oakmont and those few special courses that have always been preceived by most all golfers as really difficult or the most difficult. These courses are loved or at least globably respected (Pine Valley both loved and respected and Oakmont probably more respected than loved) and pretty much always have been. The same might be said for Merion East or even Baltusrol or Winged Foot or Shinnecock. Why is that? How did those two or few manage to get to that status and perception and stay there all these years? Truly, that alone is a fascinating question to ponder.
How did those two or few get away with it and get to that level? Who would say they aren't great architecture as well as really difficult (The Precipice)?
I would say that the respect they generated perhaps from the beginning with one (Pine Valley) and over time with the other (Oakmont) and those others have to do with some things we rarely consider about them.
1. Their club's (membership) ethos.
2. One has a full blown major tournament history. The same is true of Merion East and those others mentioned!
Pine Valley is probably the most interesting of all to put your question to-----eg The Precipice! It has some architectural elements no other course I'm aware of has;
1. It has wide playing corridors and NO ROUGH! (at least not historically----eg the narrow bands they have today are only for mower turning), minimal water and no OB. As tough as it can be when one gets off its fairways it is actually pretty rare to lose a ball there (very good caddies that way).
3. For most all of its membership it is not their only club
4. It is a male only club
I would say "The Precipice" in architecture (extreme difficulty) essentially has its own odd "supply/demand" equation----eg if there are only a few (a small supply) in the world that are precieved that way that somehow reach that status of love or at least respect for their difficult and being near The Precipice the demand to play them will always increase but if you COMPLETELY replicated them 10 or 20 times around the world their love and respect and demand might actually exponentially plummet.
But perhaps not-----in any case, in my opinion, it is really Pine Valley that holds the true key and answers to your question. There are some things about it that we tend to forget are just so different than most any other golf course in the world and more complex still its "ethos" membership emanating from Crump's original idea (a course just for champions) may be one we rarely consider or understand how to consider as it applies to your question-----pushing towards The Precipice.
Tom, there is an analogy here I think is applicable that my father used to cite. Back in the 50s and early 60s he worked for Spalding and they decided to manufacture a set of clubs that they advertized and marketed as being ONLY recommended for golfers who were a 2 handicap or less. They actually said they were serious about that because they did not believe that other golfers could successfully use them.
They simply could not make enough sets they were selling them out so fast!
![Wink ;)](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)