I'm sure lots of people find that compelling. And no doubt on subsequent plays the angles and slopes reveal themselves, as do the possible lines of play. But my point all along to Kevin Lynch is that such an approach to design can also spawn some critical responses.
Brad,
Actually I didn't pick up on that point "all along," but the elaboration you made in the most recent post certainly helps me understand where the criticisms may be coming from. And your comments help me understand which factors may be more important to you and I can determine if such factors hold the same weight for me.
For example, you comment that, "no doubt on subsequent plays the angles and slopes reveal themselves, as do the possible lines of play." In a way, that highlights a critical underlying premise for a ranking system. Is the ranking for the person who may only get to play the course once, or for someone who would like to play the course frequently? It seems to me that these two populations may have diametrically opposed desires with respect to course being "right there in front of you" vs. "a mystery to be solved over time."
Whichever way the course goes in that regard, should that necessarily be viewed as a "negative" or should it simply be understood as a different philosophy (and judged on that standard)?
Consider Whistling Straits. Many here harshly judge the course because the land was sculpted to have a dunes feel, but is heavily geared towards the aerial game. While I may hold a subjective personal preference for a ground game, as a rater, I would be expected to set aside that preference and judge Whistling Straits for what it is, not what I prefer.
I'm still mulling over your comment about the course "exaggerating slopes" and feeling "over-designed." On the one hand, given the natural terrain, I would expect the slopes to have a significant effect. For example, after laying up on the 6th hole, I found the ball above my feet approximately 140 yards from the hole. With wetlands left, I loved the thrill of needing to compensate for the tendency to pull the ball from such a lie, adding interest to a normally benign short-iron (at least, for good players - no shot is benign for my swing). Was that a function of "over-design" or a result of the natural terrain?
Ultimately, your comments have given me something to think about when I'm analyzing courses. Whether I agree with your conclusions or not, it helps to have as many different perspectives as possible. You can be sure that I'll be re-reviewing Ballyhack with Ron Montesano to consider some of the questions you've raised.