Gents: I have to admit that I wasn't playing devil's advocate (that was just a dodge, to protect myself, perhaps much like architects who rely on boldly contoured greens to ensure they are being fair "to all level of golfers") -- as of 3:39 pm today, what I wrote is really how I feel. Maybe it's watching how the 6,900 yard Harbourtown course is challenging the best golfers in the world (and doing so in a fun way, according to the players) without the use of boldly contoured greens. Maybe it is the reality that, while (as George says) we can "try to hit" the correct side of the fairway, I can also "try to hit" a ball out of the rough on a long narrow holel. Why is it a fun challenge to try the former and drugery to try the latter? Alex - you're right, but that's just my point, i.e. yes, boldly contoured greens "rewards shot-makers and shot-shapers" -- but how many of those are out there amongst average golfers? Not many, I'd say. I'm just saying that perhaps the architects who build such greens should be more honest and admit that they too are 'testing' golfers, and just as much -- though in a different way -- as those who are building narrow 7,500 yard; and that they should admit as well that their 'test' is as onerous as any other, especially when it comes to the only real way to 'keep score', and that is actually counting up the strokes. John: yes, in general/theory you may be right, but on the only great course I ever played (Crystal Downs), I know that it was on the greens where I racked up the extra strokes (compared to the courses and less-contoured greens I usually play). Again, all I'm saying is that boldly contoured greens add lots of strokes to the final number for the vast majority of golfers, just like length and narrow fairways do; and to pretend otherwise is being a bit disingenuous.
Peter