Interesting in light of Geoff Ogilvie's recent remarks that great golf courses produce better tournaments and better winners. I understand that a lot of what makes for great architecture has only an indirect impact on play, such as drainage. i further understand that very few players play a hole as the architect intended. but of course, that statement implies a form of architecture that seeks to dictate the form of play. In my view, the best architecture presents options for solving the problem each hole presents on a given day and it is up to the player to construct the best solution given their skill level. My basic problem with the statement is that a golf course is, by definition, a playing field for the game of golf. Unlike other games, the field has far less definition. It can be used for other activities; witness the Old Course on Sundays. It is a habitat for for animals. But its reason for existence is to host the playing of our sport. Hence, it can only be great if it provides a great venue for playing the game. The ongoing debate is, what constitutes the best type of venue for achieving that goal? Just as the playing field is relatively free form, so is the definition of a great golfing experience. Hence our continuous discussions of various features, our ratings of differnt courses and our evaluation of architects. But unless we are discussing landscape architecture, and not golf course architecture, it all comes back to whether the architecture provides an interesting and challenging venue for playing the game.