To Ward: We had 4 single digit handicappers in our group yesterday, and there was quite a bit of "gymnastics" (never heard that term used in a golf context before your post, but it is actually a fairly accurate description of some of the shots played in our group yesterday). A true wordsmith you have always been.
To Scott S: You may be right about the course being an "experiment". I have a feeling you are correct in that the owner was likely driving a specific agenda at FL. I just wonder how this experiment will be viewed as more time passes. For me, it is just a course that I don't understand. I do wish to comment on one of the points you made. I actually think you may also be correct in thinking that they were building this course for that "other .5%" of golfers (the tour player). With as little play as they get at FL, and with the logistics of lodging, site access etc. all but eliminating the possiblilty of a tour type event...seems they spent $25 million for 3 or 4 visiting tour player rounds per year. I know the guy was a billionaire, but it's hard to make financial sense of that model.
To Doug R: You mention Purdue, and it is almost the antithesis of the FL course. Kampen was built on a fairly non-dramatic site, so Pete built really good golf holes. That course is loaded with strategy, playing angles etc. FL is just the opposite. We talked about Kampen yesterday as we were playing, and all 4 in our group agreed that we'd rather play there than FL.
To John K: I'm trying to understand what you are saying in your post John. It sounds like you do not like Pete's previous courses, some of which are considered among the best in the US, with tons of strategy that are also fun to play (see: The Ocean Course, The Golf Club, TPC Sawgrass, Long Cove, Harbour Town, Crooked Stick), and that you like this latest course that includes no driving strategy, very small green complex targets and requires some "golf gymnastics" (credit: W. Peyronnin). You and I obviously have different tastes in golf courses.
To: Jason T: In regards to your comment about your golf buddies who are 15 handicaps who want to play a course from 8,000 yards...I just hope I don't have to play in the group or groups behind them. I'll look for something else to do during that 6 hours. Also...did you really mean to say that you think the FL course advocates playing to "strategic" places in the rough?
Final thought- I always thought truly great golf courses were designed in a way to provide a complete examination of a golfer's skill. The test should include the ability to assess one's driving accuracy, provide an examination of mid, and long irons...present the golfer with holes that will require him or her to shape shots in both directions to achieve the best results, as well as provide opportunity for the golfer to pull off recovery shots....and examine one's putting skill. I accept that some will disagree with my view on this. If however, one would accept that view, a review of the FL course suggests it is designed more for a player who will try to hit it as far as he or she can on most tee shots, regardless of whether or not it ends up on the prepared surface...so, their ball will end up in a fairway lie if they are able to hit a 300 yard shot onto a 20 yard wide spot...the course would require an examination of mid and long iron shots, but seems to accept that many will be played from the rough...to very small greens. It is an examination of one's game that I would suggest would not identify the best player in the field.
TS