Just reading the ‘texts’ and not knowing either course, I ask:
If someone who does know the courses describes one as ‘great’ and the other as ‘more fun, if you’re playing it everyday’, does that mean that the first course is better — you know, actually better — than the second one? And if so, why would someone choosing between the two for a single play ever choose to play the course that is not as good as the other one, and that is not described by anyone as ‘great’?
Conversely, do those who are suggesting to Ira that he should play the ‘fun’ course mean to say that it is, in fact, also/therefore the ‘better’ course? Maybe even the ‘great’ one? But if so, why not just say that? If ‘fun’ is the criteria/measuring stick for a great course, why not just cut to the chase and call it that?
An honest question, but one that comes out of my dislike of how very often the word ‘fun’ is used these days — so often that, for me at least, it seems to have no meaning left at all. Like the word ‘sporty’, the word ‘fun’ often seems to mean: ‘actually not great at all, architecturally or otherwise — but you’ll score pretty well and probably not lose a ball, and you’ll be done in less than 3 hours’.
Nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but not really something to write home about. Or even to get very excited about. I mean: ‘Hurrah, what a special course — I played it in 2 hours and didn’t lose a ball!’