I want to dig into Jeff's post a little deeper...
Isn't there a cost in sustainability in an 80 yard deep green?
Construction, inputs, mowing?
Of course, as I mentioned on some recent thread. Most supers on a budget will push for greens up to about 6500, but no larger, i.e., the best compromise between enough cup space and no extra mowing and chemical inputs. There might be cases where, because of shade or other natural condition, a larger green would be required to spread wear. However, I find it is hard for greens to be "a little pregnant" under environmental stress - either they get the sun and breeze they need, or massive turf death comes pretty quickly, despite spoon feeding.
Some courses decide they can afford an unusual "conversation piece" green, others don't.
I think this is the crucial issue that separates, say, Tom Doak's thoughts on the 4th at PC(D) vs mine. For me, it's on the very short list of the most exciting par 3s I've played.
Tom, on the other hand, says he would check himself into rehab if he built that green. I've played Crystal Downs, and I've played a half-dozen or so of Tom's own designs. I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think his complaint is that the green has a lot of complexity and contour. I think his qualms with it are likely informed by his awareness of the cost ramifications involved in having such an enormous putting surface. If everyone who played the hole reacted like I did, then this "conversation piece" green would probably be worthwhile - something unique and special that brings players back to a remote and expensive golf resort. But clearly not everyone reacts like I did... do enough people love a hole like this to make its bottom-line impact a positive one?
In that sense, it's a microcosm for the entire course. PC(D) is probably the BIGGEST course I've played - tons of short grass, tons of options, tons of variability. Its bigness makes it memorable and exciting, but also raises the cost of maintenance. I know nothing of Prairie Club's finances and won't speculate. But if a course's coolest features also make it financially unsustainable, that surely indicts the design itself on some level. Or does it?
But back to design, I got to wondering what the strategic options were, other than length and club selection? And, if only club selection, does a green that might vary by 7 clubs really make the strategic element of club selection any better or worse, or even any more fun? Of course, a missed clubbing can result in a 70 yard putt, different than a equal length chip. I think such a green would be enhanced if, for instance, part of it was an elevated plateau, with another part being a punch bowl, even Redan, or a cross slope or some other unique feature so they play differently at each pin position, not just at a distance difference.
I THINK this is why I like the 4th at PC(D) over the 4th at Sweetens Cove. At PC(D), I've experienced firsthand that playing away from the pin and using green contours to feed the ball close can work. And from what I've seen, there are ways to use the slopes to access multiple pin locations. The result is the rare strategic par 3, where playing wisely away from the pin can build in some margin for error while still delivering good birdie looks.
4 at Sweetens might offer the same options, but the lack of visibility from the tee makes them harder to see and consider. With more plays, I might eventually figure out how to feed a ball to different pins. But currently, I feel like my best play is to aim for the target and try to hit it. It's still a cool and memorable target and a hole that I enjoy, but it's not quite as suspenseful or attention-grabbing for me.