Quote Originally Posted by GreenfieldBison View Post
I see ya and generally agree. I don't think length is the only differentiator though. There are numerous things they can do with setup to alter the course challenge. For example I had a friend who was a member of Hazeltine and I played that course once just after the US Open was there. For sure the greens were difficult as they are designed to be. But they weren't like putting on glass like they were for the pros. It was possible to get an approach to stick. Sometimes.

Whatcha think about Donald Ross designs? How about Pinehurst #2? Classic, like Augusta. Tough. And speaking of Augusta those elite players make it look playable. But having been there and seeing those slopes on those greens I can tell you that even if they a metering at 10 or less for the members us mortals would be carding some high scores.

Anyway - to each their own. Pete Dye sure was involved in the design of a whole bunch of courses. I enjoy watching the variety of challenges for these elite players. I doubt they are going to commonly criticize publicly but I think they will for the PGA. I haven't seen anybody calling the course unfair.

The one kind of style I really do dislike is the target course where they don't allow you to see the damn target. Deacon's Lodge in Brainerd comes to mind.
Yeah I’m not a fan of any blind shots. More a fan of straightforward courses. What you see is what you get.

I really like Mike Keiser, the architect behind Bandon Dunes. His philosophy of golf course design is the sentiment I’m trying to convey: let the existing landscape dictate the course layout and make it straightforward. Golf is hard enough as it is, we don’t need gimmicks to make it fun.