tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8444496398580358211.post5267151998564628165..comments2024-03-09T00:08:51.233-05:00Comments on Jeff Mingay: On Golf Architecture: The difference between a hockey rink and a golf course.Jeff Mingayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10286143760512003009noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8444496398580358211.post-72357198254966987932017-02-22T08:19:15.583-05:002017-02-22T08:19:15.583-05:00coolcoolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8444496398580358211.post-30547099712103362412012-01-27T00:52:51.269-05:002012-01-27T00:52:51.269-05:00True enough Jeff. Even when I was a kid and didn&#...True enough Jeff. Even when I was a kid and didn't know the first thing about architecture (I know about three things now) the most enjoyable courses always seemed to be the Par 69s or 70s that didn't have a Par 5, or had two in a row, or three in the space of five holes - basically courses that didn't seek to adhere to a 10 Par 4/4 Par 5/4 Par 3 36+36=72 'standard', but were just beautiful, fun and entertaining regardless of their configuration...unconventional certainly compared with most of today's tracks. Fair enough, much of the great land is gone and sites like St Enodoc, West Sussex, Maidstone, etc. don't come along very often. So a little license with the terrain, and some assertiveness with a dozer is perhaps acceptable. But still, the 7,200-yard signature course with six water hazards; USGA specification greens; large, shallow bunkers; and big square tees is so very very boring. I watched some of the coverage from Abu Dhabi last night. I haven't played the course so probably shouldn't comment, but to me it looks beyond bland.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com