Courtesy: St. Andrew's Golf Vacations

Dean Barnett wrote it but it was on Jeffrey Prest's fine site that I stumbled upon it: an article about the state of golf course architecture today that pulls no punches.

Jeffrey's blog is all about course architecture from the recreational player's point of view; I think it's fair to say that.

So his post of Barnett's work taken from the Weekly Standard in the U.S. is timely.

I'm still a neophyte when it comes to assessing a course's design. I'm usually too busy getting out of the trees to see the forest. But I'm starting to piece together the ideas that shape courses and my appreciation of a good design is beginning to grow.

As such, I still cling to some old "givens" like "any course by Jack Nicklaus is a solid design because Nicklaus is regarded as a good designer". According to Barnett, that's not the case at all.

I don't agree or disagree with Barnett; I have only walked one Nicklaus course in my time - Glen Abbey, just west of Toronto which was the home of the Canadian Open for many years (and will be again for the next two years).

If one result of a good design is that low numbers are rare, then Glen Abbey fails the test. But, so does St. Andrew's where double digit red numbers have been seen in many an Open held there. And St. Andrew's is still regarded as one of the finest tests of golf.

The argument of what makes a good design is akin to what makes a good automobile - some like a big, soft ride where comfort is more important than handling; others want something much sportier and fun to drive.

There are days where either one suits me. But, as I say, I'm still learning how to drive. Having said that, Barnett's article does provoke thought.