The question I keep returning to is: Ought a great (tournament) course to necessarily test ALL parts of a player's game? Or ought the course to decide for itself which skills are tested, and in what proportion?
Is Pinehurst #2 a less complete test, and therefore less capable of identifying the "best" players, because one can always putt from off the green, and therefore avoid chipping for 72 holes if desired? Or is it okay that chipping simply isn't required in that week's examination? Could the same be asked of Harbour Town in not testing a player's ability in uphill, downhill, or sidehill golf? And most commonly these days, is it okay if driving accuracy just isn't an important part of that week's test? Or does that actually make it a worse test?
Last week, Brian Harman played amazingly, AND his skills were an excellent match for that particular course. As well as he played, he might not have won at Augusta. But I think that's good, as opposed to being an indictment of one or the other. My hunch is that it's better if some courses require different skill sets, or at least in different proportions. In tennis, the very greatest players are those who win on grass, clay, and hardcourt, where skills are valued in different proportions. I think having something similar in golf is good.
Of course, the silly reply is that based on identifying Tiger as the best player, Bay Hill and Torrey Pines must be incredible courses, while Riviera must be no good at all!