“What can be learned from this thread?”
1.In the future, any magazine article espousing Rees Jones to be someone who “works with the land” will be met with harsh criticism from many GCA’ers.
2.Different GCA’ers have different interpretations of what “working with the land” entails. Thus, the relevant question becomes, “Is there anything wrong with imposing your own ‘style’ to a piece of land regardless of what inherent qualities is possesses. By inherent qualities, I mean features that contribute to good golf course architecture, both from a strategic point of view AND an aesthetic one.
3.Different GCA’ers feel different ways about criticisms of golf courses.....whether or not it is in bad taste to speak frankly of one’s work, or whether or not it is the point of discussing these matters in the first place. I.E. Find out about new courses, discriminate between where you should travel to to play and where you should not. Please keep in mind....these two reasons are but a couple of the reasons for the GCA discussion forum, but viable reasons nonetheless.
And lastly, we have learned that when it comes to judging a final golf product, we are quick to place all of the blame for our like, or dislike, of the course on the designer. This subject leaves much to be explored in the future. When we like a golf course we give credit to the golf architect, not to the circumstances of its’ creation. Likewise, when we dislike a golf course we hold the golf architect accountable, not the circumstances of the courses’ creation. Is this fair? Does it matter?