Good morning Tom;
Thanks for starting what I hope remains a positive topic on GolfClubAtlas. As you have mentioned, this is a terrific website, which although occas-
sionally producing conversation which is a bit heavy on uninformed opinions; is always a source of much solid information for those who are newly exposed to the site.
As you mention, I struggle a bit with typing, but a shortage of time is
the real dilema. As an example in my letter to you last night, there were couple of typo's, one being, " I pladged, (pledged), myself to learn more and do what I could to take care of the great old courses which were in such serious design, (decline ).
I'll try to clarify a few points raised by several of your members so that they understand a bit more clearly the purpose of my late night contact with you:
First of all, I am not discussing penal vs. strategic. On the great old courses, some of which I am honored to work on, they are all of an era and calibur where the architect provided optionaal routes of play. What I have too often experienced is resistance from men and women who know little and consequently care little about such facts. By the way, how many people who get into this discussion regarding various approaches to design, ever recognize that The Old Course, considered the foundation of strategic architecture is laced with penal hazzards.
Second thought. - I fully understand and appreciate the writings and comments of Mackenzie and Tillinghast. What they say, as quoted in this forum, was on the mark, but remember; it preceded the emergence of "The American Game" and the resultant perception of golf which is fixed in the minds of too many/most American golfers.
Third -- In reading Mark Fine's post regarding my meaning of "enjoyment". This was stated in the initial post. Again; "Unfortunately American golfers equate enjoyment with minimal challenge, no equitable penalty for their misplayed shots, and low scores". (Now, I don't mean all American golfers, but I will tell you this reflects the feel-
ings of far far to many).
And Mark, when it comes to the turfing of bunker faces. I never run the turf all the way to the bottom of the greenside face. Nor do I build flat bunkers. I do understand that starting early in the 1900s some architects began to explore modest flashing of sand on bunker faces. For the most part however; this was done for visibility, (which they felt was preferable); and it was not an effort to create a contrasting style.
Fourth - Tom Macwood
The Formulaic Rossification of his golf courses is always to be avoided. Anyone who seriously studies his work, would recognize from visiting his courses, and reading his "field sketches", he occassionally suggested running sand up the faces of his bunkers, and of course there is the example of Rhode Island Country Club where he suggested and built sand topped mounding as a hazzard.
A full study of Ross reveals there was no absolute set of rules which bound his work. There were indeed tendencies, and I believe those of us who are involved in the restoration of his work, or the work of any of the other master archi-
tects must carefully study all available records and information before we embark on the work.
Some day when I have more time, we can get into this entire topic a bit deeper.
Thanks Tom, I must go to work, will check in later. Say hello from me to Wayne;
All the best,
Ron