Sean
I was not going to respond as I feel we are drifting away from my original post but as certain people have some difficulty with my opinions I will try and clarify the situation.
Some are questioning my views on Natural and how I can justify my feeling, its quite simple, I prefer natural and harmonious courses to man made manicured showpieces looking like a picture postcard yet stand out against the natural environment. Nothing more than that, nothing sinister, just my preference.
As for quirky, I don’t see a course with a stone wall or road running by the side odd, strange or new, so certainly do not see anything quirky. As most of these course are over 100 years old they in the main were constructed (note I use the word constructed and not suddenly appeared out of the blue – or should I say Nature because some guy with a ball and club thought he saw a course in a corner of a far off field) and where these hazards and others were used. Just because the modern golfer no longer likes blind holes (wonder why – but that another story), turf dykes etc, so modern designers very seldom include them in their designs. But that does not give the right to call these old and time tested features quirky. Ok so the course(s) you normally play do not have them, but the ones I play do, they have been there from nearly the start of time itself, so please excuse me if I do not consider these as quirky.
As for Sod or riveted bunkers. These where introduced as a maintenance addition to help retain the structure of the bunkers. The material used and the way it is put down reminds me of the fragmented layered rock found expose at sea sides as well as all over the world, it looks natural, far better than a solid expanse of concrete. Don’t agree fine, don’t follow the analogy, well I’m just saying it looks like this type of rock formation, that’s natural and I‘m OK with that.
The problem is not Nature or Natural, it’s the way others perceive my comments. Their game is different to they way I was taught, the original way it was played in the 19th Century I suppose, so apparently by labelling me as an old traditionalist my game and my opinions can be sidelined, criticised and ultimately dismissed as not appropriate in the way OTHERS play today. Right or wrong, but they belittle their own argument by bring up Hickory Clubs, Feathery or Gutta-Percha balls, etc. Technology is not the enemy of golf, far from it but it should be used to maintain the status quo not keep trying to redefine it. Clubs and balls can be designed to offer the distance and characteristics of the Gutta-Percha/Haskell ball or the Hickory Shafted clubs, but that is not what modern golfers want – lets all be honest, we all want gain without pain, an easier life, to expend less energy and effort, so we all look for what we consider a shortcut, be it club/ball, distance information plus the cart to just make our lives that little bit easier. The best example of that are distance/mark/electronic aids, we become to attached to them that without them our game suffers, that’s what many have posted on this site alone, yet play without them for a month and the inbuilt human ability to judge distance reappears. As for carts – as I have always said they should only be use by those who need them. As for climate conditions, Yes they can be used for this purpose, but I question the sanity of building a course in an environment not fit or land not fit for purpose. I want to swim on the moon, but quite frankly it’s just not practicable, but with enough money I expect I could achieve my wish. A daft analogy perhaps but that how I consider building course in inappropriate places.
From my memory most of the courses in North American were introduced by guys from Scotland, who learnt to play the game in Scotland, but the game today is now different on the North American continent. Why because it was changed, who moved away and why, well that’s for another post or new topic, but changed it was. I certainly voice my concerns, I am certain that what seems like good courses are scared with cart tracks, the obsession of distance information is actually hurting the golfer (his/her performance is reduced when no distance aids are allowed/used).
I regret to say that I see not advantage, in fact it would appear to my humble self that the Scottish game still has more to offer the Golfer, but then perhaps I would say that, after all there is only one game that was exported from Scotland and it can still be found in the Glens and heartland of our small great country.