[Rich Goodale]

TEP/Peter -

I'm making three empirical claims.

- The everyday golfer's idea of what makes for a good golf course is - in the majority of cases - much closer to traditionally understood "penal" theories of design than to "strtategc" theories of design.

- There have been architects over the decades whose ideas are more representative of such views of the everyday golfer than the views of the more famous strategic architects.

- It is is the strategic architects (and their sympathizers), however, who have written most of the literature of gca.

- With the ironical result that the most widely held views about gca (and the minority of architects that shared those views) get shunted into footnotes and sidebars in most histories of gca.

To totally wrap this up, I did not go to Woodstock, but two of my roomates did. They thought it was a waste of time, except there were lots of free drugs. So Woodstock had that going for it.

Bob   

Bob

What drugs were you on when you counted up your "three" claims?

[BCrosby]

It's a Woodstock/Hendrix/Winwood delayed fuse thing. You never know when the summer of '70 will go off in your head again.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Good summation. That's what I thought you meant.

Richard:

Don't worry about his three empirical points equaling four. These people from Harvard are very smart you know and they know stuff about mathematics that stump-heads like us can't visualize.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()