This post has got me thinking about an even more difficult problem of the "Modern Age" mentality to the revival of the design and playability of classic courses. I hope to keep this to a reasonable length but here goes.Present preoccupation with par, GIR, gross score and the entire concept of "fairness" is totally incompatibile with many features and concepts of the strategic classics and the artistic freedom of the new renaissance designers. How can these directions and elements be made more compatable? Some answers may be found in the weaknesses of the handicapping systems. It's evident that gross score posting (or adjusted gross score) does not and never will translate well to a match play context. We can also assume that the vast majority of the world plays match play. Let me leave this for a moment and go to design.Do we know of or can we conceive of a course or design that has the tee to green and green complex variety and adaptability to accomodate a 72 hole stroke play tournament without going over the top and at the same time offer a match play setup (64 format) where par etc. is of little consequence or might become of no consideration? Could St.Andrews or Pine Valley offer this? Possibly! This would be the ultimate in adaptability, wouldn't it?Back to handicapping. The technology is here today to offer uniformity, score posting, and data analysis to produce individual handicaps for either form of play. With this handicap flexibility a course that spans the spectrum from a wild and fun match play setup to a non over the top stroke play setup you would have the best of both worlds and a solution to an inherent incompatability. Theoretically, the more varied the course, the more varied the individual handicap might become in either format. It would seem, however, that the variation would always be working in the direction of greater equality.Add in the necessary setup understanding of the course and its adaptability from maintenance, golf and tournament committeesand you would have total elasticity and a solution to the problem of the "damping down" of classic playability. More importantly you would have a green light for the artistic freedom of the "Renaissance" guys to design back to the way golf should be played.The "Golden Age" strategic designers were great at designing for every level of player. Maybe it will be the architects of the next millenium who will design in a solution for the inherent incompatibilty of the two formats-with a little help from the bureaucrats.I might be nuts, but it seems reasonable to me.