Thank you, Ben.
Such a big subject this is - e.g. what we think of Vardon's ideas now as oppossed to what people thought of them back then; who he was writing for, and who was against him etc. I'm not equipped to handle the subject, but if you don't mind some random thoughts:
First, I tried to keep in mind that Vardon obviously knew very well how to play the British links courses, and what they demanded of a player, and that he was describing was what he thought necessary in order 're-create' that same experience given the new technology
Second, I was struck by the rationale he offers for the kind of course he is describing, one that I don't think I've ever read before, i.e. that the architecture of a course plays a big role in how a golfer develops over time, in how and whether/not his skills are made to improve because of what the course asks of him, and that the kind of course he's advocating would be ideal in helping golfers get better. I thought that was neat.
Third, I was surprised at how nuanced and well-articulated his arguments were. I think as Bob C often points out in these kinds of threads, my notions about the black-and-white nature of the debates back then (let's call them between penal and strategic architecture) are flat out wrong -- the only thing that's black and white is my modern day thinking about the debates back then. I was also a bit surprised how early the idea of architecture as architecture was being discussed, especially coming from a 'working-man' like Vardon. (I'm not saying I should've been surprised, just that I was).
Finally, just a wonderful line, when he's writing about a long Par 5. "I would put the first cross-bunker about 360 yards from the tee. If he could drve into that, he would be a martyr to his own greatness and the dryness of the ground".
Yup, just call me "Peter P - A Martyr to his Greatness"
Thanks again
Peter P - A M T H G