I have been working on a theory on why Golden Age Architects and those operating today have achieved a higher reputation than those who plied the trade between the Great Depression and the 1980s that I would like to share, unfinished as it is, in the hope some of the experts here can throw some rocks at it and see if it falls over.
The Golden Age Designers had a wave of enthusiasm and the attached wallets of very wealthy people to drive new designs along. Perhaps most crucially, they had access to some of the best land in the world close to growing population centres upon which to build golf courses and, lastly, much less riguorous – if any – environmental responsibilities or restrictions.
In short, they had the pure opportunity to let the land speak and build holes as the land demanded they be built. Par-72-with-two-returning-nine-hole-loop syndrome was not yet set in many minds as not just desirable, but perhaps not-negotiable, and the ideas from the early courses that provided the building blocks of golf course architecture were still fresh and, to many golfers, unseen.
Then comes the stockmarket crash and the ensuing restrictions on expenditure. Much of the good land is gone by this stage, either used already for golf or else developed for residential or commercial use.
My theory is that the designs we commonly associate from these decades were forced significantly by the land available for golf course construction. Where new, previously uninhabited, areas gave way to urban sprawl, the best land was not easily snapped up by golf course developers.
Tentatively, I put it that if transplanted into the 1940s or 50s Colt, MacKenzie or Doak would not have found the critical acclaim they and their creations enjoy.
With many great golf courses already operating from the Golden Age, the upper echelons had their playgrounds, and as far as I can see, a great deal of the courses being built were for the ordinary people. As such, they were basic designs that could be built cheaply on whatever land was spared for the purpose.
Also, while Dark Age designers are often accused of moving too much dirt "because they could", I propose that it was necessity as much as desire that saw the earth transformed so greatly.
Fast forward to today and the world is a very different beast. While many of the restrictions faced in the 1940s and 50s remain - and on the issue of environment are undoubtedly much more major, the possibilities are also greater - chief among them the greater ease and affordability of long distance travel.
The Bandon courses, Ballyneal and Sand Hills, Barnbougle Dunes, Cape Kidnappers and Kauri Cliffs, possibly even Machrihanish Dunes, and Castle Stuart could not have been built in any age prior to the one we live in.
I think it is significant that most great new courses of the past decade are located in far-flung locations.
Of course the land was there since before golf became popular, but the concept of building courses so far from a large population centres was unthinkable.
While some of those courses saw their development restricted in many ways like never before (Machrihanish Dunes being a good case in point) the ability for a mass market of golfers to travel long distances quickly and cheaply, while earning salaries that allow $200 and $300 green fees to be justified, made these previously untenable projects possible.
Never before have so many had so much to spend on non-essentials.
It is often said in sports that “the greats would have been great in any era”. Indeed, it is true of most fields of human endeavour, and I don’t suggest the architects who have shone in the two Golden Ages owe their success and acclaim to circumstance, there were/are enough dud golf courses built before 1930 and being built now to confirm that, but no other times have allowed such freedom for golf course architects, albeit in very different ways.
As I said, I feel my theory still has some way to come, and – positive or negative – I would be interested to hear what you think of it.