This has been a very strange thread. I agree with Rich:
PS--great starting post, Jim. I hope as I wade forward the rest of the field will start trying to think about and carry on a conversation about what you said, but my hopes are not high.... 
As for the "is it really golf" debate, I think I understand the passion of the posts on both sides, but in the end it is purely a definitional debate, isn't it? More importantly,
it has taken the conversation away from a discussion of the impact all this has on golf architecture. Not that the definitional debate isn't important, but on a website about golf architecture and in response to a thoughtful post by an architect, it seems that should be our focus, no matter the names we prefer for each of the two schools.
In the hopes of doing so . . .
A.G. Crockett wrote the following:
Engh stated his points clearly and correctly, and those have been expounded and expanded upon long since by others.
I disagree that Mr. Engh's points have been expounded and expanded upon long since. There have been many tangents and some accusations and name calling, but I must have missed the discussion part. Also, it is tough to discuss his post because it seems that a few posters don't want anyone else to challenge or even discuss Mr. Engh's post. If we are willing to challenge and discuss every other designers' views, I am not sure why Mr. Engh should be exempted?
A.G. then provides a useful list of what he got out of Mr. Engh's post. I tried to do the same thing above, only in a bit more detail. Some of A.G.'s points are worth considering, whether he thinks so or not.
a. there are courses that are simply better if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrainThis really gets to the heart of the matter.
-- Is entirely accurate to say "if they are less walkable, unfortunately, due to the available terrain? Isn't it the designer's choice as to how to use that terrain that determines the relative walkability?
-- Why is this "unfortunate," if the course ends up the better for it? Maybe I have misunderstood, but it sure seems like Mr. Engh has turned these supposedly difficult sites toward his advantage and treats them as
huge assets. These moderate and difficult sites give him the opportunity to build spectacular, inspiring, and powerful golf holes, don't they? So what is unfortunate about this?
- But from my perspective, the real crux is whether or not this approach produces better golf holes, and more importantly, better golf
courses. I have my doubts, but I am curous what others think.
b. that most golfers in 2009 don't especially want to walk anyway (with many of the 1500 on this site as notable exceptions, IMO.)I think this is true in this country at least, But I am not so sure it is as simple as all this.
- As I indicated above, I suspect that building a course for walkers might just produce better golf courses, whether anyone walks them or not.
- I am not sure this is the total percentage of cart riders is the most relevant question. Shouldn't we be wondering about things like who is more likely to be an avid golfer? Who is more likely to stick with the game for a lifetime? As the percentage of cart riders grows, isn't the number of golfers shrinking?
- In other words, shouldn't we be wondering about the long term impact the proliferation of cart courses may have on the game of golf? Does it make golf more sustainable or less? Do these courses take even longer to play? Do they bring people into the game who truly care about the game of golf and who will care about the values that supposedly are part of it? Etc.
c. that there are golfers who, though willing, are unable to walk for one reason or another but still love the gameNo doubt, but I think we are confusing issues here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that architects should only build courses if they will
prohibit riding. These riders can still ride at the vast majority of courses built for walking, but cart ball golf pushes walkers out of the game, at least at these courses.
d. that developers and housing often drive routing, rather than architecture alone
e. that there is a market system at work in the golf business, rather than simply "the game"
f. that architects are responsible to the person(s) paying them, rather than to someone's notion of the purity of the game.All these individually have merit, but for me it makes sense to look at them as what Mr. Engh called something like the
realities of the profession in an older post. I agree that these guys are running businesses and have the responsibilities and duties that go with it. And judging by Mr. Engh's success and the success of some others, they obviously know better than I do what works in their particular business model. That being said . . .
-- What is good for a real estate developer is not necessarily good for golf. What is good for Jim Engh's or Jeff Brauer's or Tom Doak's client won't necessarily produce the best golf courses. Likewise with each of these designer's business plans.
-- I think it is worth pointing out that your examples only become realities once the designer takes a job. Apparently some designers seem to have at least some control over they type of work they get and take, don't they? So I don't think it is quite accurate for us to say,
"don't look at them, they are just doing their job."-- Most importantly and directly, their business plans are really none of my business, on more levels than one. Why certain courses got built is interesting, but ultimately it is the course that matters.