Ally
Not wanting to argue with you but I feel I must make a point regards your first paragraph re your reply #13 (had to be 13), you said
The Golden age architects had it easy - They had great sites, few planning restrictions and no need to conform to big business and the modern day idea of what a golf course should look like... They had a blank canvas... But they had to generate the ideas... and the artistry of the best of them shows through - They were the pioneers.
I agree with the great sites, planning, big business, modern ideas, blank canvas, but I must question the generation of ideas and pioneers. My reason being that they utilised may of the earlier ideas, perhaps reshaped them but they used the already established concepts which in my book does not make them pioneers. All the fundamental work had been done before the turn of the 20th Century. Standardisation of the size of a course (in holes 9 or 18), designing a course to work with the clubs and ball of the day, the forming of separate Tees, a sizable list of tried hazards, quality and development of the Greens, yet on the whole all this was done on a shoestring pre 1900. I accept some great courses were designed and constructed but from previous ideas. The great advantage was the explosion of golf worldwide in the early 20th Century, which attracted money thus making many inland sites available, remembering that many Links courses in the 19th Century were for the most part unused section of land use mainly for sheep until rented for a golf course. Usually the landowner or farmer was involved in the club so leased the property at affordable rates to the clubs.
As for pioneers, no they just took over the baton from the real pioneers, who set the standards in the 19th Century.
As for criticising designers, I feel that’s unfair as we have not been part and parcel of the design brief. We do not know the clients brief, budget or intentions. Using the old saying ‘one man’s meat is another’s poison, hence my dislike for ranking or rating courses. Nevertheless, I feel we have every right to show our concerns if we see pointless decorative features or faking for the sake of aging the site. They are costly add-on that do nothing for the enjoyment of the game itself.
I sometimes wonder if the designers actually learning from new or old ideas, are they spending time understanding, and not just criticising some designs because they feel the modern golfer wants this feeling of mass produced uniform on Tees and Greens, also set to a specific colour of Green. Hence my comment about Askernish and are our designers interested in learning what they have done or are they just going out there to suggest modification that they consider golfers will accept. A designer may have a wealth of information and knowledge on his/her subject but they never stopped learning (well the good one that is).
Melvyn