Has architecture contributed to the attrition in golf

[Adam Clayman]

Hitting the ball is fun, putting is not.  It would really help if Coore and Crenshaw, Doak and their imitators would quit building such stupidly hard to putt greens.  Isn't if funny how the intellectuals on this site who never putt out think the masses just don't get it, wrongo, they just don't like it.

Kind of like the whinos on skid row and a bottle of Le Feat.

Or, serving some Ricky Red at the USGA dinner.

The masses don't get to play too many of their courses do they?

[Sean_A]

If architecture has contrinuted to attrition then it must also be credited with contributing to record numbers of golfers - its a two way street.  Most archies follow fads rather than set them and for the most part archies just deliver what developers and marketers think will make money.  There is no doubt in my mind that golf would be better off for shorter, wider, less bunkered (less hazards in general) and easier courses.  Many core golfers think this will equal boring, but I disagree.  I am convinced that if archies were left to their own devices many more would come up more interesting and fun courses; the sort that can catch you out if you switch off or don't pay attention.  And I think these sorts of courses would serve potential and core golfers better.

Ciao