Jason,
I was thinking about the "minimum standard" and how architects express that standard in their designs.
The first hole that came to mind was the 4th hole at Baltusrol, then, the 18th hole at GCGC, then the 13th and 14th at NGLA, then the 12th at ANGC, along with # 15 and # 16 at ANGC. Followed by the 2nd, 7lth, 11th and 14th at Seminole. The 14th, 15th and 18th at Pine Valley also sprang to mind. Then, the 1st and 9th at Yale came to mind. Then the 10th and 11th at The Creek.
The list goes on and on and on.
Perfect examples where architects incorporated a "minimum standard" into their designs.
So, how would those women, or any man, who couldn't make a 66 yard carry from an elevated tee fare on those holes ?
How would the architects who crafted those holes, AWT, Emmet/Travis, CBM, AM, Ross and Crump feel about the plight of golfers who couldn't carry their drives 66 yards from an elevated tee ?
I think those architects didn't give a rats ass.
Those architects absolutely understood the "minimum standard" and incorporated it into their designs as manifested in the holes I cited and many others.
Steve advocates for NO "minimum standard" as it might disenfranchise anyone who wants to play golf, irrespective of their lack of ability. The lunacy of his position is it's ultimate influence on all architecture...... architecture absent challenge.
Fortunately, Donald Ross, Tillinghast, MacDonald, Raynor, Travis, Emmet, MacKenzie, Crump and many, many others believed in a "minimum standard" and incorporated it into their designs.
They "get it", unfortunately, Steve doesn't.