Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.
Patrick,I had a similar thought to VK - didn't the depression and WWII limit the amount of new work even possible in the 30s and early 40s? Not to he extent that AWT only had two original design projects in 12 years between 1930 and 1942.I cited the production of some of his contemporaries in that same period.Raynor had 6 in two yearsAlso, as his business manager I hope you can go back and advise him to short the market in mid 1929! I wasn't aware of his personal history but he is clearly far from the only person to lose a lot of money on investments in that era.But setting that aside, of course the world be a better place with another AWT course in it.My point is that if you, say, doubled the amount of courses AWT did, we might get another gem or two, but I bet the level of quality would have to drop off at some point and the average AWT course would not be as great. Why do you think that ?If you cut the number of his courses in half do you think the quality would improve dramatically.I see no reason why an increase in production would cause a dilution in the quality of his workPerhaps one of the appeals of, say CBM or MacKenzie courses is that there aren't that many of them?I don't know if that's an "appeal".I would think that the golf world would be better if there were more MacKenzie and AWT courses.I think I remember reading somewhere that a lot of great courses, especially from that era, were their architect's first, or one of first, designs (PV, NGLA and Merion come to mind). Sometimes, creativity and passion are highest at the beginning of one's career.NGLA was not CBM's first course and the design of Merion and Pine Valley remain open to debate in terms of who the actual architects of record should be.The chronology of AWT's courses dispel that theory, ditto MacKenzieSean,If you object to Ran publishing the list of contributors you should certainly make you feelings known by emailing him.I merely QUOTED the published list that appears in the "contributions" section.Anyone can view that section just like anyone can view the "discussion group" the "course by country" section.Why you or anyone else objects to quoting a list that appears in another section is a puzzle to me.Are we now not allowed to "quote" anything, especially anything that Ran writes ?Did I struck a nerve , a sore point.Maybe more people should contribute, especially those that are prone to use the site and post.Nothing wrong with raising awareness and getting more contributions, is there ?The site seems to be populated by more whiners and fewer contributors these days
