Upon further review...

[Ted Sturges]

As we all evolve in our study of and appreciation of golf architecture, I think it is interesting to consider and reconsider courses that we might have played decades ago in light of our potentially enhanced eye for what is good architecture-wise.  Have you ever gone back to a course you played long ago and thought..."wow, this place is REALLY good"?  Perhaps your taste and knowledge of golf architecture had evolved in the years since your last visit to that course.

Can you provide examples of a course where you had this type of experience and how long it had been since your previous visit?

TS

[Andrew Buck]

As we all evolve in our study of and appreciation of golf architecture, I think it is interesting to consider and reconsider courses that we might have played decades ago in light of our potentially enhanced eye for what is good architecture-wise.  Have you ever gone back to a course you played long ago and thought..."wow, this place is REALLY good"?  Perhaps your taste and knowledge of golf architecture had evolved in the years since your last visit to that course.

Can you provide examples of a course where you had this type of experience and how long it had been since your previous visit?

TS

This site has really increased my appreciation of the greens at my home club, particularly on our newer 9.  The irony is they were member/superintendent designed in 1985, but they really force you to hit the right portion of the green, and reward approaching from the right angle.  I have to give them a ton of credit for the way they turned out.

Too bad the same 9 was also overpopulated with tree plantings about that time that was excessive with 30 years hindsight.  Not as excessive as some, but excessive none the less.