Patrick,
Before I begin, since I have no clue how far up my waders the pile will grow before hitting the Submit button, let me apologize in advance for the lack of brevity in my levity.
I don't know Lyne from a bail of hey (twisted colloquialism to confuse the Ashes posters) - and given my belief that men and women ought to have clubs that exclude and provide respite from the opposite sex, I'm going to enter a plea of innocent on the charge of cloying sycophancy to the lone estro-gene in the Treehouse.
However, your assertion regarding the goal of early architects helps my argument for elasticity in the modern era. Classic links and the best early American offerings featured hazards sprinkled here and there in a much more naturalistic manner.
Weaker players tacked their way to the hole, using openings into the putting surface that encouraged the ground game. Thus, everybody enjoyed the game on their level; each swing of the club required some thought and strategy.
Now, the majority of the courses in this country are one-dimensional, repetitious, formulaic buckets of aerial-game dreck. We tend to focus on the elite tier, but 75% of the courses provide little more than an opportunity for fresh air and cart-ercise with a cooler of Budweiser. Fixing all the Nicklaus monstrosities so humanoids can play them is not workable in practical application - or is it impractical consternation . . . . . or tactical constipation?
Whether the course is set up at 4000 yards for women and seniors is completely immaterial if the putting surface is a narrow ribbon of cement, oriented perpendicular to the line of play and balanced precariously atop a vertical monolith.
I've said before that golf is supposed to be 18 different questions, not the same jack-booted interrogation over and over again - followed by a bitch slap and a string of snowmen on the card.
Given the need to expand our demographic (read: generate some jing), it makes sense to rethink our rigidity. Classical chess is still the most popular, but switching things up with alternative setups can spice things up. Doin' the doggie still counts as gettin' some trim, capice? We already play different formats, why not with alternative pellets?
Think of the golf course as a card table. Most of the time, you shuffle a standard deck and play your usual game. What is wrong with busting out the pinochle cards - or even something really kinky like Tarot? Gunners play with a Cayman today, Gib and Patrick with a Pro-V and Bill McBride the Wham-O.
Everybody seems to worry about handicaps and competitions, but the truth is 90% of the golf played every day is a group of friends on their local mud hole. I'm not suggesting we dismantle the game, just that we give everybody some different amusements. Play with three different balls and one course magically becomes three layouts.
The impetus for this thread really does stem from my caddy days - but also my disgust at watching elderly players try to get around hateful obstacle courses designed by arrogant pricks trying to humiliate the people who pay the freight for their obscene design fees.
David Fay once confessed to me over dinner that golf was his 4th favorite sport, after indoor tennis, baseball and basketball - and that he likes golf, but does not really love it. It makes me wonder why. BTW, the stories about Rees Jones and me that night are 50% gross exaggeration and 50% outright bullshit.
P.S. Tom, if I ever get clear of these criminals chasing me in court, I'll cough up the dough for a prototype, but not made in China. The Lady Precept and Laddie were both made in Japan and given the advanced age of their population, it might be a fine starting point.