Brent doesn't the architecture have to,take the playing of,the game into account? I'm puzzled as to "the discussion that Ran wants "here on the site . Please help,us understand your dilemma?
I'd really rather not sidetrack this into parsing Ran's recent requests for different discussion practices, in part because I have a feeling I am missing out on just what it is he wants to see done differently.
All I meant was beyond a few obvious precepts that (mostly) we all agree on the things this forum is intended to discuss either don't pertain to me, don't interest me or I don't understand what people are talking about in the first place.
1) I'm all for firm conditions bringing almost any course to life with soft conditions, overwatering, an emphasis on wall-to-wall green and so forth generally being wasteful and counterproductive.
2) I am generally opposed to narrowing playing corridors by the use of long rough in an effort to toughen up a course, as opposed to letting the more interesting features of the course provide interest and challenge.
3) I totally agree that many older courses were laid out in a way intended to maximize enjoyment for the type of game I play. Compact routings, easily walkable, a sense of laying softly across the landscape. And I agree that the vast majority of courses built in the past 20-30 years have jettisoned those attributes and offer little in return.
4) And I certainly agree that not every golf course has to be designed with "shot values" or "resistance to scoring" as prime directives, as measured against the games of elite player.
So when any of these truisms are discussed, my eyes rather glaze over. Is it possible for anyone NOT to have either bought into or rejected these commonplaces by this point in time?
Then there's the stuff that is total outside my interest, experience or reckoning. I won't do a numbered list but disputes over what dead architect actually did or didn't visit what course on what date, parsing the template-ness or not of a given hole relative to CB MacDonald's work and basically anything having to do with (no offense) life in rich-guy clubs with caddies and initiation fees higher than the value of my house.
There is a certain amount of stuff discussed here falling in between those extremes. Which is why I am still a participant. But in all honesty my interests here nowadays fall perilously close to two areas which seem to be considered beneath the dignity of the forum. I am, in fact, guilty of using Golf Club Atlas as my own personal golf-travel planning guide, And I do admit to enjoying a certain amount of off-topic banter with people I've met and played golf with via connections made here (as well as some I've yet to meet and play with but hope to one day soon).
So I'll try to chime in where I can contribute. And to your point, I think one way of doing that is comments that try to "take the playing of,the game into account" from the perspective of an avid weekend golfer with a certain appreciation for the kind of courses that are mainstream here on GCA, if not necessarily elsewhere. Ultimately that's what keeps me around. I'll be darned if I can think of anywhere else in the world with a critical mass of participants who think (at least mostly) the same way I do about golf courses.