Bob, Dave - yes, probably a topic for another time. But for me one of much interest, and relevance. I add nothing to this website or to the vast majority of threads here, and never have. But of this I’m convinced, and it’s very probably the only thing I have in common with the Lows and Behrs of the world: golf architecture ‘means something’ — something certainly more than simply an art-craft or merely a vehicle to support a game. It represents and reflects an ethos, and an ‘Age’. And while I don’t have a name for it, we’re just as much part of our ‘Age’ as Low was part of his, the Edwardian Age. The difference: Low seemed to *know* that it all meant something, and so treated it not as we often do here — ie as yet another opportunity to compile yet another laundry list of essentially meaningless ‘data’, eg the best Par 4 sandwiched between a long Par 3 and a short Par 5, built before 1940 but after 1930, and east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line — but seriously, as having both its own self-contained value system and a dialectical relationship with the Age as a whole.
Do you want to know what kind of Age we’re living in, and our ethos and some of what’s important to us? Tell me about the American courses that have won the most praise and topped the ‘best of’ lists over the last 15 years — where they are, what they charge, who they are marketed to, what they look like, how many acres they encompass, what kind of golf they provide and demand — and I think we’ll have at least one ‘image’ of who we are, both as people and as golfers.
And then use *that* as a starting point for discussions on 'quality golf course architecture' and what makes for a 'great course' and maybe at least a few posters here -- including you two Harvard boys -- will be able to contribute, just like Low did, some thoughts/ideas of genuine & lasting value to this marvelous art-craft and this wonderful game.
Peter