Big B,
I play at Moselem Springs Golf Club in Fleetwood, Pa.
Jim,
It seems in addition to architects being to blame for designs that have ruined the game and the business and limited the access to courses by the average golfer, management companies have been fingered as a big part of the problem as well. At some point in the process the owner ponders just how he or she is going to manage and operate the facility. Now, it seems easy to name the architects that can design interesting course that have strategic value, can be built at a reasonable cost, and can be played by most golfers and provide enjoyment. Who is doing the same from the management level? What model of management is more likely to be compatible to the virtues espoused in that first paragraph?
"Imagine a scenario in which a family goes to the neighrborhood layout for a friendly game, shares a few laughs and gets some exercise...Shotmaking is an artform. Courses fit into their native environment. And a round can be played in three hours because the designs are not built around a power game."
I have been to middle to low end facilities and there definately is a difference in the feeling you get from the employees, and the atmosphere of the place when it is privately managed versus managed by a large management company. Is this a factor in the stagnation of golf rounds, a minor one or a major one.
I am more concerned about that at this point rather than dissecting the meaning of shotmaking as an artform, and the role of our great grandfathers.