Over the past two days, I have seen what I believe is the future of golf course architecture, and it's somewhat troubling to those of us who feel that some sort of consistency has been one of the strengths of the game over the decades.  Whether we're talking rules, equipment, individual competitiveness, or what one's idea of a golf course is, it seems to me now that prior decades have had a much more narrow spectrum in each of these areas.

But what I saw the past two days was startling, on two brand-new courses within five miles of each other, the first private and the second public.

The first course was the ultimate in minimalism and playability.  Most of the challenge was rather subtle, not much land was moved, playing corridors were rather wide, greeen sizes were generous, yardage was reasonable, short even, there was NO use of water hazards, and although the bunkers looked dangerous, they were mostly reasonable in depth and severity.  

I predict that many will even call the course boring, although it's likely that they won't play as well as they think they should due to little nuances that conspire against scoring.  From a visual standpoint, there is little in the way of psychological intimidation, and the course is an enjoyable member's course.

The second course, the public one, was designed by a golf course architect who has written articles bemoaning the technological changes in the game and what that has done to make the game "too easy".  

The course, believe it or not (especially Pat Mucci ), is the MOST PENAL golf course I have ever seen, and makes Pine Valley seem almost tame in comparison.

Almost every hole featured SEVERE penalties for any misplayed shot, whether deep bunkering, sharp slopes, narrow playing corridors, water hazards, forced carries, knee deep fescue roughs, inpenetrable woods, daunting length, forced carries, and all of the above at once.

Even the target areas, the fairways and greens, were severely contoured.

It occurred to me that this is the logical split in the game as we start the 21st century.  One group of architects is moving in the direction of trying to restore "fun" and naturalness to the game, irrespective of how well anyone scores, while the other group reacts to the changes in the game by bringing us something that is eye-poppingly visually spectacular and tough as bricks.  Since the very nature of "par" has changed, this group seems to have determined that the only defense is to throw everything including the kitchen sink into their designs.  I call this group's courses "X-golf", as in "extreme golf".  Expect to see more of it.  

I played both of these courses with Matt Ward and BillV, so perhaps they will weigh in as well, lest anyone doubt my descriptions of either course.

Did I miss something?

Where did you play and who designed the courses?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I don't know if I can understand your post unless I have some idea about where these courses are.

I'd applaud the split.

For many years architecture in America was one dimensional. The idea was to build tough, fair courses. The types of courses that would make the PGA Tour® players happy. This led to the runway tees, elevated tees, straight line fairways, consistent hazards, consistent rough, soft conditions and flat greens.

This left those of us who like a different sort of game with the option of trying to play older, classic courses that haven't been renovated or trips to the old country. We weren't getting courses built that matched what we like. This changed within the last few years.  Now there are courses being built such as Bandon and Pacific Dunes, Stevenson Ranch and Rustic Canyon, and the first course that you played. These developers and architect now understand that there is this niche market, willing to travel and spend money to play the kind of natural, minimalistic courses many of us love.

We are never going to control the market. Tour golf will remain the more popular version. But we have become influential enough to get our way on a small percentage of new courses.  

Viva la split.

"The old style courses were designed to make a player hit a variety of shots -- high, low, draw, fade, bump and run, floating chips. Now with a lot of the new courses, our only choice is to hit it high and soft."
 --Corey Pavin

There might be a blip on the radar screen though of more than just a "split in two".

Near the end of so-called "Golden Age" which generally culminated in the end of the 1920s and faded into the depression, a few of the architects of that era, some of whom had done some of the best architecture ever seen, actually wrote about their hopes and dreams for the future of architecture.

They hoped, and may have even believed that with the aid of advancing technology and probably machinery too that architecture could be taken to a new and more creative level where the architecture of a golf course might almost totally blend into nature somehow and make the work of an architect and possibly even the golf course itself almost indistinguishable from it!

I wish they'd written just a bit more about what they meant by that. But even if they had would it be impracticable or almost impossible--just something that was only meant to remain a dream, in other words?

I don't think so altogether--I think some very creative architect will try to fullfil their dream somehow.

It might begin just with a breakthrough course, the kind of thing that has always emerged in the past to set the stage for a new direction.

If I was asked to visualize it now I would say it might take a particular site--mostly open, complete randomness of features, at least a visual melding together of golf holes, one helluva large mowing tab, probably a new meaning of the expectation of penalty.

It will probably happen one of these days and if it does, like in the past in breakthroughs in architecture, its impact will be huge.

But where it goes from there will be interesting. I'm hoping like some of the breakthroughs in the past in architecture that it will work well and that it will create a whole new direction!

Difference is good and maybe difference should be a lot more than just a "split in two".

Guys,

Stop beating around the bush.

Fill in the missing blanks.

P.S.  One PENAL course makes a wave/trend ??  

Mike / BillV:

If you guys are OK let's put the names of the courses out there and let the discussion begin. I'm game -- how about the both of you?

P.S. The comments echoed by Mike and Bill are, in my mind, very much on target and I'm sure will generate a good bit of attention. I will certainly add my comments and a detailed description of each hole from both courses.

The two courses listed by BillV are the ones in question. I' am providing a detailed hole-by-hole analysis of Hidden Creek and will offer the same for Shore Gate in the next day or so.

Kudos to owner Roger Hansen for the foresight and tenacity in getting the talented team of Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore to come to the Garden State with their first design. Roger indicated to me that he had been trying to get the duo to design a course for him since sometime after Ben's first win at the Masters in '84.

Hidden Creek is located on about 750 acres of land in the community of Egg Harbor Township -- only minutes away from the glitter of the AC Boardwalk. The primary goal of Hidden Creek is to provide members with a quality golf course that blends in with the existing terrain without all the earth moving one sees far too often at other courses throughout the country.

Crenshaw & Coore have done this without making Hidden Creek artificial or out of step with its existing location. Nature envelops the property and you don't get the claustrophobic feeling that happens at so many other courses. You are alone with your thoughts throughout the round.

The scorecard for Hidden Creek reads as follows:

1). 402 yards / par-4           10). 476 yards / par-4
2). 372 yards / par-4           11). 121 yards / par-3
3). 534 yards / par-5           12). 467 yards / par-4
4). 222 yards / par-3           13). 391 yards / par-4
5). 395 yards / par-4           14). 200 yards / par-4
6). 446 yards / par-4           15). 411 yards / par-4
7). 179 yards / par-3           16). 470 yards / par-4
. 300 yards / par-4           17). 495 yards / par-5
9). 583 yards / par-5           18). 408 yards / par-4
Out - 3,433 yards / par-36   In - 3,439 yards / par-36
Total - 6,872 yards / par-71
Course rating & Slope info not yet available

1st hole -- provides generous landing areas (a feature that's constant on almost all of the holes). The green is slightly tucked away to the left and lightly out of view from the tee. The starter is not a back-breaker, but will not yield automatic pars to indifferent play.

2nd hole -- Tee shot goes slightly downhill to a gradually narrowing fairway. Fairway bunker centered in middle of the fairway but provides more of a directional role rather than a strategic one. For a hole of just 372 yards it really peaks your interest.

3rd hole -- This par-5 of 534 yards is a good example of risk and reward. The tee shot (day we played was right into a 15 mph wind) is to a genrous fairway. If conditions permit and you hit the perfect tee shot the long hitter has the option in trying to reach the green in two blows. However, a blow out area filled with sand guards fiercely any shot that is even slightly pushed. The green is elevated slightly above the fairway and the pin locations can vary dramatically.

4th hole -- This redan type par-3 plays from an elevated tee to a tremendous sized green (likely no less than 7-8 thousand square feet). The hole played into the wind on our visit and the golfer had best play a swinging draw as the green is wonderfully protected to the left by a large bunker. When the greens get to full speed this hole will claim many three-putts.

5th hole -- Slightly less than 400 yards the hole features a huge mound in the center of the fairway that is angled from left to right and approximately 50 yards from the green. The fairway is also slightly angled from right to left so if you overhit a draw you can reach the high grass on that side. The green is very, very deep (probably about 45-50 yards. For a flat hole there is plenty to think about on the tee.

6th hole -- Pro forma long par-4 that played into the wind on our visit. The tee shot is straightforward and the approach must reach another green that is nicely contoured without being savage.

7th hole -- Completely different par-3 of 179 yards and demands a well-controlled iron shot to a green that could vary by as much as 2-3 clubs depending upon pin location. Average hole -- nothing special.

8th hole -- Drivable par-4 of 300 yards but debatable on the risks that it calls for. There is a fairway bunker that is roughly 250 yards to carry on a direct line with the green. If a player can carry the bunker with any pace the ball will scamper down a slight slope and reach the putting surface. Golfers do have the option in playing to the left side of the fairway bunker and having a short pitch.

9th hole -- Long par-5 that played downwind on our day there. The hole is difficult to assess on which way it goes but there is a huge fairway bunker that serves as a guiding post. The fairway runs out at about 320 yards (?) and the second shot must go slightly from right-to-left to avoid a series of bunkers that protect the right side. Bill reached the green in two big blows and both of us agreed a fairway bunker in the middle of the fairway about 80-100 yards directly in line with the green would have been a better option.

10th hole -- Back nine starts with a long par-4 that angles slightly from right to left. There is ridge that must be carried but if done will provide a boost to one's tee shot. The green may be the longest on the golf course (50 yards easily) and does fall away from the player. If the pin is upfront (it was on our day there) and you hit the green with too much pace it will release and run all the way to the back of the green and leave you with a return putt in excess of 100 feet. Solid hole for thinking on what you want to do. Play too close to the left and there is a small, but exacting bunker waiting to grab you.

11th hole -- dynamite short par-3 that plays uphill and is no more than 125-130 yards depending upon pin location. Bunkers protect the front and right and there is a fall-off the left for any player who misses in that direction. The green is elevated with the toughest locations in the front. It literally appears as the pin is resting on a knob when looking at it from the tee. No more than a 9-iron, PW or SW on most days but is a wonderful change of pace hole after the long 10th. You could make a case that this hole mirros to some degree the challenge of the 11th at SH. Let's just say it's junior league version of that marvelous hole.

12th hole -- Arguably the best par-4 on the course. Plays 467 yards and there is a fairway bunker in the drive zone that is angled from left to right (simply awesome). You can place your ball between the bunker and the right woods but it will take control and plenty of nerve. Golfers can hit short of the bunker but will be left with a slightly blind approach (you'll see much of the pin but little of the total putting surface) and one that is longer. Green is elevated slightly and when pins are placed in the corners will require a deft touch with your approach play.

13th hole -- Good medium-length par-4 that dog-legs right -- the first of its type encountered. The hole has a series of bunkers that pinch in from the left and there is an opportunity to carry a tree line down the right provided you can do it.

14th hole -- Sleeper type par-3 of 200 yards. The green is really long (almost the same length as the 10th) and club selection can be as much 3-4 clubs depending upon wind patterns.

15th hole -- Good slightly uphill par-4 that bends to the left. The tee shot must be drawn to favor the hole movement. Only weakness -- there is a fairway bunker on the right that has trees directly in front of it (Mike was unfortunately trapped and doubly penalized) and there are two deeper fairway bunkers that come into play only for Jason Zuback.

16th hole -- Although a long par-4 this hole is more of a slog without any real character. Straightaway hole that lacks any real strategic vision.

17th hole -- Good gambling par-5 and the view from the tee sets this hole apart from many others at Hidden Creek. Two fairway bunkers on the right side are set down when looking at them from the tee and they really do provide a challenge to avoid. There is also a long bunker that angles from left to right and can catch tee shots for those who pull their tee shot.

18th hole -- Medium-length par-4 of 408 yards and only the second hole that moves right in the round. The best tee shot is a slight fade which sets up a shoprt to medium iron to a large green that features a slight false front. When the pin is placed just beyond this rise pity the player who comes up short or back spins off it.

Hidden Creek in my mind is a solid 5. I believe Mike and Bill said they would give the course no less than 5.5 on the Doak scale. There are times during the round when minimalism offers a "less is less" situation -- particularly a few holes on the front. On the flip side -- the course does pick up the pace with much of the back nine (minus #16).

The charge for Crenshaw & Coore was to create a members course that would provide countless opportunities for fun and imagination without featuring penal elements such as forced carries, intrusive water hazards (no H2O thoughout he course) and the like. They have done this.

If Hidden Creek becomes extremely firm the challenge it poses will only increase. Balls were bouncing nicely so a ground game option is possible. The turf coverage for such a young course is outstanding and the superintendent and staff deserve high marks for their efforts.

Where does Hidden Creek rest in comparison to other Jersey courses? It's not a top ten candidate because the field of other courses in the state are too strong in my opinion. Might it be top 20 or top 25? That's a possibility and one worth watching as the course matures.

I guess it was somewhat naive of me to post the two courses anonymously, although I much preferred that this discussion be more theoretical as to design trends, as opposed to a critique of the individual courses involved.

So, let me try to explain what I mean in an academic sense.  In my mind, there is universal truth to the dictum that every action necessitates an equal, but opposite reaction.  For a long time, as Tom Paul pointed out, probably since 1950 at least, golf courses by and large followed a pro forma standard that differed markedly from what came before in the Golden Age.  But still, those courses all followed a fairly basic and standard formula of their own.  Look at the architects who were active during that time, and there wasn't much to distinguish their work from each other.  Trent Jones was probably the forerunner, but courses by Dick Wilson, Ed Ault, Joe Finger, Willam and David Gordon, Joe Lee, Billy Bell, etc., mostly featured a VERY similar style of architecture, with a fairly narrow spectrum of variability from course to course.

Pete Dye changed that to a degree, building courses that looked incredibly intimidating, but playing a bit more manageable than appearances dictated.  In response, Jack Nicklaus built courses that appeared inviting (for instance, his preference for downhill, wholly visible holes), but actually played more difficult than they appeared.

I realize these are all somewhat generalizations, but we are talking trends and artistic philosophies here, and groupings and summations can be made legitimately, I believe.

In most recent years, courses with huge amounts of earth moving (such as Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits, and MANY others) have spawned the minimalist school, largely in response and in consideration of the costs and aesthetics involved with the former.  

An argument could be made that the major reason that architecture took a serious departure from the type of strategic golf favored by the Golden Agers by Jones and others is simply the result of advances in equipment and scoring capabilities of the top players in the game in the 20 years between 1930 and 1950.  When Jones was brought into Oakland Hills to "modernize" it for the Open, he set the stage for what architecture came to be for the next 30 or more years.

We are at a similar juncture once again, as purely non-architectural factors (distance, number of "new" players, societal factors) are really driving what is being built out there.

I believe there are two major schools of thought.  There is the group that is looking backwards to the Golden Age, believing that architecture has drifted seriously off course in the past half-century, and are reintroducing concepts of strategy, naturalism, playability, FUN, and variability.  This school looks at changes in technology and thinks the answer to that problem is simply found by making the golfer think more, and provides non-obvious solutions to complex problems.  This school believes that the equalizer is at the green complex, and strives to create much of the challenge there.

But, I've seen enough built in recent years to realize that there is another school out there that believes that challenge can only remain in the game with the building of increasingly difficult, longer, and yes, penal golf courses.  Even our fearless leader, Ran, commented to me last week at PGA West Stadium course (a good example of penal architecture), something to the effect of "you know, this course will hold up to technological advances".

If you think this is not part of a trend, go back and take a look at any of the major magazines "best new" courses, including Golf Magazine's "Top 10 you can play".  Personally, I'm seeing more and more courses built over 7,200 yards from the tips, including Roger Rulewich's Trent Jones Trail, or his 7,700 yard course at sea level in Myrtle Beach, or Dye's Whistling Straits (which is penal by any standard), or Hill's Lighthouse Sound, or quite a few others I can name.  An 8,000 yard course is being built in Colorado, as was pointed out here this week.

But, it's not only distance that this school of architecture believes will restore challenge to the game.  More and more, I'm seeing courses built like yesterday's where any number of hazards are utilized, including a plethora of water, sand, deep rough, hugely undulating greens, as well as woods and wetlands.

The past two days, I believe I saw the variances of these two approaches in stark and obvious contrast, on two wholly different golf courses.  And yes, we can argue that all one has to do is select the appropriate tee of the 5-6 provided and things won't be soooo difficult, and yes, on the face of it, variety does seem to be a good thing.

However, I believe we are kidding ourselves if we think that those who appreciate one school over the other can live in a vacuum.  Because, like it or not, over time what happens is that there begins to be a general public perception of what a golf course is "supposed" to be, and those perceptions directly impact not only what gets built, but also what gets played, and what gets MODIFIED.

We sit back and wonder why a Trent Jones was brought in to make massive changes to Donald Ross's work at Oakland Hills and the simple truth is because those in charge believed that the new assumption of what a golf course needed to be to provide challenge looked more like the Jones model than the Ross one.

And no, it's not just the courses that host major tournaments that fall into this predicament.  It's every course out there, whose members over time want to "keep up" with whatever happens to be the prevailing architectural philosophy of the time.

I could talk about a whole host of other societal issues in other areas than golf where taking things to the limit...to the extreme, seem to be the prevailing direction of humanity as we enter the new millenium.  In the interest of some brevity, I'll save that discussion for another time.

However, there are a lot of fundamental issues at stake and that are open for question in the game of golf at this point in time, and it's going to be interesting to see in which direction the pendulum inevitably swings.  Because, simply...while we might wish that there is room for all kinds of styles in this great big game, inevitably, one school or the other is ultimately going to "win", and become the de facto standard in people's idea of what a golf course is "supposed" to be.

Tommy,

Retirement??

Listen, my friend; let me frankly say that you do the game no service by voluntarily silencing your voice.  I'm not sure your personal reasons for not posting, but I'd be sorely disappointed to hear that it's simply because you pissed some people off.  You bring a personal passion, pointed humor,  and knowledge of architecture that is rare and highly valued by many here.  

    

  

I had a conversation with Roger Hansen over a year ago and he mentioned that they were going to try to make the course a heathland course. Have they followed through? Is there any heather out there?

 Mike:

   Totally aggree with you about Ross having high, high qulaity people working for him.  Goes to show what you can do with talented people working for you.
    I aggree with most of the assesments on this thread, which is a great one.  
  Here in Northeastern Ohio, I have the luxury of playing a wide variety of new and old alike.  Jones SR. really changed the way we play golf as did the tour.  I am a member of Brookside CC in Canton, and also have the chance to play Firestone.  Brookside being a Ross, with a redesing by Jones SR., and Firestone South and North by Jones ,I have a unique opportunity to study the different types of architecture.  Obviously I prefer the later, but understand the former.  Tour players like Firestone because it takes luck out of the game as much as you can.  They love the notion of always being rewarded for a good shot, penalized a stroke for  a bad one.  I think this type of architecture and the way the guys on the tour can play has led to these sterile courses being built .  I think that every tour event being telivised has had a huge impact on what architects are asked to do.  It is not a coincedence that Faldo shot 18 under, and Tiger 19 under at ST. Andrews.  There is only so much strategy involved when you can stray 50 yards off line and still hit a wedge.  It is unfortunate but true.  
   I think that one reason that Fazio is so well liked is because he builds the kinds of courses you see on TV.  Some of FAzios work is quite striking, and yet is devoid or strategy, or sterile if you will.  But as long as we have the popularity of the tour, and the type of courses they play, we are going to have a problem.  
    Look at Augusta.  They are turning it into the Firestone of the South.  They have turned into a work that Jones SR.  would have been proud of.  Dan Belden

Dan, I think you missed the point entirely.

As Mike has pointed out about Ross, and like I'm going to point out about MacKenzie, back then it took these men who KNEW how golf courses were supposed to look like and play like. Lets just say that they were products of their surroundings, because that is exactly what they were.

A few of them even reiterrated it to one another for good measure.

Without naming names once again, I will say that today it all comes down to what is going to be eye striking in pictures or TV. What a sad existence, living for the tube. Let them have their rockwater features, the highly visable marbled bunkers that play easier; give them their freeking monoliths of golf design. I don't give a damn. (I have Rustic Canyon at my dispose.)

MacKenzie TAUGHT many how to build golf courses in his style and substance just as Gil Hanse or Tom Doak have taught their associates to build their's. If you want to get real picky, ask Todd to tell you of the shapare at Baraona Creek that worked for the contractor who hada never been on a golf course in his life until that job. If it wasn't for the fact that Todd was there 2-3 days a week, the luster of the special place that Barona is forgone. (I was fortunate to see Todd explain to this shaper how he wanted certain areas on the back nine moved as well tell him that his visions of the 16th--a work in progress, were not going to be anything like they way he envisioned them.

All of these people that get to work for talented firms like C&C, Doak, Hanse, Ross, MacKenzie, Tillinghast, etc. are/were talented gifted craftsman that are/were given a certain latitiude to build and design.

Everything else is chicken liver.

If certain architects want to trust some cowboy from the confines of an air conditioned office desk, then good luck.

Yesterday I took a young SoCal Pepsi tour pro out to Rustic Canyon. I left him alone the entire round because he actually told me he was feeling good enough to break par on a course he had never even seen.

After his round of 80, which featured some of the worst putting I have ever seen from a professional, his one complaint about Rustic Canyon was the fairways were too wide. Never mind about the fact that if he was on a course with narrow fairways, he may have shot even higher.

Not one utterence in his review did he ever mention the mastefully crafted bunkers or ties-in's that are abundant in the design. The hard work of Gil, Geoff, And Jim Wagner that wasn't created on a plan table but in the field.

Talk about dunb jock mentality.

While not wanting to make this http://letsalltalkmoreaboutrusticcanyon.com, I will receed back into my shell. Ever the hermit that I have become. It doesn't matter. I have Rustic Canyon at my dispose. The naysayers can all go to hell!:)

Mike Cirba:

That was quite a post you wrote yesterday--perhaps the longest ever--I think it definitely beat in length anything I've ever written. (This one might come close though, for those of you who don't want to read it!).

And an excellent post it is too in your description of the evolution of architecture in America.

However, I really do disagree with you conclusion, if you're making a conclusion, and if the conclusion was that one style of architecture will "win"! You speak of a style dominating or "winning" because that style becomes what the perception of golfers think a golf course is "supposed to be".

I think a particular style of architecture has become the perception of what a golf course is supposed to be in the past, and to very large majority of golfers but I don't think that will continue. Matter of fact, it's absolutely bound not to continue, in my opinion.

Here's why: One really needs to look back at the evolution of architecture in America and to see not just what happened but why. Basically the first half of the century was an evolution of a particular style in architecture that evolved quite rapidly (particularly in the 1920s) and was headed in a very exciting direction--at least to those such as us but certainly to a vast majority back then too.

But that direction ended--it stopped in fact, not because people were dissatifyed with that direction or that style but because architecture basically stopped in America--golf courses were just not being built for 15-20 years, and what golf courses were in America then went into "mothballs" (as much literally as figuratively) and did not emerge from those mothballs in the same form as they entered them!

But that really wasn't the core of the problem. Far more important was that the essence of a general style was lost to architecture because of the hiatus itself! When architecture started to get back on stream there were far too many factors in existence that had not been present in the earlier era--machinery, irrigation techniques, the beginning of major changes in golf equipment etc, but primarily the hiatus was too long and the natural evolution was lost, almost all of those from the earlier era were gone, too old or forgotten about--the twain snapped, in other words.

It's highly ironic that at the time architecture came back on stream (1950s), the future of it and its style very well may have been, to an enormous degree, in the hands of one man alone to influence--Robert Trent Jones!!

Why he went in the direction he did is fascinating but it's also highly ironic as he had such a strong foundation in the "classic/strategic" style of architecture. Of course there were vestiges of the earlier style in his work, even career-wise but there was far too much that was different to fail to not create a new direction and a far different style. Length, difficulty, demand etc, and the more the better, was the new direction!

That probably would have been fine to create a basic "split in two"--two co-existing styles of architecture in America for the rest of time perhaps--but even that was not to be!

The modern age style of architecture and all it was as distinct from the earlier style began to dominate the earlier style not so much due to the popularity of the modern age style vs the earlier style but because the concepts, practices and even the features inherent in the modern age style began to alter the early style IN FACT--it actually changed it by remodelling it into the modern style to an amazingly large and consistent degree--key word being consistent!

It really was to an amazingly general degree like slapping chrome and big tires on antique cars! And that trend and direction went on for many decades but it never really killed the earlier style or altered it beyond recognizability!

Why did those who had something to say about it let that happen to that earlier style if it was in fact popular or never unpopular? Who really knows, except to be really honest with ourselves we simply must admit that it was just not as respected as it is today--nowhere near it, in fact.

Why do beautiful antique cars go into the barn, why does even great art go into the attic? Same thing with golf architecture! But if they do it's likely they will reemerge from the barn and attic someday if they really are valid.

And classic architecture has reemerged bigtime! It's being restored and appreciated far more than it ever has been--far more--it's probably now being better understood than it ever has been. A critical mass has definitely formed in that way! Enough new construction has definitely picked up on that and gone in a new/old classic/strategic direction!

So because of that no one style is going to "win". At the very most the perception of what a golf course is "supposed to be" to golfers in the modern age evolutionary "difficult style"  is only going to be the perception to some golfers and definitely not to others.

The classic style is back and reviving and it would seem to me it's never again going back into the attic.

Of course one could make a good case, possibly even track it by "replay" statistics, that the older classic style will be more popular in the future than the evolutionary modern age style simply because ultimately it really is more enjoyable to play for most golfers.

Personally, I think golfers will go play the far more difficult modern age style courses such as Fream's course you cited once or twice or at most occassionally but they will be more likely to play the classic/strategic style much more frequently and that will undoubtably help that style prosper in the future.

And my particular personal interest is that these two styles will evolve in the future to be much more distinct from one another then they have been in the past fifty years and never again will the features and design principles be intermingled together as they were.

And who knows, maybe there's something new coming--and wouldn't it be nice if it was an attempt at the hopes and dreams of those great old classic architectures before fate took over and cut off the natural evolution they were obviously expecting, that never happened because of the larger ways of the world?

But classic architecture is back and this time no one is going to drive it away again and corrupting it will be far less prevalent but it will never dominate! That's just not the way America or Americans are and I don't think they ever will be.