My tastes have changed alot due mainly to this website and my ability to play a wider range of shots.

I used to think that the more water hazards a course had, the more exciting it was. After a trip to Pinehurst No.2 I saw a great and challenging course could be one with virtually no water or O/B hazards. This course really opened my eyes to golf course architecture and what really makes a course great.

The 3 years I have spent mostly reading and learning from this website have also changes my taste for golf courses. I learned how to really evaluate a course and all of the options it offers me. It changed not only my apreciation for architecture but the way I play the game as well.

Cary,

If anything, I thnk my tastes have been reinforced.

Not really.

I wouldn't say my tastes have changed over time, but they have expanded.

Expanded is a really good way to describe it. The more I read, learn and experience really open my eyes to interesting features that may have passed me by on earlier rounds.

I'd like to think that our tastes continually change throughout our lives.  I'm not sure that we can always attribute the changes to an individual event, like playing a particular golf course, but rather to the very natural process of human maturation, for good or for bad.  These changes result in phases of growth and artistic expression (think about Picasso's "Blue" period).  But our attitudes are also functions of the period in which we live.  For example, post-war golf course design was all but dominated by RTJ Sr. and, at the time, he was celebrated for his contributions.  However, the passage of time and changes in taste have opened up the doors of design philosophy and have ultimately soured many people's opinion of his work.

Mine have to some extent, but I actually think I primarily just understand my tastes better than I used to.

I've always preferred golden age courses, and now can articulate why: (1) they provide interesting choices and difficult challenges while allowing anyone to get around the course (2) because the architects were forced to work with the land, the slopes of the courses provide much more interesting challenges than later architects have been able to create artificially, (3) difficult, but relatively crude sloping greens force a number of interesting decisions on the player, which leave difficult but possible recovery opportunities in the case of a bad shot or bad decision and (4) the courses are generally beautiful.

Nonetheless, I used to enjoy, and still enjoy, cookie cutter 1960's era courses (Bunker Hills, Randolph North, Papago, Spencer Country Club, Tucson Country Club, Rio Rico).  I think it is because these courses do meet the first criteria above, but not necessarily the other three.  I would rather play these courses than most of the courses of the 80's and 90's.

Adam - while he has received particulars in the attacks, I do not think anyone has been subjected to more critical scrutiny on this site than Macwood has on his Arts and Crafts articles - which would be his equivilant to Engh's golf courses.  Lighten up Francis.

You must, or you have stopped learning, which is the second step (after birth) on the road to your death.......

My first impulse is to say that my tastes have changed, but now that I think about it, I would have to say they haven't changed all that much. I still like courses with smallish greens, green complexes that don't force you to necessarily fly the ball onto the green. I still much prefer courses that give you several risk/reward options on each hole. And I like subtle designs. None of that has changed over the 30+ years I've been playing.

Actually, I'm hard pressed to come up with any like/dislikes that have changed. Perhaps I appreciate the ground game more--although I don't get to play/practice it much. There's probably more evolution in my attitudes, but since I'm afflicted with CRS these days, I can't recall enough of the old days to be sure.  

Growing up in the Northeast, I was always in love with the hilly, treelined courses that were all the rage there, now, while I enjoy the good ones, I really tend to favor the links style courses more.....could be that my game (or lack of) tends to favor less forced carries and more roll, but after seeing some of the great links style courses in the US, I enjoy playing that style of course more than the parkland style I grew up with.

Forty years ago I played Pauma Valley and loved everything about it. I need to go back and see whether it was irrational exuberance or not.

Tommy N.  Wasn't this a top 100'er at one time?

Bob

I don't think my tastes have changed enormously.  I've always been able to find something positive to take away from just about every course I've played, with a few sterile exceptions among our local pay-and-play courses.  My experience has been greatly enhanced over the years and that has informed my judgement, but I still find that what I liked 40 years ago (Beau Desert, for instance) I still like just as much.  Unfortunately, as my golf has deteriorated so much in recent years, I don't enjoy the courses as much as I once did, although I appreciate them just as much.  My knowledge has been hugely enhanced by exposure to GCA and having met (and even played with) some of you.

Yes, because of this website, I appreciate the older, shorter courses more and the newer, "long and strong" courses less.  Now, I still enjoy a par 4 that asks me to hit a solid drive and a crisp 4 or 5 iron, but I'm more open to courses that may require something less than driver off the tee and offer more subtle challenges.

Unfortunately, we don't have many classic courses in Colorado so my need to travel has also increased because of this website.