In bold follows a response to me by Brad Klein on the above question:

it's not a "convergence," it's a "divergence." And I think it has nothing to do with "fad" but with more substantive issues of style and basic commitments to golf architecture.

Island greens, railroad ties, double-greens, and tiered greens are fads. Links golf, using the land, or massive constructivism and "build anything anywhere" are fundamental commitments.

The arts/painterly style that Strantz uses; Engh's determination to build sharply etched dunes and trap door bunkers; Doak's sense of the ground game; Coore/Crenshaw's devotion to subtle undulation; are all basic commitments; as much as Dye's use of seduction and linear/steep vertical etching, Fazio's approach to soft, receptive flesh, or Rees Jones' longtime devotion (now being reconsidered entirely) to circular mounds and flat, horizon-line depressions.

Everyday as you my friends seek out new courses do you see modern architecture looking more and more alike or do you see the divergence that Brad outlines above..Can you expand on Brad's excellent points with other examples.

Jim,

I was trying to ask a simpler question away from the ratings issue. I think courses look more and more alike each year and I believe that Brad thinks courses look more and more different.  I was wondering what others think and or examples they can provide.

I personally don't think there is enough difference between a Doak or a C&C to make a difference to the player of courses.  Nicklaus and Fazio are getting closer and closer to that same mold and Dye may be Dye but everyone else is like him...I see a convergence and Brad makes an excellent point for a divergence.  My gut tells me Brad is right but my eye tells me different.

JK,

Then my lack of "playing around" disqualifies my from commenting. The pictures we see here support your position, but we see pictures representing such a small percentage of what is going on that I couldn't rely on it as a valid sampling.

Brad makes articulate points but I don't have the course experiences to talk about them.

After bunker styles and green contours and fairway ripples what differences could there possibly be..Is there an architect currently getting jobs that does not understand basic strategic principles.

Jim,

I was trying to ask a simpler question away from the ratings issue. I think courses look more and more alike each year and I believe that Brad thinks courses look more and more different.  I was wondering what others think and or examples they can provide.

I personally don't think there is enough difference between a Doak or a C&C to make a difference to the player of courses.  Nicklaus and Fazio are getting closer and closer to that same mold and Dye may be Dye but everyone else is like him...I see a convergence and Brad makes an excellent point for a divergence.  My gut tells me Brad is right but my eye tells me different.

John, i wonder if it isn't partly a result of the fact that you have played and seen so many courses?  The more you see, the harder it is to be unique.  Especially if you spend a lot of time on this site.

J.B.

 It's possible that there's both. But, I think you need to qualify your question with more specific examples.

Perhaps, The convergence has happened because designers who aren't considered top tier, don't charge top tier, have emulated the top tier archies of the recent past. That simialr look you see could be a function of that.

Plus, coming out of the dark ages of GCA, there's been a divergence away from those commercial cows, to a more sophisticated audience that learned through repeated play ,why the dark ages were exactly that.

Check out the pars of the non-Doak courses on the best private list and the non-C&C courses on the high end public.

John K:

I think there is a bit more convergence than divergence, but there's definitely some of both.

There are a few people in the business who are clearly trying to do their own thing.  There are many who have emulated their mentor's style and will stick with it forever.  And there are quite a few who are adjusting their styles to whatever seems most popular now.

I'm interested in divergence.  One of the reasons I always want to see Bill Coore's work is that our styles are lumped together, and I'm always trying to find things that I would do differently than he did.  By the same token, I find myself making fewer trips to seek out other new courses, because I don't want to copy what someone else is doing.

Analyzing styles by looking at the edging of bunkers is still pretty weak, in my opinion.  The real differences in styles can be summed up as follows:

a.  rub of the green vs. fairness
b.  greens which dictate approach shots, or not
c.  number of multiple tees and whether shot values are handled on that basis
d.  wide vs. narrow
e.  mounding or not
f.  drawn shapes vs. eye-level shapes

A question (with no answer in mind):

Has there ever been, in the history of golf-course architecture (or, possibly, any other art), more divergence than convergence?

Dan,

Possibly during the Resurgence.

Art in general seems to be more divergent today than at any time in the past.

Is it divergent, or is it just aimless.

Analyzing styles by looking at the edging of bunkers is still pretty weak, in my opinion.

I agree, I wouldn't call it a style with substance, but I still think they don't fit more often than not - never mind the maintenance costs.

c.  number of multiple tees and whether shot values are handled on that basis

Is that shot values on a single hole or for 18 holes?

f.  drawn shapes vs. eye-level shapes

I do see an awful lot of drawn shapes that don't look good in the field.
Do you draw shapes with eye-level consideration (said another way - do you use any sketches as guidance) or is it all in the field?

If those are the bulk of your styles, is it convergent in that we have the same general style?
Am I copying Tom?
What would my work be like if I started in 1955?
Aren't many successful people unconventional?

Cheers
Mike

Sean:  On that scale you are absolutely right.  When was the last time any well-known architect built a 6300 yard course in America?  (Although Jeff Brauer might argue there weren't many 7900 yard courses built in 1925.)

But style-wise I think there is more variety now because there is a bigger market and there are more possible niches than before.