Tom; So it boils down to a semantic argument. I think we can evaluate architecture without knowing what was there before the course was built. We evaluate the course but eliminate variables like maintenance, atmosphere, tradition etc. Those additional variables get added back when evaluating the entire experience of playing the course. Clearly the architect has little to zero control over those variables. Other factors such as unwise treeplanting programs lie in gray areas as they may be contrary to the architect's plan but are difficult to discern and/or separate.
Shel: see, I think that's at least cheating, if not downright wrong.
How can you truly evaluate architecture and leave out the issues I stated? They are fundamental to the whole process!
My answer to this is you can't, so an evaulation of architecture leaving these things out is pretty meaningless. Just what are you then evaluating?
I don't get it, I really don't. Oh I get what you are TRYING to say - you want to evaluate what you see as the "architecture" and leave those things out that to you have nothing to do with the "architecture" - I just think you're cheating, and wrong.
But if that has meaning to you, then more power to you.
BTW I hope you know I say all of this with a large smile, a lot of respect, and in the spirit of good fun.
But I do think you're wrong.
Of course the next question is how to properly evaluate a golf course. You call it "golf course experience", I leave out that last word.
TH