[Dan King]

There was a thread a few weeks ago about how the popularity of medal play (or not) contributed to design changes (or not). While looking for something else, I came across this quote from H.N. Wethered and Tom Simpson that is from The Architectural Side of Golf.

"The multiplication of £1,000 tournaments and innumerable championships has to a considerable extent disturbed the values. Players, not unnaturally, when so much is at stake, insist more and more on a rigid standard of equity. It would be unwise to underrate the fascinations of publicity or the importance of golf as a spectacle to entertain enthusiastic galleries; but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty) reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."

More on match play courses vs. medal play courses from an old article by Geoff Shackelford:

C
lick here for "Bring back match play golf courses"

Dan King

"There are some leading players who honestly dislike the dramatic element in golf. They hate anything which is likely to interfere with a constant succession of threes and fours. They look upon everything in the 'card and pencil spirit' . . . Most golfers have an erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon a hazard as a means of punishing a bad shot, whereas their real object is to make the game more interesting. "
 --Alister Mackenzie

[A_Clay_Man]

Dumbing down was the first thing I thought of. Is that how that translates? Didn't read geoffs piece yet but I sense it will be about not making things playable but rather the quirk and screw.

[TEPaul]

Good Lord, when I see 40 "views" of this thread and not a single response, I'd have to say too many of our contributors are not willing to do a bit of reading or else they're unfortunately more interesting in bandying back and forth 350 times on a ridiculous "going nowhere interesting" thread such as the Rees Jones/Cigar Afficionado one.

Either that or they aren't recognizing and willing to discuss some really interesting and fundamental principles and concepts about golf and golf architecture that're mentioned in this thread article.

Congratulations on a really thoughtful and well written article GeoffShac.

Golfclubatlasers, there's more good content in that article for interesting and thoughtful discussion than I've seen on here in a long time.

Got to go watch the President, then I'm going to read this article again and try to make some intelligent response. I hope a lot more do too.

[Matthew Mollica]

Geoff - Great Article.

Tom - Great Reply.

Dan - Thank you for putting the post together.
I really appreciate it.

It was me that asked the question regarding match v medal and the effects on course design / setup.

Thanks for your effort and thought.


Matthew

[Steve Wilson]

Perhaps there is a parallel between these contrasting types of golf competitions and the tendency for pure athleticism to dominate basketball and tennis and minimize the strategic elements of those two games.  I know that I have lost interest in basketball and tennis as time has gone on.  Now it may well be that I am simply becoming a fuddy duddy who misses things the way they were when I was younger.  

Are the three hundred yard carry, the slam dunk, and the 140 mph serve expressions of the same phenomenon.  They are thrilling, at least for awhile, but after a time they become reruns.

One of the beauties of a course that has a lot of width and a lot of options is the opportunity to attempt to redeem a bad shot with a great one.  It is seldom wise to give into that temptation in stroke play as it raises the frosty specter of a snowman, but in match play it makes sense as the worst thing that can happen is you lose a single hole.  And yet, what is more satisfying to ourselves or dismaying to our opponents than to pull a rabbit out the hat and retrieve a lost cause and turn it into a winning advantage.  When you are punching out of the trees or dropping behind the water hazard, the opportunities for a miracle are diminished.

I play in a golf league and it is interesting to observe how my approach to a hole varies with my opponents condition.  

And yet, the the Ross, Mackenzie, and Tillinghast courses referenced in the article flourished as stroke play venues before they were altered to accomodate the improved equipment and elevated abilities of players in the last half century.  

[ForkaB]

I think that Simpson is talking about fairness vs. unfairness, rather than match play vs. stroke play and/or "strategic" vs. "penal" golf holes, rightly understadning that it is a completely different issue than latter two.  He implies that increasing purses for professionals is making unfairness unpopular to them, but it is a very great leap of faith to extend that bit of logic to where Geoff tries to go.

BTW, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that both Oak Hill and Valderamma provided marvelous demostrations of match play.  You can't get it any better than what Faldo (at OH) and Monty (at V) did on the 18th on the last day in the crucial matches at those venues.

I read Geoff's old article carefully, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between a "Match Play" and a "Stroke Play" golf course.  Somebody please enlighten me.

[redanman]

Blah, blah, blah blah-blah. (Working on word economy)


The difference lies somewhere in where the line is between where we will accept a quirk, an oddity, an inequity or a potential unfairness where the outcome of the  whole round will balance on the result of a hole versus merely the outcome of a single hole.

Blah, blah, blahdedty-blahzer blah.

In Chemistry and Whisky-making, this is known as distillation.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Unfortunately, I think you need to read Simpson's quotation (and also MacKenzie's) and GeoffShac's article again.

It's beyond me how you can fail to notice the connection between the increased demand for fairness with the increase of the 'stroke play mentality' (card and pencil) and the luck filled type course of the original match play mentality and that essence of golf.

What do you think Simpson is referring to when he says?

"....but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty) reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."

What do you think he's referring to when he cites 'mischievous tendencies' and what do you think he's referring to when he mentions 'reduce the imaginative element of our courses'? And what do you think he's referring to when he remarks, '..and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf...'?

Again, what do you think "imaginative element" and "poetry of golf" refer to?

It's pretty clear to me he's referring to the inherent essential factor of "luck" and also "player imagination" in golf and that that factor not be removed or dumbed down in the name of fairness to serve a stroke play mentality.

Maybe the thing that throws you off here is you're assuming that the stroke play mentality syndrome and it's architecture is attempting to remove "penalty" from golf altogether. Nothing of the kind!

What "stroke play mentality" courses do, though, is present the golfer with a clear and recognizable and "architecturally dictated" way to play any golf hole. Anything other than that  is actually penalized to the extent of some low degree of recoverability. Some people don't believe that's particularly "strategic" golf.

Match play holes, on the other hand, offer a golfer what appears to him to be situations where there is no real "architectural dictation", no single road "road mapping" in architecture. No reminding the golfer that if he doesn't go this way or this one way he will be penalized and failed.

The types of holes and courses which Simpson clearly refers to as "imaginative" and also the "poetry of golf" are those that the golfer feels he CAN and IS making his own UNIQUE decisions and choices and planning his own strategies UNDICTATED to by the architecture or the architect.

There's definitely very real and discernable differences here between the mindsets of stroke play golf and stroke play architecture vs match play golf and match play architecture and there are some very discernable connections with differing ideas of fairness and unfairness.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I didn't need to re-read Hutchinson, but thanks for re-quoting it for the vrebally-challenged.  The quote is all about "fairness" as you rightly say.  I agree with you adn Horace adn redanman that some unfairness is essential for interesting golf.  Where I am really lost is in taking the leap of faith form that homily to the assumption that architects have ruined courses or built uninteresting courses in the name of "stroke play mentality", whatever that means.  Your last paragraph is a complete mystery to me, because I do not see any evidence of your theories in any of the golf courses I have played, walked or even watched on televisoin.

To me a hole is a hole is a hole, and it is good or bad or ugly or interesting irrespective of whether or not you are playing match play, stroke play or bingo bango bongo.  Neither you nor Geoff has moved me one iota in this belief.  If you were to be so kind as to give me just one example of a "match play " course and one of a "stroke play" course and tell me why each is what you say it is, and not perhaps the exact opposite of what you beleive, I would be very grateful.  That would help.

Thanks in advance.

[guest]

I have just been reading some MacKenzie. Not to overly interpret what I am reading, as it seems that MacKenzie is not the most consistent writer, but it seems to me that MacKenzie is less concerned about the golf hole characteristics than about the "fun" or sporting nature of match play over medal play. Here are some quotes from THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS:

"I believe that one gets far more fun in playing a match for five or ten dollars and licking one's opponent by lofting a stymie on the last green than you can ever get in taking your score. If you score is a good one you will remember it, but if it is a bad one why make life a burden by doing so?

"In Scotland, on completing a round, no one ever asked you "What is your score?" It is always, "Did you beat him?" or "Was it a tight match?"...

"It often seems to me that on a good course golfers get their fun in attempting the varied and thrilling shots that are required and in trying to beat their opponents, but on an indifferent course the only excitement they get is their score. [If I may insert a note here: This does not make any logical sense to me, but what do I know.] Surely there is far more fun in a contest against flesh and blood than against a card and pencil. [Another note: Can you not have both on the same golf course?]

"There is nothing that worries me so much as playing against a man who thinks only of his card and is perfectly indifferent to yours, unless it is perhaps playing with one who is over-sympathetic about your bad luck and your misfortunes... [Sounds like a personal problem for the Good Doctor. But what about the golfer who loves the game of golf but does not love competing against flesh against blood and prefers to take aim at his or her game vis-a-vis just the golf course alone?]

Here's a little something about golf holes:
"There are many of us who firmly believe that a contest between flesh and blood is the only true form of golf, and that too much attention to score play is detrimental to the real interest of the game.
"If too much attention were paid to the vitriolic outbursts of unsuccessful competitors in medal rounds, there would not be a first class hole left in golf"

Counter that with these words also from the same book:

"My friend, Max Behr, has written learnedly and at great length to prove that golf is not a game but a sport. He may be, and probably is, quite right, but it is no good quibbling about words; the chief thing to bear in mind is that golf is a recreation and a means for giving us health and pleasure.
"How often have we know committees, presumably consisting of men of intelligence, receiving the statement that golf is played for fun, with eyes and mouths wide open with astonishment? It is always difficult to persuade them that the chief consideration that should influence us in making any alterations to a golf course is to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. Any change to a course that does not do this is manifestly a failure.
"The only reason for the existence of golf and other games is that they promote the health, pleasure and even the prosperity of the community."

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

There is no such thing as a purely match play or medal golf course. But there are golf courses whose architecture leans one way or the other - architecture favoring match promotes choice, dramatic risk/reward and architecture favoring medal is concerned with guarding par. ANGC is an example of a golf course that has moved toward the medal - narrowing, lengthening and limiting choice ant the mental aspects in favor of pure mechanical skill. The purest examples of a medal-leaning course are the US Open venues, set up.

I believe you will find the comments of Simpson, MacKenzie and others were in response to the designs/theories of Braid, Taylor et al.

[redanman]

There is no such thing as a purely match play or medal golf course.

Picky.  OK, There is a continuum that is being discussed here.

[TEPaul]

"Your last paragraph is a complete mystery to me, because I do not see any evidence of your theories in any of the golf courses I have played, walked or even watched on televisoin.

To me a hole is a hole is a hole, and it is good or bad or ugly or interesting irrespective of whether or not you are playing match play, stroke play or bingo bango bongo.  Neither you nor Geoff has moved me one iota in this belief.  If you were to be so kind as to give me just one example of a "match play " course and one of a "stroke play" course and tell me why each is what you say it is, and not perhaps the exact opposite of what you beleive, I would be very grateful.  That would help."

Rich:

If you don't understand it at all at this point maybe you just never will, but hey, that's OK too--I'm certain it will never stop you from having fun playing golf if to you a hole is a hole is a hole.

But I'll give it one last try. Imagine some hole like GeoffShac cited in his article where the golfer can see he has to just hit the ball down a corridor with bunkers, trees, whatever penal features an architect wants to use on either side. Where're the options in that? The only one I can think of is right down the middle--that we call "shot dictation" or some call it architectural "roadmapping" or one dimensional or unstrategic. There ain't much strategy in a hole like that. If the player misses that one dimensional corridor he's generally penalized with a limited degree of interesting recoverability.

Now imagine a hole like Riviera's #10 or even the Belfry's #10 that GeoffShac also cited as a match play type hole. Where is the architectural dictation or "roadmapping" on those holes? There isn't any, right? The golfer has a multitude of interesting risk/reward choices to make HIMSELF without the architect actually showing him, telling him, demanding of him or dictating to him to do any particular one. And generally on holes such as that, certainly Riv's #10, the recoverablility possibilities are also practically endless and varied.

It's indicative to note that holes such as the latter two also have hazard features in the middle or inside the area of play and not always on the flanks as the more common modern age stroke play holes. A feature to challenge on the direct route the player would instinctively like to take is called "line of charm". Basically the architect is creating a problem for the player to solve right where the player would like to instinctively hit the ball.

The former is basically a stroke play hole where you need to do the complete obvious or basically fail to a large extent. The latter is looked at as a more interesting match play type hole where the choices are so unobvious that luck and such is maintained and at least is not dumbed down. The latter calls upon a player's intelligence to make one of a series of choices within his OWN estimation of his capabilities for which the consequences more often appear to him to be of his own making, and not the architect's or someone who merely sets before him a must do pass or fail single situation.

And this isn't just tee shots, the principles can be taken completely through any hole at any point.

I see a big differences in both presentation and the consequences of results between those two types of principles and holes but maybe you just don't and see any hole as just a hole is a hole.

[guest]

The good thing about medal play is it does not always allow a golfer to play extra conservatively on a golf hole simply because one of his twosome, threesome or foursome just hit the ball out of bounds. Sometimes, a match play event actually takes the bite out of a golf hole because the golfer is playing relative to his opponents mishits instead of attacking the hole.

I think there is good and good in both types of games, match and medal. And it seems like they are most often played on the same types of courses. But there are thousands of courses to choose from. You have got to love golf for providing such a wonderful wide ranging playing field. Or at least I do.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Please elaborate on:

 "I believe you will find the comments of Simpson, MacKenzie and others were in response to the designs/theories of Braid, Taylor et al."

I think I see where you are going, but I'd like to get your take.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'm not so sure I would say there's no such thing as a purely match play course.

The complete irony of the evolution of golf and its architecture is the supposed mecca or supreme labratory in all golf architecture, TOC, is probably the single most match play oriented golf course there ever was and still is. It's also doubly ironic to me that despite all TOC's apparent architectural glories and assets and respect it's never been completely mimiced architecturally even in principle. Why is that? To me it's probably because of golfers' stroke play mentality that began to creep into golf not that long after man-made architecture began.

One cannot really say it's not a stroke play course for the simple reason that certainly it's very possible to play stroke play on it.

But that's not really the point here. This subject can obviously never be black or white just shades of grey and clearly there're many shades of grey and many degrees between match play vs stroke play both in thinking and in playing.

The point here is that a very good player playing TOC will very likely play the course vastly differently if playing match play vs stroke play. And if anyone doesn't believe that's true I can cite all kinds of quotes from historic players who absolutely say it is true, not the least of which would be Bobby Jones.

But the larger point here is that even with TOC, and most particularly with TOC, often good players object to it (or the principles of its design) because the randomness of it limits their ability to control the fate and consequences of what they believe to be good choices and well executed shots.

Courses with architecture that's extremely clear to them, completely defined for them (about the opposite of the highly random architecture of a match play type course like TOC) are what they're more comfortable with in stroke play because randomness and luck don't enter into their thinking, execution and the consequences of it as much.

[guest]

Here is a passage from THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS where MacKenzie references the "good"ness or "bad"ness of a golf course by discussing its lowest yielded score to date. Interesting that he falls back on score in his evaluation:

"Incidentally, as I have suggested before, it is no criterion of a good course that the record [by "record" MacKenzie is referring to the best score on the course] is high.
"This is usually an indication of a bad course, and only too frequently means that the putting surfaces are untrue, the approaches unfair and the greens small and blind. [notice the emphasis on fairness here] On the contrary, if the average score is high but the records extremely low--sixty-four or sixty-five for a course under seven thousand yards--it usually means that a first class player gets full reward for accurate play."

[guest]

TEPaul, what if we simply said that golf architecture varies greatly but golfers can choose to play that varied architecture in varied ways depending on the kind of game they are playing that day? Is there really a distinction between a match play course (not holes that lend themselves to match play, but a whole course) and a medal play course or is it just a straw man sort of thing? Just asking questions here. I like you use of the phrase "shades of grey". Golf is not green, it is the brightest shades of grey we know!

[ForkaB]

guest

Good to see that the good Dr. often contradicted himself.  He's in good company on this website.

As a sidelight, his comment that:

"In Scotland, on completing a round, no one ever asked you "What is your score?" It is always, "Did you beat him?" or "Was it a tight match?"..."

is just not true.

Here's a quote from Donald Grant in his book about Ross, talking about golf in Dornoch in 1903.

"We played the 18 holes as a rule in about 2 or 2 1/4 hours.  I may say that we always played 'for our score.'  At the ninth tee we would usually mention our figures 'to the turn':  'I'm 38, just two above'  Level fours for the round was our standard and we spoke about our score in terms of fours: two above, or five above, etc. Seldom did we plays these rounds as a personal match against each other although we knew who had the best score."

Tom

I think that risk-reward holes like the 10th's at the Belfry and Riviera are great match play holes too.  They are also great stroke play holes.  I just cannot think of a great stroke play hole that is not also a great match play hole or vice versa, and I have been wracking my puny brain for some time on this subject during my sojourn onto GCA.  Please enlighten me--you haven't succeeded yet.

BTW, I'm not sure where Geoff is coming from when he says that Oak Hill wsa only a test of "perfect physical skill."  Very few knowledgable people (of which Geoff is one) could have have watched the 1995 Ryder Cup and come to that conclusion.

Finally, speaking of Braid, here's a quote on his architecture by Darwin, in his biography of the great man:

"He left it to the player to take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage, but left him to make this choice with his eyes open.  That is the kind of problem that has to be faced at most if not all the great holes in the world."

I happen to agree with the last sentence of Bernie's and I don't think it makes a damned bit of difference whether you are playing match play or medal play over a hole like that--it is good just in and of itself.

[TEPaul]

I think one of the things that many may struggle to understand when attempting to discuss the subject of "fairness" in particularly stroke play is that they seem to feel that nothing bad or even penal should happen in stroke play.

Clearly that's not so and that's not remotely the point anyway. I think the idea of trying to create more "fairness" in stroke play is simply a matter of trying to create very distinct definitions of what succeeds and what fails in stroke play execution. If the definitions are clear enough, defined enough, it would then seem that "luck" is almost removed from the equation of stroke play and the architecture it's played over, and it simply becomes a matter of clearly defined execution, ie skill.

The far more multiple optioned courses match play type architecture (many choices for any golfer) combined with large portions of randomness are the enemy or antithesis of the clearly defined "pass/fail" world of the true stroke play mentality.

But that certainly doesn't mean that stroke play oriented courses aren't penal and that bad things can't happen. But that's in no way synonymous with "unfairness" since the parameters are so clearly defined and sort of dictated to the golfer.

[THuckaby2]

I for one always do appreciate Rich clearing up misconceptions we Americans have about how they play in the UK... that Donald Grant quote is VERY enlightening.  We assume all they ever do is match play, and Rich has pointed out before this just plain isn't true...

But more importantly, I think the bottom line here is that Rich just doesn't play golf differently depending on the format, and many other people do, although Rich certainly isn't alone in this approach to the game.  That is, Rich plays a golf hole attempting to get his best score possible on that hole, with little concern for the negative possibilities... that just means ball in pocket, or in the case of a competitive round, a bad hole leading to a bad overall score.. Obviously the "care" taken playing a hole increases in competition, but it doesn't change based on match play or stroke play, that's the point. Many other people take more risks in match play when such are warranted, just because the negative possibility is the loss of only one hole, rather than the very real possibility in stroke play of that one bad hole making the 18-hole score impossible to "retrieve".

If one follows this approach to the game, then as Rich says, there really is no particularly better or worse hole for match play v. stroke play.

This is actually a damn fine approach to the game, I think...

Or am I way off on this, Rich?  Wouldn't be the first time....

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

A golf course that provides choices is an exciting match play venue. It also is interesesting test for medal play. The two are not mutualy exclusive, in fact the opposite. Exciting interesting golf is exciting interesting golf no matter the format.

Golf courses that are designed or set up to protect par might identify the best mechanical golfer for a given week or might test/challenge one on a regular basis, but they don't provide for exciting match play (gambling) or really exciting medal play for that matter (even though they might succeed in indentifying the best mechanical skill). I think it was MacKenzie who when told a particular course would not give up a sub-par score asked what was wrong with it - a good design should give up low scores.

Braid and Taylor were proponents of a more formulaic form of golf architecture. Straightfoward designs with hazards that were designed to punish/dictate (normally on the sides). Golf courses that rewarded the long and straight golfer, they paid lip service to the poorer golfer, but they didn't provide the risk-reward options (angled fairways, diagonal hazards, central hazards) that might even the playing field.

[Tim Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I accept the Grant quote, but my own experience playing across the pond is much different than here in the States.

On the UK & Ireland side, I have almost never played medal play. The exceptions were during my first couple trips playing with fellow Americans. In the States casual match play golf is the exception and most Americans don't experience the fun Mackenzie was talking about.

As for match vs medal play golf courses, I may be on your side on that one. I think there are "match play" like holes, but I'd have to hear more evidence to extend that to (many) entire courses.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

I was just thinking what you wrote about Rich before I read your last post. As to why Rich doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, I believe you absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Rich said above that in his opinion a good match play hole is a good stroke play hole. I'd definitely agree with that. Rich also said vice versa, and I very much doubt I'd agree with that.

But the reason I wouldn't agree is obviously not clear to Rich. One of the reasons Rich is misunderstanding me, I believe, is because I'd never even remotely thought to explain to him that in my opinion (and I believe GeoffShac's too) purely "stroke play" holes (or holes that golfers with real stroke play mentalities believe to be good holes) are the type of golf holes and the type of golf architecture that we really don't don't admire and frankly don't like. But that certainly doesn't mean they aren't liked by stroke play mentality golfers and often demanded by them of architects.

Why? Because they're basically one dimensional, clearly defined holes (and courses) that high skill golfers feel they must have to be the best examination of their overall single round skill level. Essentially this is best exhibited by the Tour players for obvious reasons--they want the best examination of their skill levels and they simply don't want things like randomness and luck (very much essential in most good match play holes and courses) to compromise their skill examination. This is understandable since these people are playing golf for a living generally.

The second reason I can see that Rich doesn't understand me when combined with the reason above is that Rich more than almost any golfer I've seen has a true "match play" mentality in almost every single way he goes about playing any kind of golf format--match or stroke.

This is what you said and you hit the nail on the head. Rich has probably been assuming that me and GeoffShac have been implying that there actually is some kind of pure and idealized "stroke play" hole or course. Certainly we don't think that at all. We don't like or agree with the stroke play mentality although I'm sure we at least understand why others might.

But again, can good multi-optional, random architecture, luck oriented match play holes be good stroke play holes? Of course! Although we both (Geoff and I) agree they may be played vastly different depending on the format played on them. But again, Rich may not truly appreciate this since he probably tends to play golf in any format in one basic way--likely a full bore go for broke devil take the hindmost way!

And that's fine! Matter of fact I love that attitude! But I know and Rich should too that just as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow that if he carries an attitude and a game plan like that into stroke play golf (over time) his success rate won't be remotely comparable to his success rate in match play.

The reasons are obvious to me but if they're not to Rich I'd be happy to go into that too.

God, I hope this clears things up just a little bit!

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Hmmmm... just as Rich is trying to correct a misconception re UK golfers, can we discuss what's normal here in the US?

I find match play to be much more "normal" that those in the UK might think... I wouldn't call it a huge exception, in any case.  Maybe it's me but the bulk of golf outside official stroke play tournaments has always consisted of some sort of match play... that is, better ball, solo, whatever... but it's always been scored on the hole by hole basis - the exception would be the other way!

I don't think I'm unique in this...

What would be normal in the US is much more of what Rich would call "bounce rounds", where no score is kept at all, either stroke or match...Maybe that's common in the UK as well, hell I got the term from Rich, although I'm sure I'm using it incorrectly... Many people I do play this way all the time... keep their own score for themselves maybe... so obviously this is stroke play...

But if any casual competition at all is involved, it always seems to be match play, at least in my experience.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()