Did the early architects have.....

[TEPaul]

......far more latitude to do the things in architecture THEY believed in simply because they worked in a time (particularly in America) when there's just weren't that many golfers and the ones who played just didn't have anywhere near the preconceptions of what should be and what shoudn't be as golfers today have? I'm not talking about liability issues and environmental issues today compared to yeasteryear, merely the atmosphere amongst the golfing public what an architect should and shouldn't do. The remark of Tom Fazio, in his book that certain things that were done in the "Golden Age" can't be done today because golfers wouldn't accept them and that he knows exactly what golfers today will accept and what they won't. Is that a "tail wagging the dog" attitude on Tom's part?

I, for one, believe back in the early days that atmosphere and opportunity to innovate was so much greater than we can now imagine. That may've been one of the reasons, also, that some of those fascinating "amateur" architects were able to do some of the great courses they did.

How much greater do you think the opportunity to innovate was back in the old days (even the "Golden Age of Golf Architecture) simply because there were so many less preconceptions back then amongst the golfing public about what couldn't be done?

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,

It was easier to be seen as innovative back then, as it wasn't:

a) As easy to see a lot of courses

b) Not many courses existed, relatively speaking

c) Not as many practicioners of the art...so to produce something different, they had to break out of their own mold.(Not a dead guy pun)

Joe

[JESII]

Yes!

In the early part of any evolutionary cycle the opportunity for innovation should be greater than in latter days.

Tom Fazio's explanation does seem to be a "tail wagging the dog" attitude because the guys that are doing some really innovative stuff nowadays are have some real success (ie, Doak, C&C, Hanse).

I think the reason the "amateur" architects that we know of had so much success is the actual situation they were in. They spent years guiding the evolution of their courses as opposed to some of the professionals who could not afford that time dedication. I wonder if the percentage of successful "amateur" architects is lower than we might expect. In other words, were there dozens of people trying to create their one golf course who did not produce a Merion, Pine Valley or Oakmont and we have therefore never heard of them? The existence of such would make the Wilson's, Crump's and Fownses' successes all the more intriguing to me.

[michael j fay]

Yes and No

Yes they had much less to be compared to and the general public knew nothing about golf course design or standard golf holes.

Yes, they had little or no interference from environmental zealots and did not have to waste 40 % of the entire cost of the course satisfying bureaucratic morons.

No, they were strictly limited by the lay of the land and did not have the ability to move the earth to shape the courses.

Yes, they were limited by the lay of the land and did not have the ability to move the the earth to shape the course.

Wabi Sabi !

[Mark Brown]

TE,

In the olden days developers and marketing directors weren't there to tone them down. Now, only a handful of our favorite classical architects have a pretty free hand, with Mike Strantz being the pentultimate -- but he does get a many jobs, not that he wants them. There's a great article about him and the renovation of one of the Monterrey GC's courses. Rees Jones did the first course......
I'll try to find the story.