Which Comes First?

[Mike Hendren]

Should architecture be adapted to the game, or should the game be adapted to architecture?

Mike

[ForkaB]

Great question, Bogey!

I'd say the latter.  It would make golf less boring.

[Forrest Richardson]

The game should always adapt to the playing board. Good luck getting the USGA to buy off on this!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Humphy Bogey Hendren,
Read Max Behr. He'll tell you all that you need to know.

[Mike Hendren]

Humphy Bogey Hendren,
Read Max Behr. He'll tell you all that you need to know.

Point me in the right direction, slim.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Individual golfers should have to adapt their games to the course architecture. No doubt about it. That's golf in its most exciting, and interesting form.

The problem is, a majority of golfers these days demand it the other way around.

[Tom_Doak]

I will disagree here.  I think golf comes first ... the variety of golf shots that are possible to play.

Yes, there are way too many modern courses where everything is overdesigned to be "fair" for the good player.  But on the other hand, there are a lot of courses good players love partly BECAUSE the green targets are too shallow for B players to hold.  Such good players should be condemned to always playing said holes in a 40-MPH wind.

Instead of throwing the kitchen sink at golfers, it would be nice if some architects concentrated more on bringing back some of the golf shots that John Ball could play 80 years ago, but which few of us ever try today.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think it's a blend, letting the land dictate, and the architect moving earth if need be to adapt it to payable golf.