I think GCA.com should be like a wide fairway; there should be many angles of approach. Some look right and are dead wrong, some look dead wrong and are, some look dead wrong and are not and others look right and are right. I think it takes a thick skin to stray from the center, whatever that is for this group. I guess that does include a healthy content of minimalism. But it is not a dirty word nor should it be an inflamatory word.
My taste or philosophy does include minimalism, but never for its own sake and it certainly is not purity in restoration for its own sake.
The most appealing golf designs to me are ones which first use the land as best as possible as is. This is a tribute to nature and to an architect who can use nature in sublime or overtly interesting ways to create interesting play. But I am all for manufactured where necessary to improve the playability of a site as long as it is made to look natural and fit in with the overall look of the land.
Most here knew I would get back to Flynn somehow. He was an excellent user of the land as is for golf. But he also created a lot of man-made features at the Cascades, Boca Raton, Shinnecock, The Country Club among others and maybe at Merion as well that look natural. He called himself the "nature faker." Using nature and imitating nature while making challenging and interesting golf that takes time to understand is the ultimate to me.
But I firmly believe in Tom Paul's theory that there is room in the sport of golf for wide fairways, both literal and figurative. If architects churned out the same thing over and over there wouldn't be variety and that is a great thing in any art form. OK, maybe this is a thinly-veiled criticism of a few architects, both classic and modern. I am glad there is a wide range of viewpoints and I hope they do not feel repressed in any way. There is no absolute right or wrong and we should embrace variety as long as it is well thought out and executed.
I am also a realist, I think some classic golf courses can be improved, especially given advances in agronomics. If something isn't done to reign in the ball, then some outstanding courses will remain fun and challenging to the majority of players but not to the game's best players. Some changes are good for classic courses for all classes of players. But it should be considered without selling out the architectural intent. It is a fine line to walk and most have stumbled badly over the line and fallen flat.
Weighing the decision to change should be carefully considered on a course by course basis and not done to keep up with XYZ Country Club down the street. It is a tough economic time for many golf courses and wise and careful decisions need to be made. I wouldn't be surprised if, in many cases, the best decision is to do nothing. But there are probably too many $5 million renovations/restorations that could have been $2 million restorations/renovations. Likewise there are probably too many $30 million construction costs when a less invasive $10-15 million nature/nature-faker course would play as well and cost less over the long run.
I would rather drive a modern Audi if I were racing in one of the 24 hour races like Le Mans but I'd rather look at a Bugatti Type 57 S45 and drive one for fun. Too many great courses are 1937 Bugattis competing against 2005 Audis.
I think technology has leaped too far forward and has negatively impacted some of the courses that got me interested in architecture in the first place. But classic courses were never static, even the best were being tinkered with, some for decades. I think courses can be updated without losing the architectural intent but it is easy to fail at it and there are far more failures than successes.
Maybe Flynn was right. There should be a select group of courses built that are for major championship play in order to maintain the integrity of classic designs and not burden memberships with trying to grasp the brass ring of hosting a major championship and spend inordinate amounts of money and bastardizing their courses while trying to do so. I only say this because of the numerous examples of opportunities to do good restorations and redesigns that were ill-conceived. It is a lack of talent and understanding by the teams involved which include the clubs and architects.
Now, why do some of us appreciate Tom Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, Hanse and others? I guess different people feel differently, but I appreciate their talent to build natural and natural looking courses that provide interesting play and a long learning curve. I like the fact that they aren't out there building 7,500 yard plus courses and doing just what the owner wants (as Nicklaus said in the latest Links article) but helping to maintain a connection to the traditions of the sport and leading by example. This is courageous and something to be admired, sadly there's little of that these days.