Pundits are fond of making such assertions, that a design tenet or period is “dead” or over, perhaps just to motivate a discussion. But fashions come and fashions go. Then they come and go again. Those who make such assertions are soon likely to be proven wrong.
e.g., it’s probably been said here before and often, the much-ballyhooed and mislabeled “minimalism” is not aesthetically “post-modern” but simply a return to golf architecture’s origins. With better tools, for sure, that enable designers like Tom Doak to put three feet of sand on top of a cliff to form the fairways at Pacific Dunes 4th and 13th, and make those holes look like they’ve been there forever.
Don’t many of today’s GCAs aim to emulate Old Tom when they design a course that appears to fit the land rather than be imposed on it? In that case have we entered a new era or returned to an old way of thinking?
(Note: as I reread those questions, the answers seem obvious to me, but maybe because I am unburdened by golf design or historical expertise—ignorance is bliss.)
It’s also a mistake IMO to pick out “twists” as defining an era. In the book “Golf by Design” Mr. Robert Trent Jones Jr. quotes Willie Park as saying “tees should be placed on level parts of the course if possible with a slight slope upward in the direction to be played.” He cites “Park’s ideas” as the beginning of an evolution in GCA thinking that ultimately led to:
the runway tees popularized by his father, which in turn led to
“multiple teeing surfaces”
then to “new ways to shape a tee”
then to “elaborate teeing complexes that reflect a variety of shapes, sizes, and elevations”
then to “the modern tee, properly designed and constructed, [which] blends into the natural landscape”
then to “Today, the creativity of tee configuration knows no limitations.”
“Golf by Design” was published in 1993. Where have you been Scott?
RTJ Jr. essentially declared his father’s era “dead” 15 years ago.