If anything is "fact free" its the oft nostalgic take on golden age architecture taken by proponents of "groupthink" here. Please take a look at Flynn or Ross plans, etc. They used dogleg points and put most hazards around those, much as we do today. IF there are more hazards short of those points, its because they were challenging golfer to CARRY those bunkers, and at some point, the overuse of carry bunkers went out of style.
That change in gca alone would be a good discussion point on the Darwinian aspects touched on above. Obviously, clubs and courses in the 1950's found it desireable to take out top shot bunkers, or perhaps the old carry bunkers at about 180 yards. The drivers were probably;
* Maintenance cost
* Slow Play
* Better Equipment - perhaps carry bunkers just didn't and don't make as much sense as they did in the GA once getting the ball airborne wasn't so hard.
* ANGC - Jones and MacK showed that a good course could be had without lots of bunkers. Those two giants of the era were proponents of bunkers only to challenge the better player, no? So why blame "formula" of placing bunkers only at the dogleg on RTJ and beyond, when that movement really started with the king of the Golden Age designers?
*Perhaps, the effects of general trends of the time figured in - in other design fields, it was time of modernization and new looks after WWII. So, the opinion that a new look is better may have been just that, just as an opinion that the old look of the Golden Age is.
But taken in total, I have always found it pretty arrogant of those on this board to assume that everyone in the 50's-70's didn't have a clue about why they changed their courses. Not to mention that we don't take into consideration their finances and how they played the game, from clubs to the bets they made, to the time they had, etc. No one ever really discusses those dynamics here. Some simply long for the idea that the playing fields should be preserved in stone. Matt Ward has it right - its all a matter of perspective, and TF is about as right as T Paul on this one.
Garland, with all due respect, your last two posts make no sense. Were the Golden Age courses to blame for the decreased play and course closures of the Depression? As to 5 sets of tees, first, the reason modern gca's build them, in part, is because their are so many players and rounds that bigger tees are necessary. I am sorry that they piss you off. I guess that you will actually be glad to play them someday, considering the alternative. At least, I am always impressed with just how much senior men still enjoy their golf, even if their days as long hitters are over.
I see no correlation between the writings of Scotland's Gift and your point. David Stamm - ditto! Sorry, maybe I am dense. As to strewing hazards about, I think I have covered that point. As to red type, I think I offered my facts/opinions/justifications in the posts on this thread. Agree or not, there they are.
TEPaul,
I was thinking of something else, my good man. First, I know you didn't raise the question of "good for who" but your distinguished writings good fellow raised that question in my mind. It reminded me of, say the 1950's which is remembered so fondly through shows like Happy Days. But, if you were African American, those times weren't so good. And while we all lament the poor economy and the downturn in golf here, for African Americans, this is a very giddy and historic time. Again, as Matt says, its all about perspective. In terms of golf, I believe that the classic Golden Age courses were too macho centered for both women and seniors to enjoy. Now, that is a very general statement, and the kind I have railed against - it obviously applies to Winged Foot and its man sized courses, but there were many other playable clubs. Just not playable for those who hit it 135 yards.
On the other hand, since they were designed for about 200 yard drives, they tended to turn into very enjoyable and playable tracts for senior men who still hit it about that. Then, modern courses, overly designed (probably to about the same degree) for the top dogs became too long and unenjoyable for those seniors, not to mention 3X harder for women and beginners, perhaps simply because we did need 7000 yard courses to appeal to marketing senses and top players.
This is slightly OT, but I think perhaps courses of the rest of the oughts may forego the back tees and focus on the 6800-6300-5800 and 4500 yard distances that 97% players favor. And, BTW, Tom Doak isn't the only gca who does this on his courses. I have noted that TF was always plenty willing to design courses at 6800 yards or so max length, because he sought to design playable, enjoyable courses.
As I said in another FazBash thread - if that turns out to be his legacy - playable courses - I think he can sleep well, perhaps better than JN, TD and a few others whose legacies are tough, tough courses. Time will tell which architect has more courses remodeled to meet some future needs of their clientele. I for one think future remodeling will follow closely (with twists) the old days - with most courses remodeled for ease of maintenance and to soften them up. Only a few of each generation will remain untouched and perhaps that is how it should be.
BTW, I was most intrigued that your first reply to me contained thoughts from Max Behr. Like you, Maxie was a theorist first, with only a few chances to really employ his craft. I think this thread should be contained to comparing actual results of the GA to modern results, not theory of an outsider vs results of the modern age. Just a thought.
Sorry for the OT rant. I think I was kind of pissed off at some red type questions....right or wrong, there you have it! Maybe I am pissed off that I haven't figured out how to post in red type!