Jim
Please for God’s sake do not judge a topic on the number of post attributed to it.
Just look back over the last few years and tell me some of the topics are worth all those pages.
As for what Peter and others offer is a view of the whole game, not just the ‘have you played this and what do you think’ mentality of some. In truth, that type of topic serves no purpose and explains little of the course GCA. For that, we need to look and read Sean’s post or of late young Kyle’s photo tour of Scotland last summer. It shows the courses in fair detail, he has captured the architecture and land in a way many others have not.
For me the site is not about lists of comparing one player against the next or one course against the next. It’s about courses, locations, of development of the game. My game and style may not match many, I do not use artificial aids, preferring to walk and work out distances by my own means, so my idea of a good or fun course may well not agree with you. I prefer links course to inland and have been able to play a fair selection in my time.
Therefore, what has Peter contributed, well an insight and serious questions on the game itself, that’s more than many on here have done or perhaps want to understand. Yet it’s a GCA site, and listing the best courses or the best players has sweet little to do with it, but it pleases the Membership. Looking to the historical and development of the game, again only a fraction of Members are interested. Sites or location on suitable terrain is hardly ever discussed yet it’s dictated the budget and style of the pending course perhaps even its future.
Should we not be discussing Golf course architecture, the problems of over complicating the course with by drainage and irrigation for the simple reason that some one wanted to build a course in an unsuitable area. Build where you want but in the end you pay the price for building on Land not fit for Purpose, in either large budgets or massive preparation work below ground level and on going maintenance costs. Problem is that many are not interested in architecture or its history, only how the course plays, which is fine on other sites but this is a Golf architecture site, well I was told it was.
By highlighting the separate paragraph by Peter, I thought I had explained what he contributes and how well he does it.
Go compare other courses with each other, work out a list of the top 100 courses. Then do the same with players. I bet that the 1500 Members on here would not submit the same list, all would be different, some greatly so, but that does not define them as wrong, it just defines their opinions and what they seek in golf.
Golf Carts and tracks are regrettable part of the modern game so must be incorporated within the architecture, but when you close a golf course to walking you stop playing and designing a golf course, it becomes something else but not golf.
Peter and I do not always agree, hell not many agree with me on many points, but I stay true to the way I was taught in St Andrews way back in the late 50’s early 60’s. That’s how it was played, that’s how I learnt to play it and that’s how I will play the game, I just see no reason for change
Having said that, many of the new toys, clubs, balls have an affect on the course, how it is shaped and constructed, yet I feel we have gone over the top. Money now drives or did till just recently, the development of courses, alas not golf anymore thanks to the credit crunch.
Let’s look to the Olympic Games, by allowing Professionals, you kill the passage of the amateur sportsman/women ideals and close the doors on the new up and coming, as the Professionals should ultimately be the winners. The ideals of the Olympics destroyed or at best, well tarnished, yet our governing bodies have without hesitation traded in the game of golf for a hand full – I was going to say golf, but silver seem more in line with their betrayal of the game of Golf.
The point Jim is that all our opinions are important. We need to understand what game we play or favour and just be honest about it. Peter IMHO is an honest guy and he should be contributing to the debate on the game of Golf.
Sorry, for the long answer.
Melvyn