Continuing my recent perusal of The Architectural Side of Golf, I came across this passage:
If at Gullane the architecture is on the whole agreeably natural, Muirfield supplies a significant contrast and demands some notice for two reasons; because, firstly, it is a modern course, constructed severely on the penal principle; and secondly, because it represents a conversion from a course of older strategic variety, thereby courting a comparison which may be odious but is none the less inevitable.
...Probably no other course has attracted quite the same discrepency of opinion. Mr Joshua Crane, an American critic, has placed it first in the list of our leading courses (with St Andrews, sad to relate, last).
...Popular opinion, it must in all fairness be said, inclines to favour the course as it stands...Be that as it may, it is not difficult to discover the reasons that account for a possibly misguided preference. The fairways are broad and generally straight, clearly defined by avenues of bunkers to indicate the route to the greens; the greens too are large and not too dangerously guarded except in extreme instances; the nature of the shot is clearly shown by this method, and needs little reflection beyond the manner of its execution; the position and number of the bunkers are not too terrifying on a calm day to the expert player. But when the ground is fast and a stiff wind is blowing and the course is stretched to its fullest capacity of seven thousand yards there can be no question of its being a test of both power and accuracy. These considerations alone may render it acceptable for an Open Championship; but for the finer shades of match play in the Amateur the older course had many things to commend it.
...But whether we applaud Muirfield as the culminating point of modern attainment or are tempted to criticise it for lack of imagination and the absence of that economy of means which is the secret of great art, we can unite in admiring...
This is a remarkable passage! At once Simpson seems to be stating that the best players are too good for his brand of strategic design which seems to revolve heavily around less is more especially with bunkering. Furthermore, Simpson seems to be saying that where bunkers are needed is near greens much more than near fairways. It is commonly thought that Simpson was the biggest promoter of strategic design back in the day, but what surprised me was how he categorized Colt's work at Muirfield as penal. Okay, I have long believed that the idea of "penal" architecture is a sliding scale and has in recent decades has come to mean something much more draconian than the design at Muirfield or anything Colt dreamed of. Of course, this means that the idea of strategic architecture has moved further toward the penal end and Simpson represents the extreme end of strategic. Finally, Simpson seems to be acknowledging that the Colt hybrid penal/strategic style of design was in ascendancy (something I very much believe as I think Colt is really the father of modern design). I think this is particularly interesting in light of the work Simpson did to Muirfield and Sunny New and how some of these changes were reversed at a later date.
In any case, above is a mention of Crane and the ideas he espoused becoming more popular. Conversely, I think we can see how the Simpson version of the Strategic School essentially died a death and has somehow been resurrected in recent years - likely to the same cries of anguish and joy that were heard in Simpson's time. In terms of architecture, there are likely not many more important lines of distinction and debate - especially if you take the view as I do that the American/British debate is really about penal/strategic architecture, but with more clearly defined sides to the debate.
Ciao