[JNC Lyon]

Hi John. Great thread and thank you for sharing your opinions. They have caused me to do some thinking, probably more along the lines of aesthetics so please bear with me - I'm hoping to learn something from your response to my questions...

I'm of the opinion there are a few different ways to present great gca and just because Diamond Creek looks pretty, this doesn't necessarily equate to being a dumb blonde in regards to gca.

You wrote in a couple different posts in reference to Fazio & other modern gcas and/or Diamond Creek:

- architectural features that aimed for artificial perfection rather than ruggedness or strategy.

- earthmoving to create a contrived look with no regard for natural features is not good.



I think if someone wanted to get creative and had plenty of money to try it, why not turn a few hundred acres in the Nebraska sand hills into a couple of prairie links courses in the style of a UK links like, say, Royal St. Georges, shown in the picture above? With perfect revetted bunkering, laid out in minimalist fashion over the natural dunescape.

Seeing the many deep, perfectly rounded, revetted bunkers on each of the three links courses I played while in Wales was a real eye opener for me - I loved them! I haven't played DM Kidd's Bandon Dunes yet, so these were a first for me. I don't recall them at Heathland, but maybe they are there too.  These bunkers are pretty awesome in appearance, and the way that they play, particularly when you find your ball close to the wall of the bunker, but these are not really natural in their presentation, are they?

Eric,

Thanks for an excellent post.  In response to the above question, I guess I would answer that most bunkers will be un-natural.  I, too, love the revetted bunkers at the links courses (including Sandwich, which falls just outside of my top five courses).  However, at the great courses have a natural element to them.  How so? These bunkers are cut into natural hillsides and dunes, and they blend in perfectly with their surrounds.  

I love your picture of the 6th at Sandwich above.  However, it is even more interesting to see these types of holes from behind the green, where the bunkers would be more or less invisible.  Sure, the actual construction of these bunkers is artificial (one problem with revetted bunkers is that they often need to be rebuilt.  However, revetted bunkers bllend in very well with the surrounding landscape, and they have a natural, rugged presentation.  Scott Warren asked me this sort of question about Deal: would Deal be better with blow-out bunkers than with sod-face bunkers?  My answer: NO, I think the revetted bunkers worked perfectly.

Furthermore, these revetted bunkers are often built out of necessity.  Blow-out bunkers would simply be destroyed in high coastal bunkers, whereas revetted faces allow bunkers to maintain their shape over a long period.  Also, these types of bunkers are used sparingly at many great links courses, including the ones I list in my signature.

I also loved all three of the Prairie links courses I played in CO and NE this summer. These all had the rugged blowout bunkering that you mentioned liking in your posts above.

Here's what I'm really getting at --  looking at your signature line, I think 4 of the 5 courses you list as your favorites have circular revetted bunkering?  Please help me to understand the difference in their crisp, neat presentation and those you are criticizing?

I think the presentation is very different for these bunkers at Sandwich than it is for the other bunkers that I criticize.  The bunkers at Sandwich are carved out of the land features.  Is the actual carving natural?  Usually not, but the bunkers are built with respect for the existing landscape.  The bunkers Fazio builds do not share this characteristic.  Look at his re-do of the bunkers on the East Course at Oak Hill.  The bunkers are natural cut into natural features.  Rather, they rise above the existing level of the land.  One can tell that they are manmade from hundreds of yards away in any direction.  There is no effort to fit bunkering into the natural land features.

Finally, are these good mountain bunkers?


I don't mind the appearance of these bunkers.  They hug the land very well.  Rock Creek Cattle Club is one course I'd love to see, one reason being that the course appears to rest gently on the land.

My philosophy on bunkering, and golf course construction in general, is that there should be a respect for the existing features.  This does not mean that I do not think an architect should ever move land.  Seth Raynor, that prodigious earthmover, is one of my favorite architects.  Yet he was a master router who could find his patented template holes in the existing land.  When bunkering appears slick, comforting, and out of place on the land, I think it is poor bunkering.

I look forward to your comments, thanks.

Eric

[Kalen Braley]

If there is one hope I always had for this site over the years, its that somehow someway people could just forget about who designed and built a course and just create an opinion, as best as possible, based on what you see/feel/encounter/experience when you play a course.  I openly admit... yes I absolutely enjoy/giggle like a school girl/get thrilled when playing various courses designed by Doak or C&C.

But I can also truthfully say I felt the same for courses done by other architects including Fazio, Engh, Stranz, Mackenzie, Nicklaus, Hixson etc, etc.

I really wish we could just could put all that political stuff aside and have frank commentary about whats in the ground and how fun it is....end of story!

[JNC Lyon]

No, I don't think we have been stifled. To demonstrate that fact, I will call BS on this thread.

There is nothing that is more stifling than automatically praising/denigrating a course just because who the architect is. A course should stand on its own. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut and "even" Fazio and Jones (II) can build fantastic courses (World Woods, Chambers Bay) can build fantastic modern courses. And Arthur Hills did a pretty fine job with renovating the University of Michigan course.

To advocate a view that we should automatically shout down any course not designed by Doak and C&C is the most ridiculous thing I have heard around here. It is pretty pathetic, frankly.

Is that none-stifling enough?

Richard, et al:

I think you can read any post I have written on this site, including my first post, and I think you will find that I NEVER, repeat NEVER, wrote that we should shout down any course not designed by Doak and C&C.  In fact, I have only played one course by those two architects (they don't do a ton of work in the Northeastern US), so I would be in no position to make that call.  I have seen several modern courses that I have like, including layouts by Mike Young, Robin Nelson, Pete Dye, and Craig Shreiner.

My main point is this: the work that the high-priced modern architects do is often garbage.  I've played courses that are either original designs or re-designs by Fazio, Hills, Nicklaus, Rees, and RTJ II.  These courses have involved heavy earthmoving, contain manufactured, un-natural, contrived features, often focus on artificial beauty rather than natural appearance and strategy, and cost a ton of money to play.  I understand that these guys occasionally put a great course.  However, for the most part, their negative contributions to golf course architecture outweigh the positives.  Fazio and Rees have ruined several great classic courses with ham-handed, careless renovations.  Their new courses destroy the pieces of land on which they are built.

My home course, the East Course at Oak Hill, contains a contrast between 14 Ross holes and 4 Fazio holes.  The fourteen Ross holes, while re-done by RTJ and overgrown Fazio, still involve a graceful routing that highlights the best land features on the property.  These holes culminate in beautiful, simple greensites that are very fun and require a great deal of thought.  The four Fazio holes are the exact opposite.  They are awkward, contrived, busy, at odds with the land, difficult for the average player and completely out of place with the rest of the course.  The course demonstrates, in 18 holes, the greatness of Donald Ross and the absolute recklessness of Fazio.

As for why criticism has receded in the recent years, I think several of you have offered good explanations.  In general, it has become worth increasingly less for people to see these modern courses.  It is not worth the time or money when there are better courses for a much lower price.  I have to agree.  I rarely seek out modern courses, and I believe I will learn much more from an obscure Ross course than I will from an overpriced Fazio layout.  Why would I play Atunyote at Turning Stone Casino when I can play Leatherstocking for one-third the price.

[Gary Slatter]

JNC:  how long have you played at Oak Hill, and how old are you (approx)?

[Mike Sweeney]

I've been spending some of my time over the last few years writing a few essays on modern golf courses, in hopes of putting together a book on the subject.  

John

You have always been a fan of the modern course over the "old dead guy" course. I have always enjoyed reading your thoughts on the subject and would encourage you to include an essay in your book of why you favor Modern Courses. I don't always agree but enjoy your thoughts.

Tom Doak,

Let me rephrase - two best Pete Dye courses that I can play while making sure I can keep my marriage in tact. 

[Gary Daughters]

JNC,

True, you never said we should shout down any course not designed by Doak or C&C.  But you clearly drew a bead on Tom Fazio, Rees Jones, Jack Nicklaus and Arthur Hills and you clearly lament the passing of some point in the life of this board when "People realized that Donald Ross was a better architect than Tom Fazio."  I suppose you'd disagree, but to me that seems pretty narrow and not terribly far removed from the man I heard grousing about Old Macdonald as "clown's mouth golf."  Note to self:  don't let a little knowledge close your mind.

I am all for making judgments, because like you I believe that (even given room for subjectivity) there's good, there's bad and there's stuff that's in between.  But judging on merit means that if Fazio course A is a turkey, I'm not going to condemn Fazio B for the sins of A.  That also goes for Fazio A-Y and Fazio Z, although at some point I guess there's a limit, and maybe you have reached yours.

I think there's a little less smirking within the DG than in years past, and that's probably a good thing, although I'll admit I do miss it to some extent.  I can remember a feeling that we were all on the same page, a very evolved page at that, and it did lend something that seems to be in the news here lately and that's a "sense of community."  I'm all for that, but if it comes at the expense of an open mind then all we're really talking about is which Sneeches have the stars and which don't.

[JNC Lyon]

Gary Slatter,

I'm 21, and I've been lucky enough to play at Oak Hill since I began playing golf (around age 8 or 9).  I guess that lends some bias to my assessment of Fazio as an architect.

Gary Daughters,

Yes, I more or less condemned the work of those four modern architects.  However, my argument is that there are many modern architects who deserve much more recognition than those four guys, who seem to get the most recognition among average golfers.  I think there are many modern architects who build better courses at lower costs than those guys.  I think those four architects (and there are others, too) generally build courses that are unnatural, contrived and expensive.  To me, that constitutes bad architecture.  If that is narrow-minded, then so be it.

I am also struggling to see why believing that Donald Ross is absolutely a better architect than Tom Fazio is narrow-minded.  In my previous posts on both this thread and the Diamond Creek thread, I make several points why Fazio's work is inferior to someone like Ross.  It's not just because Ross is an Old Dead Guy.  Beyond being more fun to play, Ross's courses are simpler, respect and incorporate the natural land features, and are more interesting around the greens.  Furthermore, Ross demonstrated a technical knowledge of things like drainage that Fazio somehow could not grasp fifty years later (Exhibit A is Oak Hill, where Fazio moved three greens close to bodies of water, only to have them wash out within ten years).  This is true for Ross as well as other Golden Age golf courses I have seen.  Having an opinion and believing others should have the same opinion is not narrow-minded if it is backed up with facts.

I agree with your last paragraph.  There needs to be a balance between "the clash of ideas" and "consensus on what constitutes good golf."  That balance is tough to find, but I think this site does a good job all in all.

[Chris Cupit]

"Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk."

Capitol City Club/Crabapple (GA)

Wonderful course.  There are two green to tee walks of pitching wedge yardage.  Everything else is right there.  Easier walk than, say, Palmetto.  Lovely, fun course that plays from hillside to bowl and back to hillside.  PURRRRRRRFECTLY manicured and richer for it, just as some courses are richer for being scruffy.

Gary,
I thought about Crabapple when I saw the question.  It IS a nice walk, especially for a relatively new course.  Fazio had an advantage there in that he had nearly an unlimited amount of land on which to rout that course; that's rarely the case in this day and age.

I agree that it is perfectly manicured and reasonably fun, but I'd disagree on wonderful.  To me, Crabapple has always seemed to be a huge, huge missed opportunity.  It is an excellent piece of land (and a HUGE one) for sure, but like so many Fazio courses there just aren't many holes that are stirring and memorable.  It is only a couple of miles from White Columns, another terrific piece of property on which Fazio built a golf course that is completely forgettable except for gigantic flat greens.

Everything at Crabapple is on a grand scale.  Huge tees, huge fairways, huge bunkers (few of which are really in play) and huge greens, though they are relatively uncontoured.

I've used the description of "rice cakes" architecture for both courses.  Looks great, but no real taste to it and when you're done you're not really sure you eaten anything at all.  That may be a bit harsh, but only a bit, and it sums up my problem with Fazio courses; too many of the ones I've played strike me that way.

Gary and A.G.,

Weird but if I were to think of a poorly routed course, especially given all the land that was avaiallable, I might think of Crabapple.  Maybe this is overly nitpicking as it is really just one hole but to me it is as if TF routed the course and realized he forgot one hole!  The par three 6th, at least in terms of routing, looks completely like an afterthought.  The natural walk is from 5 green right to 7 tee.  Instead you have to walk about 200 yards back (almost walking past the green itself!) across the bridge to come back and play a 190 yard hole.  It is certainly a shorter walk from 5 green to 6 green or 7 tee than it is to the 6th tee.

It is an immacuately maintained course and I like many of the holes but to me the routing can't make this big of a "mistake" and be "good".  FWIW I have heard one architect describe the course as a "sod farm with bunkers" as that person did not think too highly of the course!  I am not sure I would go that far but the "bigness" of the course is a bit dull for my tastes and unless the bermuda rough is ridculous (which it can get) the openness means that it a pretty easy course for the "better, longer hitters".  The course will always be well regarded by the low handicap players for that reason as much as any architectural interest per se.

The clubhouse is terrific and I could hang out in the locker room for days!  Not a ringing endorsement of the course I guess but Crabapple is a nice retreat from the city and I think the members got exactly what they wanted from TF in that regard.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Getting back to the photo, yes I accept my comment was based upon one photo, but one photo can sell the course, alas this one did not in my case. I kept asking myself, why no dry stone walls made from the surrounding rock, sorry I just see no imagination, no design flare in that photo that conveys this guy is going to test my skills.

Tom I would expect that the rest of the course is spectacular but from the image posted I have tried to be honest, give a straight opinion stating that yes I am extremely disappointed from the lack or architecture.

Melvyn,

I have much difficulty understanding your point of view here.  The golf course in question was built on an open, 80,000 acre ranch which has not one dry stone wall.  I never considered introducing such a thing; not only would it be foreign and artificial, but where would it stop and start to have any purpose?

Is that your idea of "architecture", something artificially and physically built?  Does that mean more to you than the location of a hole in the landscape or the contouring of a green?  If so the our views are much further apart than I thought.

[Gary Daughters]

JNC,

21, I get it.  Too young to have been married and divorced.  Keep plugging and enjoy it while it lasts.


Chris,

I did forget about that one little walk (no, I don't hit wedge 200 yards).  Since I've now been outvoted 3-1 I'll stop, except to say I thought a lot of the holes were very good and was very pleasantly surprised.

[Richard Choi]

I don't think an architect's "quality batting average" should be all and end all for judging his work. So what if 99.9% of someone's work is garbage, if that remaining 0.1% is a masterpiece? Artists work in different ways. Some only produce very few works of very high quality. Some like to produce as much work as possible knowing that through trial and error he/she will produce something brilliant.

Picasso produced tens of thousands of pieces of artwork. Frankly, 99% of that is garbage, a very high priced garbage, but garbage nonetheless. But those hundreds of items that are the very best of work are revolutionary and trailblazing are worth every bit of superlatives they get. Is he any less of an artist than compare to someone like Van Gogh who produced far less number of artworks of much higher quality in average?

The answer is absolutely not.

When you produce as much as Fazio, Nicklaus, et al, it is only natural that they are going to produce many works that are sub-par. But to dismiss any and all work by them because of their lower batting average is short-sighted because their very best works will endure (while sub-par stuff will fade away) and eventually they will only be remembered by their best works.

We can debate whether or not their best work is still at top of their field in their era. But to automatically dismiss stuff without even getting to know them and studying them is not what this site should be about.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom Doak,
Sometimes I think Melvyn doesn't think it possible to build good golf courses outside of the linksland of GB&I.    I really urge Melvyn to visit the States and Canada sometime.  Methinks he'd like it.

-----------
I think JNC may be trying to move us away from figure skating judging.  You know what I mean.  The judges take "reputation" into account before giving scores.  Actually, baseball umpires do too - a Cy Young winner or future HOF member will often get the iffy strike call.

Gary - I've had the pleasure to meet JNC, and he definitely gets GCA - we're lucky to have his quixotic attitude here.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I do not know the course, as for stone walls, looking at the landscape I would presumed walls may have been there. So they are not, then forget the stone walls as they are alien to the site. Perhaps as alien as golf is also to this site.

Apart from bunkers I see no architecture. I see a well-kept lawn looking totally out of place - I would go as far as to say artificial , perhaps making the stone wall I mentioned look more at home,

When will people realise that when you change the settings you change the game, throwing millions at a project does not right the wrongs or make it work or give one the type of game one was originally seeking.

Common sense approach seems to have been lost among the money that has been thrown at many sites over the last few decade or so.

Melvyn
 

[Andy Troeger]

When you produce as much as Fazio, Nicklaus, et al, it is only natural that they are going to produce many works that are sub-par. But to dismiss any and all work by them because of their lower batting average is short-sighted because their very best works will endure (while sub-par stuff will fade away) and eventually they will only be remembered by their best works.

Can't this basically be said about Ross? I'm no expert on his work but I always thought he built large numbers of courses himself, especially compared to his contemporaries. 

[Keith OHalloran]

Dan,
It is interesting that you say that JNC was trying to move away from the "figure skating juding" and reputation based judgments. When I first read JNC's post, I thought the exact opposite. It seemed to me that he was flooredd that Fazio could build a course that did not receive criticism, because.....well it was Fazio.
I think that if the Fazio courses in question are good courses, then we should like them, in the same way if a new Doak course was not good, it should be panned.
I agree that we should move away from judging on reputation, but the premise of the start of the thread seemed contrary to that idea.
Incidentally, I was floored that JNC was only 21. He definitely impressed me as being older with all he has had to add to this site.

[Dan Herrmann]

Melvyn,
You really gotta get out of Scotland...

Criticism is A-OK, but come on - have you ever seen what Montana looks like sans golf?  I think Doak built something really, really neat out there.   

Let me ask you about Pine Valley?  Do you approve of PV's design?  Or Oakmont? 

 

[cary lichtenstein]

"Name ONE Tom Fazio course that has a great routing where it is easy to walk."

Capitol City Club/Crabapple (GA)

Wonderful course.  There are two green to tee walks of pitching wedge yardage.  Everything else is right there.  Easier walk than, say, Palmetto.  Lovely, fun course that plays from hillside to bowl and back to hillside.  PURRRRRRRFECTLY manicured and richer for it, just as some courses are richer for being scruffy.

Where is it written that golf MUST be walkable to make a golf course good? Frankly, it's us older guys and gals that critically support the golf industry and if not for the golf cart, I'd venture to say that golf rounds would drop at least 50%

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dan

I have played out of GB&I , my comments relate to many place not just America, and include the Castle Course St Andrews.

Melvyn.

[JNC Lyon]

I don't think an architect's "quality batting average" should be all and end all for judging his work. So what if 99.9% of someone's work is garbage, if that remaining 0.1% is a masterpiece? Artists work in different ways. Some only produce very few works of very high quality. Some like to produce as much work as possible knowing that through trial and error he/she will produce something brilliant.

Picasso produced tens of thousands of pieces of artwork. Frankly, 99% of that is garbage, a very high priced garbage, but garbage nonetheless. But those hundreds of items that are the very best of work are revolutionary and trailblazing are worth every bit of superlatives they get. Is he any less of an artist than compare to someone like Van Gogh who produced far less number of artworks of much higher quality in average?

The answer is absolutely not.

When you produce as much as Fazio, Nicklaus, et al, it is only natural that they are going to produce many works that are sub-par. But to dismiss any and all work by them because of their lower batting average is short-sighted because their very best works will endure (while sub-par stuff will fade away) and eventually they will only be remembered by their best works.

We can debate whether or not their best work is still at top of their field in their era. But to automatically dismiss stuff without even getting to know them and studying them is not what this site should be about.

I understand your point about different artists working in different ways.  However, golf is not merely about artistry.  Golf makes heavy use of a variety of different resources, including time, money, land, and environment.  A golf course that wastes these resources has a negative impact on the game, especially when the final artistic output is sub-par.  Look at the numbers for these Fazio/Nicklaus/Rees/Hills courses, and you will find that many of them are very expensive, very invasive, and take extra amounts of time to play.  The courses at Turning Stone are three examples in a long line of poor use of lands and money for golf courses.

As an aside, Donald Ross, who built similar courses in mass quantities, did not produce these same types of negative externalities.  In fact, his courses are often the main source for great, classic architecture in many American towns, including my home town.  His mass production of courses was wildly beneficial for the game, and it had the opposite effect on the game that the high priced architects are having on the game today.

The courses that these architects produce have negative externalities for golf as a whole.  It is easy to say "different courses for different horses," but it becomes a problem when these modern courses fundamentally change the way the game is played for the worse.

[Andy Troeger]

I think JNC may be trying to move us away from figure skating judging.  You know what I mean.  The judges take "reputation" into account before giving scores.  Actually, baseball umpires do too - a Cy Young winner or future HOF member will often get the iffy strike call.

Gary - I've had the pleasure to meet JNC, and he definitely gets GCA - we're lucky to have his quixotic attitude here.

Dan,
Really? I'm with Keith in that I think he is promoting "figure skating judging." He not only lumps all courses by certain architects together, but he also lumps architects together that have very little in common other than earthmoving.

JNC,
How many original designs have you played by each of Nicklaus, Fazio, Jones, and Hills? Your argument makes some fair points if true, but I don't get the sense you really have that much experience with their courses. I've played about 50 courses between the four and would have a hard time making the generalizations that you claim.  Fazio and Nicklaus are fairly different in style IMO.

[Richard Choi]

I disagree.

Golf architecture is not much different in use of money, land, and environment compared to regular building architecture. And when you look at the world of architecture, most of the most celebrated works of modern architectures are obscenely expensive, does not sit naturally with land surrounding it nor is it environmentally friendly. Fallingwater, the most celebrated private residential home would NEVER be approved today with its location and it was obscenly expensive to build and pretty impractical to live there because of its engineering deficiencies. Just look at any Gehry bulidings and let me know how positive its use of resources are.

But no fan of architecture would argue those examples are bad for the world of buildings, because they all advance and expand the what our understanding of architecture is and could be.

Just because something is too expensive does not mean it is automatically bad for the game. Heck, look how expensive it is to play Bandon now. Do you think it sets good example when it is so expensive?

You seem to have this very dogmatic point of view where everything is just so and no other views are allowed. You are too young to be set in your way. You really need to get out and experience everything world has to offer, both good and bad. Not everything has to be done just so. Variety is a beautiful thing, even if not all of them are to your taste.

[David_Tepper]

"When will people realise that when you change the settings you change the game"

Melvyn -

For once (at least once in  long while ) you have actually said something I can agree with. When you change the settings, you do indeed change the game.  And what, may I ask, is wrong with that?

One is the wonderful things about the game is that it is now played around the world, among peoples of many cultures. It is played in a wide variety of climates, over varying topographies, on different grass surfaces, etc (even within the British Isles). Different conditions may, at times, favor different styles of play. Different societies may have varying views of the game and its place in their respective cultures.

For example, my understanding is that, in Japan, it is customary for golfers to stop after 9 holes for a rather lengthy meal before playing the back-9. Just because that is not done in Scotland, does that mean Japanese golfers enjoy and appreciate the game any less than the Scots do?

The views you relentlessly here express appear appear both one dimensional and shortsighted. Coming from one who claims to care as much about golf as you do, they are disappointing as well.

DT           

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
I'd love for Melvyn to be an evangelist for the great game of golf.   Instead, he seems to be a bit of a luddite.

Diversity in golf course architecture is a very good thing for the game.   Let's be real - any growth in golf is going to be centered in Asia for the next decade or two.  Golf in the rest of the world appears to be contracting.   'Tis the new normal.

[SL_Solow]

An interesting topic but not quite as difficult as we are making it.  Clearly those who suggest that criticism of GCA is opinion are correct; like most things in life other than math problems there are few "right" answers.  Each one of us processes the information we receive in judging golf courses, music, food, the opposite sex, etc through the prism of our own experience and biases and forms an opinion.  So how then does someone become recognized as a great critic or a reliable source while others are viewed as eccentric or worse?  It is the manner in which they analyze the problem and explain thier conclusions.  Those who prefer naturalness, randomness and have less concern with difficulty are free to argue with those who treasure fairness and resistance to scoring.  To Paul Thomas' point, there are experienced, famous and successful architects on both sides of that fence to varying degrees.  Time will tell which school prevails and to what degree.  But in the interim, it is interesting to review and evaluate as much as one can because it creates greater perspective and allows each of us to decide what we like and, just as importantly, why we like it.  Reading the thoughtful opinions of others may help us to focus our own thoughts; we may even learn something.  But in the end, none of us have a monopoly on wisdom in this area.

As to the original question, it is entirely possible that not many of us have sen the courses in question.  I am certain that no one wants to hear pro or anti Fazio opinions as a default position.  My hope is that pleas for civility such as Ran's recent post are not perceived as directives to refrain from critiques.  It is quite feasible to have spirited discussions while remaining civil.  I look forward to many such discussions.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dan

I'd love for Melvyn to be an evangelist for the great game of golf.

But who would I be batting for - just a short list

1.   Christianity: 2.1 billion
2.   Islam: 1.5 billion
3.   Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4.   Hinduism: 900 million
5.   Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6.   Buddhism: 376 million
7.   primal-indigenous: 300 million
8.   African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9.   Sikhism: 23 million
10.   Juche: 19 million
11.   Spiritism: 15 million
12.   Judaism: 14 million
13.   Baha'i: 7 million
14.   Jainism: 4.2 million
15.   Shinto: 4 million
16.   Cao Dai: 4 million
17.   Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18.   Tenrikyo: 2 million
19.   Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20.   Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21.   Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22.   Scientology: 500 thousand

Oh yes then we have various movement of luddites

Perhaps I’ll just stay with the real game of golf.

Melvyn

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()