I have no idea. Please tell us!
When I first read it I thought this sounds like that A-hole Dan Jenkins who wouldn't know his architectural ass if he had both hands firmly planted on it. Many find Dan amusing and he does have a humorous way of stating things, but he rarely writes anything about golf architecure that amounts to more than a pile of Longhorn crap.
Rich
We've already conceded you are the smartest guy on this board by a long shot, but now we seem to be moving rapidly onto your superiority over every single dead golf architect, every dead golf architecural writer and perhaps every dead person all together. That might be going too far, I think you might humor other dead writers (what you make of the Bible, Koran or Kalki) -- only discrimating against dead golf architectial types and those ill educated goofs who find interest in them. You know for a while there I thought the subject of golf architecture was interesting, but stupid me, I was evidently looking at it in a very archaic and obsolete manner. Now I come to find that my interest was nothing more than twaddle and Rich Goodale is blazing a path to true understanding. Thank you! (the amazing thing is I didn't even think you found the subject interesting - having a more or less a very casual interest in the subject, preferring to share your golf experiences and your great devotion to Dornoch - boy was I wrong!)
For those of you who are interested in the conventional aspects of classic golf architecure and what many of the so-called greats, past and present, had to write and say about the subject -- I take personal responsiblility for Rich's barrage on a subject you enjoy. It was only after I wrote what I thought was a pretty thoughtful, well researched and original essay called 'Arts and Crafts Golf' that Rich seemed to go off the deep end. It evidently struck a nerve (for some odd reason), sparking a subtle and sometimes not so subtle campaign in opposition to the theories it aspoused and against past golf architecure in general. Which is fine, like any theory, its only my educated guess - its not like its going to change the world or turn me into the pied piper golf architecture or the foremost golf architectural sage (Rich already has that sewn up and we're all playing for second, he actually might have both first and second spots and one smart guy is meerly looking to show). What is a little disturbing is the manner in which Rich denegrades those who find the past interesting - no need for that. Rich if you need to denegrade, denegrade me, not the past and those innocent bystanders who find the past interesting, even if you don't.
Funny thing, when it was first put up on this board I didn't hear a peep out of Rich or anyone else who didn't agree with it (maybe people didn't want to hurt my feelings -- then again maybe not) - which made me wonder what was wrong with it, surely there are some who think it is a load of crap.
Again for those who enjoy classic golf architecure and classic golf architecural theory - I apologize.