Geoffrey,
I got that out of the link to the Bob Labbance article, as quoted below:
"The architectural tenets Travis integrated into his design work were every bit as visionary. At the time Travis plotted the Ekwanok Country Club in Vermont in 1899, most of the bunkering in the U.S. was perpendicular to the line of play, demanding carries that crack players easily negotiated, but that left novices in terror. Instead, Travis placed the hazards laterally, parallel to the flow of the hole, giving the dubs a clear path, but forcing the better golfers to conquer their drift or pay the price.
Of course, the words "proud of" came from me, and possibly the author, who was enthusiastic about many of Travis' "ahead of his time" accomplishments. So, apparently you disagree with his biographer, Bob Labbance. I will admit, it is probably unfair of me to take one comment out of context to make any point about someone who's work I don't really know. I have only seen Toledo, Garden City, and a course in Toronto who's name escapes me now.
Architecturally, the comments show me, that like race reations, politics, etc. that the canvass of golf design ideas is a mosaic, not as black and white as it appears when reading many posts. In a low tech era, (where these discussions were had face to face) people who thought of such things probably had the same philosophical debate of designing for all players, especially since Golf in America was going through its first great expansion, and surely suffered from a fair number of hacks, then as now.
Travis was obviously a deep thinker about many golf related items. How this comment jives with some of the cross bunkers at Garden City, I don't know, other than to guess that 1) it was an early effort, 2) his philosophy evolved, 3) who the heck says anyone needs to be 100% consistent, and he may have woke up one day and said "I'll give it a try" or 4) a well meaning club member forced it on him, because he wanted his home course "tougher".
I have read all/most of the same books anyone else has read. My take on the differences in Golden Age vs. Modern philosphies is that they are more similar than different, and that those men faced similar problems to what we face today.
There really were't all that many cross bunkers in the Golden Age, and the process of removing most of the ones there began almost immediately at it's close, with the start of the great depression.
I believe the three major differences strategically between then and now are reduction of diagonal carry bunkers in favor of lateral bunkers, as described in the article, reduction of superfulous bunkers in general, and perhaps the use of more water owing to irrigation needs. Not a sign of the apocalypse, just a natural evolution in architecture, all things considered.
Style wise, there were gingerbread bunkers in both eras. Why Tillies are good and Fazio's are bad, I cannot fathom. No one has adequately explained that point of view to me, as of yet. There are simple bunkers in both eras, as there are deep, shallow, decorative, save bunkers, or virtually any type of bunker you care to mention. For every example of a better bunker from the Golden Age that you can show a defender of modern architecture, I can show you a better modern one than one from the Golden Age, etc.
As for blind shots, every writer from the golden age decries them as a rule. The only difference is that Fazio and others of our day have the ability to overcome them, so we do. Ross and others didn't like them, but were stuck with them more often.
Personally, I prefer Tommy's approach of discussing one specific feature rather than taking on broad general topics as more instructive and educational.
Of course, I agree most of all with Pat Mucci when I say, "That's just my opinion, and I could be wrong". Let the discussion begin/continue!
