[Tim Gallant]

      I was listening to the Fried Egg podcast this morning, and I was struck by Tom’s description of how we built High Point, particularly, how he wanted to be in contrast to ‘The Bear’ a few miles up the road. A few sentences later, he mentions that owners want 99% of players to like a golf course, and that is why you find so many homogenous designs – ie. you must have 4 par 3s, etc. The final part of that analysis, Tom goes on to say that older gens of architects didn’t think like that…
 
This was particularly interesting because on the surface, I would agree, however, on digging a bit deeper, I would say the opposite might be true:
 
Reading Simpson & Co., it appears that Tom Simpson had an ideal yardage that he liked his courses to play to and a certain amount of par-3s, 4s and 5s (with the 4s broken down into long-ish, medium, and short-ish). Although each course felt distinct because he employed a strategic design and routing that utilised the unique features on a particular property, wouldn’t this still be homogenous if his thinking from the outset is it needs to be 6,300 yards?
 
I am also conscious that while the philosophy of golf architecture may have been better understood & employed during the Golden Age compared with the penal school that pervaded from the 50s-early 90s, I wonder if it was still isn’t homogenous? Think about Raynor; one could argue that his designs are homogeneous because they employ ‘templates’ as we now all know and love.
 
Looking at today’s designs, as has been pointed out here before, one could further make the case that a lot of the great designs that feature in the new golden era of GCA are from the same ilk, and therefore, slightly homogeneous because:
- They adhere to the strategic school of design
- Include lots of width with the ‘line of charm’
- Interesting greens that are best attacked from said ‘line of charm’
- Playable for all abilities
- Not overtly long for the average player
- Ability to keep one ball in play
- Walkable
- And on and on…
 
With this in mid, you might now believe that I think this is boring because they are homogeneous? Quite the opposite! I understand that because each site is different and most (certainly not all!) modern greats showed restraint in earth moving, that the authentic characteristics are able to shine through to make the design interesting, and lots of fun to play, even if the principles from which they were created are homogeneous.
 
Where these contrast with a course like ‘The Bear’ is not that The Bear is homogeneous and Sand Valley isn’t. Rather, it is difference in design philosophy that makes the difference.
 
Therefore, I believe that it is ok for a designer to be homogeneous in his approach to building golf courses, provided that the unique qualities that make a particular site interesting are allowed to stay and shine!
 
Agree? Disagree? Think I am crazy? All valid answers J
 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The key sentence I see in your first paragraph is Tom's point about owners wanting 99% of golfers to like their golf course. This is the biggest driver of homogenous design because most golfers are incredibly conservative with their thoughts on golf courses and golf course design - they reference what they've seen before and what the professionals play. Bold and innovative design creates negative comments.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - I started a thread a while ago entitled "we're living in conservative times". It was a disaster; even the few folks around here who like me and my threads hated it, and no one believed me when I said I wasn't taking about politics.

The point/theory of the thread was this: that at a deep level and in a wide-spread way, key developers and key media people and several key architects seem to have not only accepted a single/same way of doing things but have actually firmly embraced and promoted and defended this approach (which you outline well) as the very epitome and *sole possible expression* of quality golf course architecture. *That's* what's conservative about it - the close-mindedness passing itself off as expertise, the smug and self-satisfied dictates of insiders who think they know what's best for us.

Has this approach (as Sean A for one often reminds me) not produced some outstanding courses? Yes. But to your point: compare this golden age to the original/first Golden Age, when a Pine Valley could be built - and praised - just like an NGLA and a Prairie Dunes and an Oakmont and a Merion and a Pinehurst could be built and praised. It is that kind of diversity of expression and that lack of consensus opinion about what characterizes quality gca that, to me, seems to be missing today.

There's a thread up currently about Tom's The Loop.  I don't know very much about it, except that I would like to play it.  But when courses that are not even open for play, that are not even half finished but are clearly all the things the consensus demands (e.g. treeless and sand-swept and huge and wide and easy), are getting more press and attention than an open-for-play course from a top designer that doesn't fit that precise mold...well, something's not right.   
 
Peter     

[BCowan]

It's been awhile since I played the Bear and I didn't think it was as hard as everyone said it was.  The Bear is still open I believe and High Pointe is a hop farm.  Plus I don't remember if that much dirt was moved at the Bear.  I also recall a friend telling me that a lot of dirt was moved on the 9th at Ballyneal.  I think a lot of the 3 by 5 cards are homogeneous. 

[Tom_Doak]

It's been awhile since I played the Bear and I didn't think it was as hard as everyone said it was.  The Bear is still open I believe and High Pointe is a hop farm.  Plus I don't remember if that much dirt was moved at the Bear.  I also recall a friend telling me that a lot of dirt was moved on the 18th at Ballyneal.  I think a lot of the 3 by 5 cards are homogeneous.

The Bear is on its third owner.  It's still around because it's attached to a resort hotel that's "too big to fail," but tens of millions of dollars have been written off along the way.


The "not much dirt moved at The Bear" was conservatively 10x as much as at High Pointe, probably 20x.  It maybe wasn't a lot for Jack Nicklaus, but every fairway is shaped flat, every waste bunker is cut down into the earth for 100 yards at a whack, and there are "Scottish style mounds" all over.


The only earth moved on the 18th at Ballyneal was to shape the green, and that was practically nothing.  Your friend is misinformed.  We did move, for us, a lot of earth to cut through a dune in the landing area of the 9th hole.  It might have amounted to 10,000 cubic yards ... which would be less than any hole at The Bear, except maybe the par-3 4th.


Other than that, your post was ok.

[BCowan]

It's been awhile since I played the Bear and I didn't think it was as hard as everyone said it was.  The Bear is still open I believe and High Pointe is a hop farm.  Plus I don't remember if that much dirt was moved at the Bear.  I also recall a friend telling me that a lot of dirt was moved on the 18th at Ballyneal.  I think a lot of the 3 by 5 cards are homogeneous.

The Bear is on its third owner.  It's still around because it's attached to a resort hotel that's "too big to fail," but tens of millions of dollars have been written off along the way.


The "not much dirt moved at The Bear" was conservatively 10x as much as at High Pointe, probably 20x.  It maybe wasn't a lot for Jack Nicklaus, but every fairway is shaped flat, every waste bunker is cut down into the earth for 100 yards at a whack, and there are "Scottish style mounds" all over.


The only earth moved on the 18th at Ballyneal was to shape the green, and that was practically nothing.  Your friend is misinformed.  We did move, for us, a lot of earth to cut through a dune in the landing area of the 9th hole.  It might have amounted to 10,000 cubic yards ... which would be less than any hole at The Bear, except maybe the par-3 4th.


Other than that, your post was ok.

Tom,


I don't really care if it was the 9th or 18th.  Or If u moved less dirt.  I care about the finished product.   My post was most excellent. 

[Sean_A]

Homogeneous design has always existed.  The entire concept of the classical age of architecture is really about this because that is when design was being codified.  Look no further than the heathlands...folks can't tell me there isn't more than a passing similarity between the famous heathland courses.   

Innovation does attract negativity.  Jeepers, just look at what happened in Cardiff when Zaha won the Opera House commission. The idiot funders wouldn't financially support the project so it was pulled.  I bet all involved in that decision regret it now!  Okay, Zaha is a high profile success story and and I don't see golf architecture getting anywhere near as out of the box as her stuff, but there is still a kernal of truth to be learned from.   It will be interesting to see how the works of Strantz will be perceived in 20 years.  Like most golfers, I am a traditionalist at heart and like to experience traditional architecture.  Once archies figure out how to deliver innovation in a sustainable and player friendly package the way it was done 90 years ago there is a chance for there to be some movement in the look of courses.  Still, we must all remember that it is much more important about courses is how they make golfers feel and think (F&T).  The eye candy is lovely and does contribute to F&T, but its easy for archies to get lost in eye candy at the expense of other important aspects of design....and one of those aspects should be innovation...at least sometimes. But...perhaps it is wiser for archies to seek out innovation on sites which aren't quite so well blessed...hence my comment about it taking a brave archie to get radical on a sandy site.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  interesting you should mention Zaha Hadid who, like Mike Strantz, passed away much too young.  That's a sobering thought about risk-takers.


We've just signed up for a new project which will involve several famous architects; apparently Zaha had designed an equestrian facility before she passed away, and our clients (who were friends of hers) have bought the rights to build it.  I travel in interesting circles sometimes!

[Thomas Dai]

Is there an element of what construction equipment was actually available to use in the relevant era in homogeneousness? Also, what type of equipment the game was played with at the time of design?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


I neglected to respond to your original post because Ben distracted me -- apologies.


You are right that the Golden Age was also the era where the "rules" of golf course design were first codified.  You just have to keep that in perspective for the time.  Simpson, Colt, MacKenzie et al. [all except maybe George Thomas] wrote their books to promote their work, but Golf Architecture hadn't been in the popular discussion at all until that time, so I think they all [except MacKenzie] felt it necessary to lay down a rough framework for what a golf course should include. 


I'm guessing most of them would be horrified to see how that framework evolved into the modern courses built in Asia, but maybe I'm projecting a bit there.  As Thomas says above, some of it is a matter of construction method.  Old Tom Morris surely never imagined that anybody was going to rape 200 acres to build a golf course the way some do today, and I doubt that Tom Simpson did, either.


My problem with The Bear [and courses like it] is not a difference about design strategy, it's the fact that the design ignores the land on which it was built.  In theory, such a philosophy would free you to create anything you could dream of; but in practice, it nearly always leads to repetition, because golf course designers aren't really nearly as creative as we are made out to be.

[Scott Weersing]

"that owners want 99% of players to like a golf course, and that is why you find so many homogenous designs"
I think designers design courses that fit the expectations of the golfers and owners. Golfers expect a certain golf course. For example, they expect there to be a signature hole on the course that is really pretty and looks good, but with no strategy. They expect a par 3 with water on three sides. They expect elevated tees. They expect the ninth hole to come back to the clubhouse...

Sometimes the budget and the land only lead to homogenous designs.

It takes an owner to see that they can differentiate themselves from the public golf marketplace with a unique design.

[Tim Gallant]

Homogeneous design has always existed.  The entire concept of the classical age of architecture is really about this because that is when design was being codified.  Look no further than the heathlands...folks can't tell me there isn't more than a passing similarity between the famous heathland courses.   

Innovation does attract negativity.  Jeepers, just look at what happened in Cardiff when Zaha won the Opera House commission. The idiot funders wouldn't financially support the project so it was pulled.  I bet all involved in that decision regret it now!  Okay, Zaha is a high profile success story and and I don't see golf architecture getting anywhere near as out of the box as her stuff, but there is still a kernal of truth to be learned from.   It will be interesting to see how the works of Strantz will be perceived in 20 years.  Like most golfers, I am a traditionalist at heart and like to experience traditional architecture.  Once archies figure out how to deliver innovation in a sustainable and player friendly package the way it was done 90 years ago there is a chance for there to be some movement in the look of courses.  Still, we must all remember that it is much more important about courses is how they make golfers feel and think (F&T).  The eye candy is lovely and does contribute to F&T, but its easy for archies to get lost in eye candy at the expense of other important aspects of design....and one of those aspects should be innovation...at least sometimes. But...perhaps it is wiser for archies to seek out innovation on sites which aren't quite so well blessed...hence my comment about it taking a brave archie to get radical on a sandy site.

Ciao

Sean,


One of the courses that I had in my mind when writing the OP was Tobacco Road. I also will be interested to see how it is accepted / assessed in 20 years time. While I haven't played it, so can't really comment, it does appear to be bold in a way that few other courses with a similar style and philosophy are.


My point from my post was really that, had Mike had the opportunity to do many more golf courses, it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing if the philosophy that he applied had been homogeneous because in theory, he would have let the unique characteristics of each individual site shine through. Whereas a Nicklaus design for example, we think of his courses as homogeneous and associate this with bad, which, taking your example of the Heathland courses around London, is not always the case. It is only that his SPECIFIC philosophy means that he feels the needs to 'rape the land' as Tom says, to fit his ideas, which in turn makes each design look and feel the exact same.

[Tim Gallant]

My problem with The Bear [and courses like it] is not a difference about design strategy, it's the fact that the design ignores the land on which it was built.  In theory, such a philosophy would free you to create anything you could dream of; but in practice, it nearly always leads to repetition, because golf course designers aren't really nearly as creative as we are made out to be.

Tom,


You zeroed in on exactly what I was trying to say. I don't think that it is design philosophy per say that makes courses feel the same, it is the fact that a SPECIFIC philosophy that ignores the unique characteristics of a site, that makes a course feel the same as others. Using Sean's example again: the heathlands do share a similar 'homogeneous' view on how a good golf course should look & play, but they remain interesting. Why? Because, either out of necessity or want, they incorporated the unique features of the site into their vision, so you end up with variety.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tobacco Road has started to compete with The Old Course as the answer to every question ever posed here on gca.com.   


Sean references "innovation".  My hope, in this context, is more modest.


Tom D may hate me for saying this, but I think Sebonak is a worthy candidate for discussion in this regard.


Peter 


 

[Tim Gallant]

Tim - I started a thread a while ago entitled "we're living in conservative times". It was a disaster; even the few folks around here who like me and my threads hated it, and no one believed me when I said I wasn't taking about politics.

The point/theory of the thread was this: that at a deep level and in a wide-spread way, key developers and key media people and several key architects seem to have not only accepted a single/same way of doing things but have actually firmly embraced and promoted and defended this approach (which you outline well) as the very epitome and *sole possible expression* of quality golf course architecture. *That's* what's conservative about it - the close-mindedness passing itself off as expertise, the smug and self-satisfied dictates of insiders who think they know what's best for us.

Has this approach (as Sean A for one often reminds me) not produced some outstanding courses? Yes. But to your point: compare this golden age to the original/first Golden Age, when a Pine Valley could be built - and praised - just like an NGLA and a Prairie Dunes and an Oakmont and a Merion and a Pinehurst could be built and praised. It is that kind of diversity of expression and that lack of consensus opinion about what characterizes quality gca that, to me, seems to be missing today.

There's a thread up currently about Tom's The Loop.  I don't know very much about it, except that I would like to play it.  But when courses that are not even open for play, that are not even half finished but are clearly all the things the consensus demands (e.g. treeless and sand-swept and huge and wide and easy), are getting more press and attention than an open-for-play course from a top designer that doesn't fit that precise mold...well, something's not right.   
 
Peter   

Peter,

I think our posts are slightly differing, but I see what you are saying.


Later in the podcast, Andy tried to tease ideas out of Tom that maybe he hadn't employed yet. Going back to your references of great courses that came out of the Golden Age and play different, I started wondering why someone couldn't make a great Penal design nowadays? It can retain a similar styling, but the philosophy is completely different. What if King-Collins retained a similar stylistic finish to their next course, but made it play like Oakmont? Or are these courses being built, but just not getting love because they are not in-vogue? Or is it that over the last 20+ years, we have realised that actually, this is bad design? I don't think this is the case, because there are a few penal designs that we look at as being some of the best in the world.


Slightly off tangent, but your post does spark intrigue!

[Sean_A]

My problem with The Bear [and courses like it] is not a difference about design strategy, it's the fact that the design ignores the land on which it was built.  In theory, such a philosophy would free you to create anything you could dream of; but in practice, it nearly always leads to repetition, because golf course designers aren't really nearly as creative as we are made out to be.

Tom,


You zeroed in on exactly what I was trying to say. I don't think that it is design philosophy per say that makes courses feel the same, it is the fact that a SPECIFIC philosophy that ignores the unique characteristics of a site, that makes a course feel the same as others. Using Sean's example again: the heathlands do share a similar 'homogeneous' view on how a good golf course should look & play, but they remain interesting. Why? Because, either out of necessity or want, they incorporated the unique features of the site into their vision, so you end up with variety.

Isn't this the problem with Raynor designs?  The manufactured look is not a bi-product of using the land naturally.  That said, I don't think this really is a problem.  I don't start with the premise that the land must dictate the design.  I do, however, think it is very difficult to pull off a convincing design which is at odds with the land, but it can and has been done.  In the case of Raynor, using tested and true design concepts makes his courses interesting regardless of how the land was used was brilliant idea.  Even now I think this approach was probably the most clever thing we have seen in the past 100 years because it is so simple...don't fix what ain't broken.   If courses are very good isn't it okay for them to feel the same?  That said, this was also the problem (in reverse) with Mid-Pines.  It didn't feel or look like a sand hills property when that is exactly what it was...quite a special property made to look and feel like any other run of the mill parkland course.  The reno merely served to bring that aspect of the property to the fore.  Same thing for Pinehurst. 

I see innovation coming more in terms of better, cheaper and more efficient use of land...not different hole design concepts...I really don't believe there are more hole designs concepts out there.  To me, a reversable design, loop of three or six hole design, fitting however many holes into a property which work design, multiple uses for the land and 9 greens 18+ tees design are all examples of innovation.  Innovation doesn't mean something needs to be invented, just a realization that change needs to take place. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Whereas a Nicklaus design for example, we think of his courses as homogeneous and associate this with bad, which, taking your example of the Heathland courses around London, is not always the case. It is only that his SPECIFIC philosophy means that he feels the needs to 'rape the land' as Tom says, to fit his ideas, which in turn makes each design look and feel the exact same.

While I said that about The Bear, I don't think it's fair to characterize all of Jack's courses as being alike.  He has done so many that he's really tried a lot of out-of-the-box designs in different places over the years.  [One example:  the New course at Grand Cypress.]  However, even that example is based on a foreign concept, rather than anything he had to work with there.

[Tom_Doak]

One of the courses that I had in my mind when writing the OP was Tobacco Road. I also will be interested to see how it is accepted / assessed in 20 years time. While I haven't played it, so can't really comment, it does appear to be bold in a way that few other courses with a similar style and philosophy are.


My point from my post was really that, had Mike had the opportunity to do many more golf courses, it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing if the philosophy that he applied had been homogeneous because in theory, he would have let the unique characteristics of each individual site shine through.

Mike's work is sort of protected from being "homogenous" because he only built a few courses before his untimely passing.  I felt that his first few courses were too much alike, but on some of his last projects he was evolving and not just throwing the kitchen sink at it ... I wish we'd gotten to see some more.  But I'm not sure how much of, say, Bulls Bay is based on the unique characteristics of that site.  In large part it's a figment of Mike's imagination.

[Tom_Doak]

In the case of Raynor, using tested and true design concepts makes his courses interesting regardless of how the land was used was brilliant idea.  Even now I think this approach was probably the most clever thing we have seen in the past 100 years because it is so simple...don't fix what ain't broken.   If courses are very good isn't it okay for them to feel the same? 

Sean:


I think the same way ... don't fix what ain't broken ... except I apply that line of thought to the PROPERTY, and not my own design concepts.


It's okay for courses to feel the same, but the great courses create a character of their own.

[Sean_A]

Yep, I agree that great courses do find a way to create their own character, but that can be the case for good courses as well.


Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

My problem with The Bear [and courses like it] is not a difference about design strategy, it's the fact that the design ignores the land on which it was built.  In theory, such a philosophy would free you to create anything you could dream of; but in practice, it nearly always leads to repetition, because golf course designers aren't really nearly as creative as we are made out to be.

Tom,


You zeroed in on exactly what I was trying to say. I don't think that it is design philosophy per say that makes courses feel the same, it is the fact that a SPECIFIC philosophy that ignores the unique characteristics of a site, that makes a course feel the same as others. Using Sean's example again: the heathlands do share a similar 'homogeneous' view on how a good golf course should look & play, but they remain interesting. Why? Because, either out of necessity or want, they incorporated the unique features of the site into their vision, so you end up with variety.

I don't start with the premise that the land must dictate the design.  I do, however, think it is very difficult to pull off a convincing design which is at odds with the land, but it can and has been done.  In the case of Raynor, using tested and true design concepts makes his courses interesting regardless of how the land was used was brilliant idea. 

That first sentence: isn't that why designs feel homogeneous in the first place? If the thinking is that it doesn't really matter what the land provides, these design concepts will work, then will it not feel even a little bit similar? Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, and in my last statement of the OP, I state that similar designs are not necessarily a bad thing, provided the unique features of the land are allowed to shine through - not that they necessarily need to dictate the design applied. Although that being said, would a designer ever go to a site and say: hmm, this would be a great site for a penal design! Nevermind that they don't prescribe to the penal school of thinking.


To keep with the Raynor theme, I agree with you that the Redan at Yale feels different to the Redan at NGLA (Macdonald/Raynor), because the landforms and where they positioned the template's are different. Had Raynor decided to plow the land (if he could, which I don't think he could) to make a replica of the Redan at National, then it would feel more like what we are saying Nicklaus does (generalising, but you get the point).

[Jeff_Brauer]

My first lesson in landscape design school was to preserve sense of place in your design, usually by keeping as much of the trees, topo, etc.  Enhance it via circulation, emphasis, etc., but don't bulldoze it, or it WILL look like any other place.


Also learned that we are creatures of habit, and will probably design the same approximate product over and over, unless we consciously decide not to.  Back when we might be designing a few courses at a time, I had the opportunity to compare two plans, and there were distinct similarities, namely target bunkers and "anything but a circle" greens, to name two.


Oddly, the path to different design for me was to follow the first paragraph, but the second is to have a hip pocket list of design ideas.  Whether my ideas, general ideas from courses I have played, or wacky things I always wanted to try, I have a journal of them.  I even have a record of when I used them, such as "Tangleridge '94, 6th green" or whatever.


As architects, we all have to balance using the site and golf design ideas.  And, in some ways, looking at a green site with a few ideas in mind yields more concrete thought that looking at a green site with a blank mind/slate.  I don't feel I have any problem forcing design ideas into a site, but then, I have never had an unlimited earthmoving budget, either.  It is really only the most expensive projects where the temptation to force fit the same holes becomes significant.


Raynor proved very adept at putting the exact same holes, well adapted to their topography. IMHO having far more than 18 hole concepts (I estimate I have at least double that for tees, fw LZ and greens, maybe more) and the designers state of mind to keep testing different ideas until one fits is what design is all about. (I have thought about creativity, and believe continuous testing, replacement of this for that, etc. in quick succession is really the heart of creativity, vs. straight line thinking of a scientist or accountant.)


Back to the OP, yes design is somewhat homogenous.  Construction materials, contractors working among different architects, issues of the day (environmental, residential, slow play, etc.) all begin to suggest similar solutions, even to different architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Back to the OP, yes design is somewhat homogenous.  Construction materials, contractors working among different architects, issues of the day (environmental, residential, slow play, etc.) all begin to suggest similar solutions, even to different architects.

In our case, it's not contractors who take pieces of the work back and forth between different architects, but young associates and interns and shapers.  Most of the young people who have gone through our internship program have gone on to work for other architects [or to BE other architects] and take some of what they've learned with them, so others' courses have some resemblance to ours.


Also, Jeff is right to point out that environmental regulations tend to suggest [or even require] similar solutions.  All of those courses the Japanese terraced into mountainsides in the 80's look too much alike, because they were required by law to have the same buffer zones of trees in between holes.

[Carl Rogers]

Tobacco Road has started to compete with The Old Course as the answer to every question ever posed here on gca.com.   
.................
Peter

I think this is true because of what they represent and that they are well known.


For me Tobacco Road is homogeneous because it takes all the usual elements and puts them on a double dose of steriods.

[Tim Gallant]

      Jeff,
 
Really interesting post – I like imagining architects having a list of design ideas / features that they can carry around so that when they are walking the course, they can refer back to specific thoughts. Question: do you refer to this more when you are routing the course, or after once you have a good idea where the green site might be (as you reference)?
 
I completely agree with your first paragraph, and Donald Steele in Simpson & Co. wrote: ‘There is no escaping he fact that some courses are intrusive. They ignore the fact that the look of a course is a large part of its appeal. It makes you want to play them. Many golfers claim, with a sense of smugness, they can tell at a glance a Colt course, a Ross course or a Simpson course. It is an assertion hard to justify, suggesting, as it does, designing to a formula. Good architects take pride that all courses are shaped to sit comfortably in the particular landscape in which they are built. It is the architect’s responsibility to make them fit.’
 
This seems to run in parallel with what you are saying. To tie it to my OP, I believe that while Simpson or Colt may have had a set of design principles and rough formulas that they were designing to (homogenous in a way), the courses themselves didn’t feel homogeneous because they let the particular landscape shine through that made the course different!
 
Your point about equipment is also telling. Would an architect nowadays try to construct a course using only equipment present in the early 20^th century to achieve a more unique finished product? I imagine Askernish might be a close example of this?
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()