This discussion and interpretation of W&S's foreward and opening philosofic declaration seems to be distilling down to where the rubber meets the road in Jeff's last post.
W&S first declare themselves to be 'catholic' or traditionalists (for their times) and almost apologise to their adherence to the 'scottish model' of the golf course. I think that 'scottish model' was code words for ground game on links conditions environment. As Tommy interprets the motive as a reaction in W&S's time to the "ball out of control" forcing a new architectural paradigm in GCA, which they regretted, but were about to try to deal with in a discussion in architectural terms in their book.
They went on to an acknowledgement of the fact that first we must have the underpinning of the game of certain skills and ability. But I think they mixed their concepts in their sentences and were talking about playing skills, military-like strategies, and engineering realities to construct on newer more difficult properties to achieve those strategic fields of play. (I really had to stretch and read between the lines to interpret that from what they said)
They go on to define more of their bias on the aesthetic side of design-architecture by declaring their love of a golf course simply-minimally and naturally laid upon the environment, as a course design that collaborates with nature and compliments the unending randomness of the natural world.
The comments of why one course has vitality and the other is insipid in character is sort of their version of how we on GCA like to say someone "gets it" or doesn't, according to their bias.
Finally, they seem to be setting the stage for the discussion of the actual construction of courses, or the remodelling of others that they found insipid in character. But, they caution that as in any partnership, they found they had to compromise and even if they didn't agree on certain fine points of a design technique or ideal, for purposes of the book as a partnership of authors, they put forth their compromises.
Where we on GCA always get hung up is on the aesthetic VS the strategic. Some see the highly manufactured golf course designs of an architect with a consistent production style who pays less attention to the natural environment and forces his strategic ideas onto the ground time after time, and yet they have a good playing stategy, and can shrug off the lack of natural beauty because they like the way it plays more than they care what it looks like against nature after they 'decorate' the landscape, IMHO :-/ Other's won't give any quarter to a trademark style and high production or formulaic approach and will rail endlessly about what strikes them as insipid design. They tend to be 'catholic'. They see a beauty in the old game that can be played along the ground. They didn't like the aerial game that brought length and targets into the equation. They didn't like the move from traditionally natural links or links-like grounds to forests and unremarkable flat plains because they required altered construction techniques.
I think Jeff makes a good series of points why the modern high production/construction techniques trend towards the regular, some say insipid, and why they so often vary from the offerings of minimalists who tend to lay the courses out as they go, sans high production techniques and with less emphasis on drawing documents. It is obviously a question of having thriving business or starving artist.
We may have bias's that favors strategy over beauty or vice-versa. And, it gets really tricky when a not so beautifully and integrated with nature course design actually plays very strategic and requires great playing skill and agility. Some will dislike it just because it doesn't look natural.
So, like W&S says, you put your ideas out there and take your shots, because hardly anyone will agree with it all. Even they acknowleged they didn't agree on everything, but they agreed to 'just get along' for the sake of the book.
