Old Money vs. New Money Tracks.

[Gerry B]

fishers island is not in connecticut - technical point.

I have not played Stanwich -but heard they have fantastic green complexes

re:old vs new -had a self imposed rule during my many travels over the last few years in hopes of respecting history  -if it was built after 1935 was not interested in playing it before trying an old gem in the same locale.

I think modern day architects such as Tom Doak, Crenshaw / Coores, and to a leeser degree Hurdzan / Fry and Tom Fazio have changed my original position / thinking  - they have all designed some fantastic courses in recent years that stand up to the classic gems in many ways - in some cases -effective use of interesting pieces of property without appearing too manufactured -Bandon and Pacific are 2 that fit that criteria and have heard the same from those who have played Sand Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

It's got nothing to do with money.

It's in the numbers.

When a club would take a few members in each year they could be selective and they could assimilate those new members into the club's culture rather easily.

But, when wholesale admissions cause large numbers of members to be admitted over three, four or five years, the club can't assimilate these people into the clubs culture, instead, they form a counter culture within the club, and that's where the conflicts and changes begin.

Many clubs have internal conflicts that can be attributed to the differences in these two cultures.

But, that's just my opinion.

[T_MacWood]

There are two things that appear to be beyond dispute:

1. Raynor designed a ton of courses for blue blood old money.

2. His courses are very well preserved for the most part.

IMO you can attribute it to a conservative attitude, they had no desire to impress anyone, could care less. That may be why so many British courses are relatively well preserved...a concervative and frugal attitude. The opposite of the nuveau riche.

[TEPaul]

Mike Hendren:

I agree with you--all yankees who're in the south should return home to where they belong and frankly I'm changing my tune about the worthlessness of Washington D.C---it does have a purpose in keeping the country as a whole---Richmond being the capital of the South was a very poor idea! It works much better as the cigarette capital of the country.  

[DMoriarty]

There are two things that appear to be beyond dispute:

1. Raynor designed a ton of courses for blue blood old money.

2. His courses are very well preserved for the most part.

IMO you can attribute it to a conservative attitude, they had no desire to impress anyone, could care less. That may be why so many British courses are relatively well preserved...a concervative and frugal attitude. The opposite of the nuveau riche.

Here are two more things that appear to be beyond dispute:  

1.  Raynor built a (relatively) large number of courses in the first half of the 20's and before.

2.  Through his own work and his association with MacDonald, Raynor was a well known and well established designer before the depression.  

I have a hard time believing that your conservative, blue blue blood old money would have been as loyal to Raynor's designs if he wasnt so established before they started losing their old money in the Depression.  

Also, I wonder how much Raynor's lack of originality contributed to the preservation of his courses.   Perhaps it was more difficult for a few rebels to talk their fellow members into altering a redan, for example.   Redans were likely familiar and comfortable.

[T_MacWood]

I don't know if Raynor's lack of originality led to the preservation of his courses. Old money tends to be conservative, conservativism results in less change in most cases.

Old Elm (Colt) in Chicago, Rolling Rock (Ross), St. Louis (Macdonald), Myopia Hunt (Leeds), Kittansett (Hood & Flynn), CPC (MacKenzie), Somerset Hills (Tilly) and numerous clubs in England (St.Georges Hill, Swinley Forest, Walton Heath, Worlington, etc) are other non-Raynor examples...often they don't like to put much money into updating their clubhouses either.

On the other hand there are exceptions to the rule...Gulph Mills, Chevy Chase, CC of Detroit tinkered with their courses. My impression is LACC is the closest to an old money club in LA.

I believe Watson redesigned Annandale in 1917--adding grass greens. The work was carried out by Billy Bell who was the superitendant. In the early 20's golf architect Bell came back  and redesigned the course again...adding four new holes (which replaced 4 holes that were across Colorado Blvd).

[wsmorrison]

Tom,
I have not found any evidence that Hood did any design work at Kittansett.  He may very well have overseen the "building" of the course, but based upon the evidence I know of to date, there is nothing to conclude the design was not all Flynn (with maybe a bit of Hugh Wilson as Wilson visited with Flynn at Kittansett early on).  Do you have any information pertaining to Hood's work at Kittansett?  Hood was on a number of committees at TCC in Brookline and was on the board of the USGA Green Section, but I know of no archival materials that support any design work that can be attributed to Hood.
Regards,
Wayne

[Top100Guru]

Regarding Old Money vs. New Money...........a case in Point.........take from this what you will......I recently attended a member function at an "Old Raynor Course" where the members were told to be at a special dinner at 7:30pm dressed and ready to go....everyone was prompt and the evening went smoothly...yet, at another course, "New Cupp Design" in north Atlanta, an extravagant wine dinner was pre-planned for members that started at 7 pm.....the first people didnt even show up until 8:10pm, several parties of 4 and 6 didin't even bother to come at all, and the first course was served at 8:30 after it had sat under the heat lamps in the kitchen for over an hour....now I know this topic doesnt really cater to the "golfing part" of the question, but it does apply to the mentality of the "Nouveau Riche" vs. "The Blue Blood Money Set"...the later playcates more to "Old Tradition" and "Mannerly" type behaviors and attitudes whilst many of the "Nouveau-Set" think that there respective &*&*& don't stink...if you catch my drift. I believe the same transcends to the golfing acumen of the Old $ vs. New $....of course, this is merely my observation...I believe Mucci put it best, most "old $ Clubs" are particular in there pursuit of members whilst "new $ clubs" tend to take "ANYONE" that can write the big check....which brings up another point, in that most "Old $ Clubs" are relatively inexpensive to join vs. "New $ Clubs" being Big $$$....at Old Clubs, its not about the Money, it is about getting in, where at "Most" new $ clubs, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

[DMoriarty]

I don't know if Raynor's lack of originality led to the preservation of his courses. Old money tends to be conservative, conservativism results in less change in most cases.

One reason old money tended to be socially conservative is that they liked the way they had always had it.  The inertia of familiarity.   Many members of Raynor clubs were likely very familiar with Raynor courses even before theirs was built.  Instant familiarity.   Had Raynor been more original in each of his designs, his later works might still been unfamiliar when things got rough; and therefore less precious and less worth preserving.

Cypress is an interesting citation . . . Remember that MacKenzie commented that he expected any worthwhile new course to quite controversial and widely criticized when it first opened, because any worthwhile course would be breaking new ground.  Remember also that Cypress was the exception-- universally hailed as great from the beginning, probably because the setting overwhealmed the lack of familiarity.   Had Cypress not been quite so beautiful, perhaps its fate might have been different.
___________________

I had always heard that MacBeth was involved at Annandale.  Are you saying that this is not so?  

[pdrake]

Great point McIII.........some love to put down the "old money" tracks in specific places ala SPDB referring to CT as having only nice clubs.  CT has many great clubs......clubs that have been around since 1900 and have thrived.  These clubs have and will be the social center of events for the well to do in these towns.  Whether it be in Greenwich, Darien, West Hartford and Hamden.  These clubs are not easy to get into........you must know many people to vouche for your character........and in most cases the coin isn't that much (less than $20K in some cases).  I would much rather be a member at Hartford, Round Hill or New Haven for way less than what Stanwich and Bull's Bridge are charging (both over $100K).  We may not have the quality of the courses in Phil, Boston or Westchester county, but we have quality memberships and playable member courses, courses which can hold significant local and USGA events (Mid-Ams at Hartford and Round Hill and CSGA/CT PGA events at New Haven, Woodway and the such.)

[Cliff Hamm]

A few years back as I recall Golf Digest did an article comparing the most famous course in an area with the 'old money' course.  For example, for New Jersey they contrasted Baltusrol with Somerset Hills, in Chicago Medinah with either Olympia Fields or Chicago, can't recall, in LA  Riviera with LA, etc, etc.  Anyway their basic point was that the more famous courses were not old money and that the old money tended to go to more understated clubs.

[SPDB]

PDrake - I don't think I "put down" any CT clubs. I don't believe this thread is about clubs, or their members (that would be an interesting exercise in self-criticism), but rather the golf courses. Connecticut is the richest state in the union per capita. You would think the courses would reflect that, as they do in other affluent metropolitan areas.