[T_MacWood]

"TMac, many of the courses from "the good old days" I've played are little more than converted cornfields with pushed-up tees and greens, a few ill-positioned hazards, and little differentiation."

Lou
Which courses?

Texas may be an exception to the good old days rule.

"Are you telling me that only the greats from the golden age were designing courses back then?  Weren't there plenty of courses "designed" by some guy who had some extra land, using a Farmall tractor and few bags of grass seed?"

Doug
No. Sure there were courses built by Farmer Joe in the good old days, and there are courses built by Farmer Joe today as well. There is a course of the description about an hour from my home designed by Pete Dye's father.

What I'm telling you is the overall quality of architecture was better in the good old days because of Ross, Tillinghast, Raynor, Colt and Park.  

What are your favorite courses in the state of Iowa?

[Gene Greco]

One of my more famous patients (a musician) says the "musicians" of yesterday were uglier than those of today,  but more talented.

I don't believe this idea can be carried over and applied to modern and classical golf architecture. There are as many talented architects building wonderful golf courses on superb pieces of land today as yesterday. For example,...........

I visited Sebonak the other day and, as was mentioned by the site manager, if you had three pieces of land - the one NGLA sits on, the one Shinnecock sits on or Sebonak's - which one would you pick?

Sebonak would be mine.

[TEPaul]

I think "over-engineering" is somewhat pertinent here when comparing SOME new style architecture to old architecture. Generally the architecture (man-made) on most all the old stuff was confined to the tee-end and green-end with just bunkering or mounding etc in the mid-body of the old style holes. But so much of the new stuff has massive amounts of engineered architecture in too many holes' mid-bodes. In too many cases it's not only unnecessary in play but doesn't look natural either compared to the mid-bodies of most of the older courses. The older courses mid-bodies look natural because they mostly are natural. Back in that day they generally just didn't have as much facility to touch them as they do today.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think "over-engineering" is somewhat pertinent here when comparing SOME new style architecture to old architecture. Generally the architecture (man-made) on most all the old stuff was confined to the tee-end and green-end with just bunkering or mounding etc in the mid-body of the old style holes. But so much of the new stuff has massive amounts of engineered architecture in too many holes' mid-bodes. In too many cases it's not only unnecessary in play but doesn't look natural either compared to the mid-bodies of most of the older courses. The older courses mid-bodies look natural because they mostly are natural. Back in that day they generally just didn't have as much facility to touch them as they do today.

Tom,

My point exactly.

I played a nice new course recently built on a really decent piece of land.  

You'd never know it though.  If there was a yard of unturned  or unmoved soil out there after "construction" was finished, I wouldn't be able to find it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike is correct the overall quality was much better in the good old days.

Jeff Brauer is a wise man.  Unfortunately, sometimes he seems conflicted with the era he is designing in, particularly with his heavily contoured greens maintained at modern speeds.  

Well, you can't say I follow the "modern forumula" anyway.....  So, I got THAT going for me.....

[T_MacWood]

When evaluating and comparing old with new, one of the disadvantages modern architects have is no opportunity host majors or little opportunity.

Other than Hazeltine and Bellerive did RTJ host any majors? Wilson had a couple--PGA GC and NCR. Dye's has had two or three plus a Ryder Cup...he's done the best. I believe Fazio has been shut out and he has been going strong for two decades...perhaps that explains his desire to fiddle with courses like Oakmont, Merion, ANGC and Riviera....if you can't get there on your own why not on the backs of Fownes, Wilson, MacKenzie and Thomas. In comparison Ross and Tilly had mulitiple majors in the middle of their careers....some of these same courses host today.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

While it may be interesting to try to establish quality of architecture via where majors have been held I think that fact can be more than a little misleading.

It seems to me that majors have been held at various courses as much or more because the clubs very much wanted to do that---not necessarily because of the perceived quality of the architecture of a course.

One can point to the Merions, Pinehurst #2s, Oak Hills, Oakland Hills, Aroniminks, Oakmonts, Baltusrols, Winged Foots, Rivieras, ANGCs, Pebbles but one can also point to the Pine Valleys, NGLAs, Cypresses, Seminoles, Lidos, Yales and Shinnecocks (until recently) who never seemed interested in holding major tournaments when they surely could have done at some point if they'd wanted to.

"What I'm telling you is the overall quality of architecture was better in the good old days because of Ross, Tillinghast, Raynor, Colt and Park."

While that sentiment may be true in some circles and certainly on this website it's by no means a universal sentiment.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

In reference to Majors, it will be interesting to see how Kinloch by Lester George is received by the USGA. It seems to be universally accepted by people here, Golf Digest and Golfweek. When Vinny Giles set up the logo for the club, he put the US Amateur (an amateur major certainly0 trophy in it, and it is pretty well known that he would like to see The Virginia Amateur and US Amateur come to Kinloch.

The only drawback is the timing of the Amateur in August. I played Kinloch in August, and jeez this Yankee was melting down there !

[Mike_Cirba]

MIke Cirba,

hat is another ingenious way of making the golden age courses look great by comparison - limit the modern choices to one geographic area known for average golf (but improving) so why not use Hilton Head or an area known for better gold, and while at it, limit the geography of the golden age courses so the battle isn't so skewed?

Jeff,

What other mecca of modern courses would you like me to choose for comparision purposes?

Arizona?  Palm Springs?  Southern California?  Northern California!?  The Robert Trent Jones Trail?  The Bear Trace?  Ocean City, MD?  Florida?!?  

Perhaps the only place I can think of where the courses being built today are clearly better than what came before them is Texas and the southwest generally, but that's as much do to massively changed demographics as the skills and design approach of any architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I just judge each course on its merits, without making any generalizations about which era was better.

Environmental constraints have some bearing on the design interest of modern courses, but I don't think it's as much as people here perceive.  I also don't think that land is the issue ... I've got more great sites to work with RIGHT NOW than Donald Ross ever had in his life.

To me, the thing which holds back the majority of modern courses is THE NEED TO MAKE MONEY.  Most courses aren't developed by golfers who want an interesting course to play ... they are developed by someone who may be interested in providing a good golf course, but who also wants to make money doing it.  And because modern courses are very expensive, financing them generally involves trade-offs with surrounding real estate.

How many trade-offs did Tillinghast have to make at Winged Foot or Bethpage?  Ross at Pinehurst or Seminole or Essex or anywhere else?  That's the difference.

[Mark_F]

But Tom, according to the gospel of Lou Duran, the whole reason we are on this planet is TO MAKE MONEY.

Art, and anything else, comes wayyyyyyyyyy behind.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()