Classic vs. Modern

[cary lichtenstein]

I'd like to hear from the treehouse some comments as to whether they like the top 100 classic as defined by Golfweek (pre 1960) or the Modern better.

[John_Conley]

Are you asking if 1960 is a good divider, or whether there should be any divider at all?

On this site, most people will vote in favor of the older courses.  From your comments regarding Engh's work, I suspect you may like the newer.

A guy once told me that he and his friends like 6, 7, and 8 more than 2 at Pinehurst and he couldn't figure out the rankings.  I told him that's all I needed to know... they prefer newer courses.

[cary lichtenstein]

John:

7 of my top 18 are Modern, 11 are classic.

I would have to go thru the top 100 in each category. I tend to like the sand based links courses regardless of age and hilly mountain courses from the Canadian Rockies down thru New New Mexico.

Cary

[Anthony_Nysse]

Cary,
  I like the "divider" because it does put some spotlight on some classic courses that are due the reconition-Take a course like Yeaman's-would it be viewed as much of an architectural haven without some exposure from Golfweek? I know I didn't know about Yeaman's until 5 years ago. Take a few other courses like Rolling Green, Fox Chapel, The Minikahda Club, Beverly, Fenway or Taconic GC-Courses that are truly great, but the aren't the Oakmonts, Pine Valleys, Merions or ANGCs.
 I think that too many modern courses trying to be rated just for exposure to sell membeships and lots-I've found that when I've rated modern courses, I'm usually welcomed with open arms because rating means more memberships, lots....As for the classics I've played, I'm looked at just like another member, almost with an attitude as "We know that we have a special place and don't need a piece of paper to tell us." I'd rather feel like a member cause then I know I'm somewhere special!!

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, perhaps a good two dozen of the greatest golf courses ever done that populate the top 100 or so in the world should come from the pre-1960 category. After that two dozen or so I think some of the courses that were built post 1960, particularly about post 1990, begin to take over that top 100 in real architectural and play quality.

Maybe I should rethink that statement tomorrow though.

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

You didn't know about Yeamans Hall until about five years ago because we did our work there 6-7 years ago ... before that it was a very cool place with a messed-up golf course.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Mr. Doak,
  Exactly-A lot of the courses that are ranked in the 50-100 slot are because of the major architectural push over the last 6-8 years...clubs understand what they have, renovating and getting the kudos for doing so. Much like what I'm guessing things were like at Yeamans-A really neat course that needed to have it's architectural intent brought back out, which is what you and your boys did. Look at the courses that I named-Fenway, Beverly, Rolling Green, etc...The course always there, but the memberhships are now realizing what they have and are restoring these gems...restoring them properly-I don't consider what Fazio has done at Winged Foot or Oakmont as restoring. Same with Jones at Bethpage.