A non-GCAer on "classic courses"

[George Pazin]

I was at a wedding over the weekend and, of course, took the opportunity to catch up with my friends and the state of their games.

One of my friends plays every day, and has played many courses, both older and newer, overseas and the US. We were discussing the golfclubatlas site, and he asked how the members viewed Fazio. I won't go into what I relayed, but I did indicate many on here prefer older "classic" courses.

His response was interesting - he said that when someone says "classic course" to him, he thinks "Easy tee to green, tough as nails around the green". That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Then I was reading the recent (excellent) Ballyneal thread, and came across this gem from Larry Kelto:

I saw John Kirk shoot 69 and two days later saw a scratch man who will not be named shoot 81. Wind conditions were the same for both players, but John hit his intended spots in the fairway, and the other one didn’t. John then had much better stances and angles of attack to the pins. John also was very observant when on the greens – an absolute must for scoring at Ballyneal.

I think this is, in large part, why my friend feels as he does. He sees the width and forgiving nature of many older courses off the tee - i.e. not chock full of water or other unplayable hazards - and doesn't see that, while there may be a lot of playable width, the effective width is far less, leading to situations such as Larry describes.

Do you agree with my conclusion, or am I just biased?

 

[BCrosby]

George -

I don't think you are being biased. (Your friend sounds positively Hunterian compared to some of my golfing buddies. ) I think you are being merely descriptive of a mindset that is probably a majority mindset at most clubs.

Comments from players with little interest in gca seem to fit into two main categories. The course at issue is (a) in good or bad condition and/or (b) easy or hard to score on. And that is usually pretty much the end of the conversation.

I have been singularly unsuccessful in getting them to go much behond those generalities.

Bob

[JSlonis]

George,

Your friends view on classic courses just proves that everybody sees courses in a different light.  I actually view classic courses compared to more modern Fazio type courses just the opposite.

More modern courses seem to have a bigger scale to them in every regard compared to many of the more classic designs here in the Philly/NJ/NY area.  I think for the most part, many of the Fazio courses I've played have been easier from the tee shot perspective.  I've found his fairways to be wider and more defined than those of the classic courses.  Not just to single out Fazio, I've found this to be true of many of the modern courses designed by architects such as Hurzdan & Fry, Smyers, Kay, Hanse, Coore & Crenshaw.  I think you'd find much more width in these designs than you'd find in the older classic courses.  

Maybe a lot of the classic courses were originally designed this way as well.  If they were, then a large majority of them have had their width taken away by too many trees or just simple maintenance practices.  For me the classic courses present more difficulty from the tee than their modern counterparts while still protecting very well from the greensite designs.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Jamie and Bob, for your insights.

More genius, this time from Doug Wright on Ballyneal:

Third, I love the width--much wider than Sand Hills. This is where repeat play would in particular lead to better understanding and appreciation, because on a single day's play one appreciates the width for what it is--a better chance to hit a fairway! As Ran points out in his profile, there are subtle and not so subtle options available on nearly every hole. Most pronounced would be the 17th, where it is absolutely counterintuitive to hit it quite far left when the right side is directly in line with the green from the tee, but the left side clearly is the Line of Charm and the right side is No Good as I found out during my one playing.

Sheer genius.

[Ed_Baker]

George,

Here's a recent quote from the winner of the Mass. Open recently held at Charles River, " it's a beautiful golf course, but they should blow the greens up."

Every GCA guy that has played the River has recognized the brillance of our set of Ross greens and surrounds.

There you have it, a pro of some repute, the only player to break par in a state open thinks our greens should be flattened, unbelievable.

[Tom Huckaby]

Hi Ed:

To me this just shows what I've thought all along about this issue and others related to it:  the more one cares about score - either to win a trophy or to earn his livlihood - the less one wants chance and quirk to come into play, and his results to be based on his own skill alone.  It's only logical.  It's just not really what golf is meant to be....

I'm also guessing George's friend is just a very good player, for whom angles also don't matter that much.  If one can control his irons perfectly and make a 190 yard 8 iron stop on a dime, what the heck do angles matter?

The cool thing is there are still few who are like this; or to ut it better, the VAST majority of golfers will benefit from finding the proper angle in.  Then add in the Wright Theorem - that being able to hit a fairway is a cool thing in and of itself - and the case for width seems pretty damn solid.

Just don't expect pros or competitive players to buy it!

TH

[Brian Phillips]

George,

If your friend thinks Merion and Pine Valley are easy Tee to Green, i quit golf..

Brian

[George Pazin]

Brian, those are two of the very few courses he hasn't played.

How long are you in the States? I saw your post about watching the World Cup in Philly, but I was in NYC this past weekend, or I would've driven out.