What can we learn about architecture from

[Patrick_Mucci]

mediocre to poor golf courses designed by the "classic" or "Golden Age" architects ?

[Jordan Wall]

We learn nobody is perfect.

Everybody screws up sometimes.
Not every great architect can design a great work with every site...

What are some examples of these poor golf courses by some of the more famous architects of golf?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jordan,

I can't recall a poor Raynor course, for example, but some are better than others.  We discussed Flynn.  I think that Ross was all over the board with his paper plans, farmed out construction, etc.

Pat,

I think that then, maybe even more than now, they were spreading the game (like Bendelow) and realized it may be just as important to have a golf course as to have a great one.  It kind of boggles my mind to think of the choices that those guys had.  Take (once again) Medinah - they probaby considered a signature design at higher fees from Ross or MacKenzie, and settled on the local boy who was probably less expensive and promised (I think) ten site visits.

From whom do you think they would get a better product?

[Dean Paolucci]

Pat - It could also be that these pioneers were constantly experimenting and what we measure as mediocre was actually the shop drawings for their greatest acheivments!  I think that in an effort to "create" innovation they sometimes come up short.  

In my opinion, an example would be Steamshovel's 13th hole at the Knoll vs the 17th at Forsgate or the obverse of the green on the 12th at Forsgate.  It could be placement in the routing for 13 vs 17, or in the case of the 12th at Forsgate the obverse is just kind of goofy as opposed to the brilliance of the biaritz green on 17 or the 13th at the Knoll.

Just one mans opinion.

[Kyle Harris]

mediocre to poor golf courses designed by the "classic" or "Golden Age" architects ?

List some

Plymouth CC and Doylestown CC by Flynn come to mind.

Pat,

For starters, we learn exactly what "median," "middle of the road," and "average" is. It gives us a reference point and a decent standard by which to compare better or worse courses.

[Mike_Young]

That they were the grounds that allowed golf to develop to where it is today......

[Tommy_Naccarato]

How stupid green committees can really get...... they are usually why a lot of GREAT old courses are really bad.

On the public side, walk out to Griffith Park and tell me bueraucratic evolution is a good thing.

[George Pazin]

Sometimes a good walk is better than 18 "great" holes.

[Tom_Doak]

We can learn that a good plan is not enough -- without real effort from the architect during construction, without proper financial backing, and without the right love and care from succeeding generations, even the best-laid plans are only good ideas.

[Patrick_Mucci]

mediocre to poor golf courses designed by the "classic" or "Golden Age" architects ?

List some

Some say that Scarsdale isn't AWT's finest work.

How's that for a starter ?

Have you ever played Scarsdale ?