[wsmorrison]

Lou,

I agree that nothing conclusive can be drawn by comparing two subjective lists.  I just thought I would put it out there and see what happens while not subscribing to any results that can be deemed facts.

Terry,

I found it interesting that you thought the biggest discrepancies were towards the bottom of the list as opposed to the top.  I figured the top tier courses on each list would be tight but that the classics would usually win out in close matches.  I thought that as you get closer to the bottom of the lists that the discrepancies would be greater but that the winning percentage would decrease.  I had no idea, but that was my mindset going in.  Not having played enough of these courses, I remain ignorant.  But ignorance is bliss 

I believe that asking which would you rather play versus which is the best architecture are two entirely different questions.   Many would rather play a course with a history even over a course with "better" architecture.   In many of the top classics, you get both.

[Garland Bayley]

Let's ask this question a different way. If we were to ask Geoff S to write a modern day Lines of Charm, would he come up with the substance that is in the original book?

I own and have read Fazio's book. Do you think anything from it would make it into the new book?

[PThomas]

fwiw, i haven't played Inverness, but I also agree that Briggs Ranch is a very good golf course

[John Kirk]

In general, I am a fan of the modern courses.  Remember we are talking about the last 20 years, so it's unfair to use the entire classic list for comparison.  A few thoughts on the subject, and these are all generalizations:

Factors in Favor of Classic Courses:
-better pieces of property
-not "overshaped"
-mature poa annua turf
-easier to walk

Factors Favoring Modern Courses:
-designed for modern game, longer and tougher
-wider fairways and playing angles
-better grasses and agronomy

Nearly all of the classic courses defend par with narrow fairways and heavy rough, which eliminates the architect's intended playing angles.  Poa courses are less reliablly maintained, and rarely are allowed to become firm and fast in the warmer months.

The top 25 classic courses are very tough to beat, partly because of the great variety.  There's nothing like Prairie Dunes or Riviera anywhere.  However, rather high on the list, the classic courses begin to lose uniqueness.  Amost all are well maintained parkland courses on gently rolling property.  They all look the same to me, regardless of bunker positioning or green slopes.  It's nice to see different types of courses like Yeaman's Hall gain recognition recently.

Modern courses possess more variety as one moves down through the top 100.  We-Ko-Pa Saguaro is unlike anything on the classic list.  So is Erin Hills, or The Concession, or many others.  Furthermore, they have better grasses for playing the game.

[Doug Ralston]

My own oar in this lake was to make the point that this is a PUBLIC golf Golden Age.

The Classic Age courses were not available to the average person. In fact, the few people who played golf and did not have lotsa bucks, did so at sad munis mostly, with straight tree-lined fairways, mostly flat greens, and the occasional shallow bunker in front of the green. Real architecture was for private clubs.

Now we see even the golfer of small discretionary funds playing courses with real architectural creativity. And through the early part of this decade, that was a steadily growing phenomenon. Sadly, I think it is now not.

I happen to think economics is the most important factor in this. More people at the bottom have less discretionary money to spend, while on the other end of the spectrum, big money is available to create private courses and CCFADs that are priced too high.

Note: The most I have paid to play a course is $89, which is a LOT for me. I doubt I will ever pay $200 or more even on courses that are theoretically available to me. I would love to play at Bandon or Kohler, but it is not feasable. That said, I am glad there ARE nice courses playable at prices I can afford. I fear less of those will appear in the future. Thus THESE are the 'Golden Age' years of public golf, IMHO.

Doug

[Jeff_Brauer]

Let's ask this question a different way. If we were to ask Geoff S to write a modern day Lines of Charm, would he come up with the substance that is in the original book?

I own and have read Fazio's book. Do you think anything from it would make it into the new book?

He could, if he was inclined to, but he's not!

I agree that Faz' book is just a bit light on the strategy, etc.  I recall comments like not putting too many bunkers on the right of the green, sort of defensive "what I would not do" comments, not here is what I would do.  The book was more about the presentation of the courses, which is his focus.

But if Geoff covered Pete Dye, JN, or a few others, there is substance.  JN included an example of playing strategy on his holes, a discussion of his use of Redans, etc.

Frankly, how much substance is there to "Lines of Charm?"  Geoff has devoted a better part of a half dozen books to explaining "hit it near a fw hazard for a better line to the pin" and this book was near the end of the line (unless more are coming) Personally, I think we are ready for the next generation of strategy books, focusing on what has changed in golf strategic thinking, not what we hope will come back.

The closest yet is Paul Daley's series of 3 books, where several architects contribute strategic thoughts, including me on tee shots (a low point of the book to be sure!) and Tim Liddy (I think) on Pete Dye's reversal of traditional strategy of alternating bunkers inside-outside to "inside-inside" to better challenge good players and make it easier for others.  There were others as well, but I don't have the book in front of me.

[Garland Bayley]

...
But if Geoff covered Pete Dye, JN, or a few others, there is substance.  JN included an example of playing strategy on his holes, a discussion of his use of Redans, etc.

I have read Bury Me in a Pot Bunker, but I am not sure it had the pearls that one finds in The Spirit of St. Andrews, for example. I have browsed JN's book in bookstores, but never seen anything significant that would motivate me to buy it (that of course doesn't mean it is not there).

Frankly, how much substance is there to "Lines of Charm?"  Geoff has devoted a better part of a half dozen books to explaining "hit it near a fw hazard for a better line to the pin" ...

Perhaps you should reread Lines of Charm if that is all you think it is about.

[tlavin]

Wayne Morrison,

Thanks for posting the side-by-side Golfweek lists.  An interesting exercise, but given that you and many others don't believe in the validity of the rankings, does comparing two sets of invalid data not make it doubly invalid or next to useless?

I've thought about this long and hard back when I was playing a lot of new (to me) courses.  It seemed to me that the best among the Classics were more enjoyable than the best of the Moderns.  However, I also developed the opinion that the average course being built today was far better than the average course built in the past.
 
Terry Lavin,

By definition, the Classics are at least 50 years old.  Do you think that age (maturation, design changes, tournament history, exposure, and even simple sentimentality) might have anything to do with it?  Might the Moderns begin to catch up as a result of the same maturation process?
 

Lou Du:

Your comment that the average course of today is better than the average course of yesteryear strikes me as spot-on.  It may have more to do with the ability to move earth where it desperately needs to be moved (can do now, couldn't really do it back then) or just economic ability in general, but it does seem correct.

As for your other observation, I think you're probably right: maturation and sentimentality will surely help the moderns catch up in cachet and there is the very real possibility that some of the classics that are now hip-and-retro will feel very faded in the future. 

[Peter Wagner]

Comparing the Top-50 of each is interesting but it only represents the top 1% of the 5,000 courses from each era that I was talking about.  What if we expand it to say the top 10% or 500 courses from each group?

My guess is that the modern courses would win that comparison. 

I would echo Lou's thoughts and say that the top 1% is not a large enough sample to properly represent an era of design.

Best,
Peter

[Garland Bayley]

Peter,

I am really not getting your point. Are you saying quantity makes this a golden age? What if you readjust relative quantities of courses to the relative populations of the two times? The most striking thing I found from reading Fazio's book I will paraphrase as people like pretty so I give them what they like. Are these courses the stuff of a golden age?

[Andy Troeger]

Looking through those matchups a couple of ones where I've played both that struck me:

#8 Crystal Downs and The Golf Club are two fantastic courses (which is why they're #8). CD may get more love overall, but its no landslide as to which is better and personally I might just take The Golf Club by a hair.

#31 Pasatiempo and MPCC Shore. I played these two within a couple days of each other last November. While totally different courses, the overall quality for me is essentially a wash. I have MPCC Shore one spot higher than Pasatiempo on my personal list, but their Doak scale rating would be the same for me without question.

[Lou_Duran]

Andy,

While I can understand where you are coming from, Crystal Downs wins by a bunch over The Golf Club in my book.  I am not a huge fan of Pasatiempo, but what I remember of MPCC-Shore from my single play there in bad weather, I like Shore a lot better.  There is but one hole at CD (#11) and Shore (#18) that I have to scratch my head on.   Both Pasa and TGC have a handful that just don't ring my bell.

Regarding MPCC, I have the impression that Dunes should be on the modern list while Shore should be with the classics.  And with all the changes to Augusta National, I wonder if it and Sand Hills shouldn't switch lists.  Perhaps style vs. year of original construction is more important.

[Andy Troeger]

Lou,
Differences of opinion are what makes things interesting. The Golf Club makes my top five courses played but I like Pete Dye's stuff in general. Blackwolf Run River also makes my top five.

Personally all things considered splitting things into classics and modern courses doesn't make much difference to me. I prefer having one list. You could divide things up in any number of other ways too but then you get the arguments that you mentioned as to what's really a classic era course. What group does Point O'Woods in Michigan really belong with? Or The Golf Club even?

Keeps things interesting though and its nice to have different types of lists instead of different versions of the same thing. Although...I guess they're still all versions of the same thing 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()