[BVince]

I am fortunate to have played some great golf courses and I spent a little time in thought about some of these clubs.

It seems to me that the elite private courses from the 1940s and older have an aura and ambiance that make you feel special just to be out there walking the fairways.  Consequently, it is easier to like the architecture in that state of mind.  I have tried to break down some of the components that I feel makes them special.

- Simple, yet refined course designs that are very walkable.
- Superb course conditioning
- Rustic, colonial, or traditional club houses

It appears to me that most modern architecture is more dramatic and robust.  It seems our expectations of modern designs must intrigue us with something different. 

My questions are:
1. Does the eliteness, ambiance, and history of a course entice us to love it before we even show up? 
2. Would some of the holes be successful and stylish if created today? 
3. Do modern designs have to push the limits to excite us in this era?

Thanks,
Bryon

[TEPaul]

Bryon:

Wow, quite some questions and things to consider there. I'd love to consider them even if a thread like this might be as much about sociology as golf architecture. But before I do would you mind explaining to me in more detail what you mean by and what you have in mind with your mention of "elite" and "eliteness"?

[BVince]

TEPaul,

Sure thing.  Without mentioning specific club names, I am talking about prestigeous golf course usually being (City) Golf Club or some older clubs in the top 100.  These types of courses are usually very private and quite difficult to play. 

[Eric Franzen]

Bryon,

In regard to "Do modern designs have to push the limits to excite us in this era?". A lot of the courses that we today mention as classic designs from the so called golden age certainly pushed the limits to create excitement in their era. At least it clearly appears that way to me when I see how some of the courses, for example Lido, where portrayed by the media back then, before they were opened for play.

[Eric Franzen]

"2. Would some of the holes be successful and stylish if created today? "

My wild and uneducated guess is that tar and feathers would await the guy that had the guts to create the alps hole today. On the other hand, I think that a cape might go down with a bang in regards to the heroic touch and that it also presents a less abstract problem.

[Lou_Duran]

Bryon,

How we perceive gca is largely subjective.  We often argue about style preferences (taste) as if there are correct and incorrect or superior and inferior objective standards.

This site has a reverence for the old, the "classic" in golf.  We are miffed how someone might prefer a Dallas National over a San Francisco Golf Club (where even the showerheads get accolades).  I think the ambiance, exclusivity, and history all play a large role. That many of these older courses are shorter, easier to play and walk, and often built on superior sites with minimal regulatory restrictions likely have a large impact.

I do think that the older courses get a break when it comes to overlooking their weak connector holes.  Fazio, I believe, has said that his clients today expect and demand 18 "signature" holes.  He likes to tell the story about how the developer of Dallas National was concerned that the par 3 17th hole would be perceived as too plain or ordinary.  Fazio ripped the earth and created a very "natural" canyon running lengthwise between the tees and the green, and, as he related with a smile, "One million dollars later, he (the developer) likes it just fine".  The old architects would not have bothered and we would not complain.   

[Sean_A]

My questions are:
1. Does the eliteness, ambiance, and history of a course entice us to love it before we even show up? 
2. Would some of the holes be successful and stylish if created today? 
3. Do modern designs have to push the limits to excite us in this era?

Bryon

Working from the bottom up. 

Yes, I do believe that many modern designers feel the need to create something special or extraordinary because that is what sells.  This can be positive and negative.  Obviously, when its done right (usually requiring a very healthy budget) then there is a chance for the course to be considered one for the ages.  The negative aspect of this leads to my response for #2.  I believe that archies in the old days paid more attention to working the courses into the land.  That is probably due to necessity as much as anything, but none the less...this close tie with the land is still a valuable lesson that is often forgotten.  Hence the reason I harp on about transition areas.  It bugs the heck out of me because I like to take in the vistas and often wonder why many don't notice aspects beyond the focal point. 

I do believe that anybody with a love for the game and its history is influenced by the ambience of clubs.  The question really becomes do folks accept that this sort of stuff is influential or do they pretend they are above it?  For myself, I love all that stuff and freely admit to it being part of the day out and an important factor in deciding if I want to return.  There is an endless supply of good courses and what often separates them is history or whatever non-architectural element which happens to float yer boat.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Bryon:

I think Lou is right on that there is something of a double standard in most people's minds between the famous old courses and anything new.  On a high-profile modern course, many of the rater types and critics come in looking to find something wrong with it, instead of giving it credit for what it does well.  If an older course is short by modern standards, or has extremely tilted greens, we give it the benefit of the doubt because we know when it was built; but a new course gets judged more harshly on the same issues.

Then again, you could also argue that the tougher standards for modern courses only serve to balance out the hype that new courses receive due to all the advertising and all the free p.r. they receive.  The only other courses which get to brainwash the public more than new courses are those which host tournaments ... I bet every modern architect out there wishes that Tiger Woods had limped around THEIR course last weekend.

[Dean Stokes]

Great questions. I have often thought about this.

My answers would be:-

1. Yes
2. No
3. Somewhat

I think these answers do depend on who they are asked to. Are we asking GCAers or the general golfing masses? I've heard golfers that I've played with tell me the likes of Seminole, Maidstone and that other one in Philly beginning with M ( I dare not write it due to overuse ) are just plain boring and no fun whatsoever.

Now I completely disagree, but that leads me to think that in modern times where golf courses are popping up all over the place and asking $150k and up to join, if an architect built a course similar to the one's mentioned above, would the modern day golfer with pots of cash join?

[BVince]

Thanks for all of the responses thus far.

I feel that the ambiance of a golf course is one of the most important factors of its reputation.  The harder a course is to actually play, the more excitement I feel.  It is such an honor and privilage to be able to play some of the well-known courses of the world.  This caused me to ponder how many modern courses have this aura and how they are creating it.  Obviously, Sebonack, Nanea, Kinloch, and others are leading the way in this category.  Can it be acquired by purchasing a lot of land, making it private, and assigning the membership a large price tag?

I feel that you could take a mediocre or above average golf course, make it an exclusive club, and it will be well respected because so any people are eager to play it.  I have felt this way about a club before.  It almost seems like it creates a very simple equation for us,

Ambiance + great layout + conditioning = best courses.

But it could eaisly be,

Ambiance + above avg. layout + conditioning = one of the best courses.

I think there may be a  few layouts that are considered one of the "best courses" in the world simply because of their reputation.  Its an interesting facet and consideration facing the business and art of GCA.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()