15 to 20 years later......

[Mike Sweeney]

This summer I went back in time to two courses that I had not seen in years.

Atlantic City CC - When I first played back in high school it was with one of my golf teammates dad who was a member. Back it that era it was owned by Leo Frasier and the clubhouse was a museum piece. It was a place that would have been loved by many here, old clubhouse, low key, benevolent dictator as an owner, links like golf along the marsh area overlooking what was then a depressed Atlantic City. I played it back in an era, where I was not so focused on architecture, however it was clearly a step below some of the other courses that I had played in high school (Merion, Whitemarsh....)

Today, 20+ years later, it is run by a casino as a daily fee facility. They have done a very nice job of maintaining the facility and clubhouse, however it obviously loses some of its feel from the Frasier era. On the plus side, it is a much better course now with the Doak renovation. Incredibly fun on the back nine, and while my friend Mike Cirba may not love the Doak Par 3 17th, I like it.

Round Hill CC - Greenwich, CT - Reality is the club has not changed much. It was always and will continue to be the old line club of Greenwich long before the mansions were occupied (and now possible unoccupied) by the NY hedge fund guys. They need not apply to Round Hill. 15+ years ago, I remember not really liking the course. This was just as I was entering my GCA stage, but I was entering from the RTJ perspective of Cornell, Montauk and Fox Hill. Back then, I thought it was cool that all three courses looked and played similar in three different environments!

Now, I like Round Hill for sure, but would not put it ahead on in-town rival Tamarack. Round Hill has the Travis greens, which to me are the best in the business. However, I thought their recent renovation came up short in some of the tree work that could have been done. I can make the same argument about Tamarack, but there, the tree work issues were visual not playing corridors.

In a nutshell, it was fun to see a course from two separate time frames grow up, change and make modifications along with my perspective over the same time line.

Any similar experiences out there?

[Adam Clayman]

Not exactly similar but I recently returned to Lawsonia after almost 20 years. Back then, the condition of the course was not what it is today, however, I can state unequivocally, that the GCA shone through which is what makes Lawsonia so great.

Perhaps it's why I do not consider the condition of a course to be a rating criteria. If the bones are there, allowing for the fun creative golf that was conceived and designed, it should be recognizable to any serious student.

[JESII]

Adam,

I always assumed it was the maintenance that allowed for the fun creative shots that the architecture provides...not the bones.

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I always thought it was figuring out the shots, adapting to whatever conditions were present that day. That day, being the crux of the matter. Evaluating the architecture is possible without some pre-conceived expectations on whether every lie is pristine or every tee is level.

[JESII]

If it is worthwhile evaluating the architecture with no regard for what the ball does after it hits the ground, what does that evaluation actually have to do with playing golf?

[Adam Clayman]

Does that mean after raining the architecture is moot becuase the ball does less?

[JESII]

Moot, no...different, absolutely.

Any course that has a really high demand on distance control (forced carries and stops) should play better when they're a little soft...if done well it should have doable interesting shots.

Many/most courses play better when they are firm in my opinion.

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, What we've come around to is the importance of the MM. Sure it is always best when optimal, but how much of the aerial assault dominated architecture plays well firm? For the great player the challenge is much higher, but, for the majority, if the greens aren't soft, the course sucks in their mind. Another fine example where golf is counter intuitive. Their mind sucks.

Lawsonia is an even better example because the conditions were not bad back in late 80's. They just weren't as sophisticated as they are today. Ron Forse's tweaks were just that, slight tweaks in the grass types, width, some green expansion and tree removal. The bones of that course are so strong, they were able to get through this hard head to realize there was another world out there, gca-wise.

[JESII]

Adam,

Would you agree that your personal #1 course could[/i] be considered crap by some other golfer?

Are the best courses supposed to be those that "provide the most joy to the greatest number"?

Or are the best courses those that score best on an in depth analyses of what was created?

Or is it something else?

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, Not sure where those question fit into it and I have to rush out the door.
 
I do know that I can visualize a quality design after maintenance neglect. The bones so to speak, are independent of the conditioning du jour.

[JESII]

I do know that I can visualize a quality design after maintenance neglect. The bones so to speak, are independent of the conditioning du jour.

But could you break a tie?

[Matt_Ward]

Whenever the topic of conditioning is brought into the discussion the critics dismiss its role often lamely, throwing forward the predictable, tired and erroneous comment that proponents of conditioning's role are advocating "pristine" turf and other high benchmarks akin to the Augusta syndrome.

That is clearly not the case.

However ...

Conditioning does provide a key secondary role -- but as a critical after-the-fact reality. It supports the "bones" and allows the theory of what is there to be brought to life when shot execution is then played out in real situations experienced by golfers when playing.

JESII, makes an irrefutable point -- "If it is worthwhile evaluating the architecture with no regard for what the ball does after it hits the ground, what does that evaluation actually have to do with playing golf?"

Exactly.

[archie_struthers]

 


M Shea ...although I have great respect for Tm Doak , thre old layout was better for lots of reasons...like holes 2, 4, 7, 10...12.   17 and 18