[Ross Tuddenham]

In a way I suppose it’s a bit like an argument with an art historian when it comes to assessing whether you could get way with hole like 17 today.  I have often said to friends, who are very knowledgeable about art, how can a few coloured lines count as art, I could do that.

But they then say well yeah, but someone’s already been there and done that.  An annoyingly simple response but one that shows how easy it is to knock or imitate something that has already been created.  Hence why you have to come up with something new and special of your own.

So in a way one reason it cannot be compared to what would happen if it was built today is that it would only ever be a copy of 17.  Deep down architects must know not to copy this for fear of nit quite matching up to it or merely classified as a shameless rip off.

S to whether it would have constructed today probably not but that is not really a positive or a suggestion that TOC should not be considered a great course.  Rather that to much formulaic reasoning is applied in the construction and architecture of modern courses.  Remember the Old Course wasn’t really designed anyway.

[Anthony Gray]

Remember the Old Course wasn’t really designed anyway.

 
  This is one of the best thought provoking statements in a while.

  Anthony

[Ross Tuddenham]

I’m not sure if that’s sarcasm but I’ll take it as a compliment and be happy.

[Anthony Gray]

I’m not sure if that’s sarcasm but I’ll take it as a compliment and be happy.

  Ment as a compliment Ross. You bring up an interesting point. Is it fair to judge the design of a course that was not designed? The greatness of the early courses is that they were not "over designed" which allows for character and uniqueness..note Prestwick, N. Berwick, etc.

  Welcome to the site,

  Anthony

[Ross Tuddenham]

It is potentially not fair to judge such a course but in a way it seals the argument that if TOC was created today it would end up looking and playing very differently. I suppose if it was built today it would be a mix of the New course and the castle course

[Rich Goodale]

Ross/Anthony

The only problem with that statement is that the old Course, Prestwick, North Berwick, etc. were in fact "designed."  Sorry to burst your balloons.......

Rich

[Ross Tuddenham]

Not really in the same way that a modern course would be, hence the not really designed statement.

[Kalen Braley]

It would be considered awful.
And I'm shocked that anyone would actually think otherwise.
That is why popular opinion means so little to me with regards to golf and gca.

-Ted

Ted I get your point that most would indeed think it awful, but screw em, who cares what they think.

I like modern quirk just as much as I love ODG quirk, and thats why I really like a lot of Jim Enghs work.  Yes at times it can be a bit much on the template side from course to course, but he gets massive props for being original and building courses that are unconventional, quirky, and darn fun to play.

[Anthony Gray]

Ross/Anthony

The only problem with that statement is that the old Course, Prestwick, North Berwick, etc. were in fact "designed."  Sorry to burst your balloons.......

Rich

  I would say Evolved not designed.

  Anthony

[Adrian_Stiff]

Old courses were designed around the natural features. The modern design method is merely different. I would say the older courses were designed.

[Ross Tuddenham]

To say it evolved is something I agree with totally, the evolution may have been more rapid in some parts of the 1800’s but to say it was designed then does not make sense to me.  As far as I am aware a lot of the hazards lie where the elements naturally uncovered areas of the sand in the earth for example.  I think tweaked would be a better word than design.

[Anthony Gray]

Old courses were designed around the natural features. The modern design method is merely different. I would say the older courses were designed.

  It seems like yesterday We were playing a morning 22 and then an evening 22 on The Old.

  Anthony

[Adrian_Stiff]

When golf courses were constructed say pre 1900, the architects saw the land, saw the features and they  .....<insert word here>..... the best course around those features. The fact those features are natural is regardless but the golf course was ....<insert word here>.... around those features. On the same basis if you do not want to use the word design then virtually no golf course pre 1900 had a designer.
I have built holes where I have left everything, bar a tee and a green, does that mean that hole is not designed?
Evolve is an interesting word because golf courses do evolve over time and things change, greenkeepers add bunkers, new tees, committees plant trees, all of which does change the initial design, very few golf courses are 100% original unless very new.
I have always considered Tom Morris designed TOC because his 1871 changes were so dramatic from the original outward nine and inward nine over the middle to left strip. Many feel there is no architect.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill

You forgot your       

Marty deserves more respect, particularly since he is in the right on this issue.  One does learn lots of things from playing and studying TOC, by many of them are of the category "what not to do."  There ARE cool little things that are constantly revealed, but they become littler and littler over one's lifetime.

By all means enjoy TOC, but do not fall into the trap of revering it "just because."

Rich

After a brief flurry of IMs my pal Martin knows I was kidding but following the Dan Kelly "no emoticon" rule.

I've been lucky enough to play six rounds and see an Open Championship over the Old Course, and I can say without reservation that to me it is what Disney World is to a 6-year old.  Endlessly entertaining, eagerly anticipated, and part of an overall experience and ambience.

Wish I were going there tomorrow, or at least sometime this year.

Dornoch was a special place too, but the Old Course to me is the full Monty.  So to speak.

[Anthony Gray]

  Adrain,

 Well stated. We could use the views of Melvyn Morrow on this topic. I understand that minimalism is design. But I think Ross's statement has merit and is thought provoking. With the Old I do not think someone set out to make a golf course.

  Respectfully,

  Anthony

[Adrian_Stiff]

Anthony- I think probably pre 1850 there was not so much thought about the Old Course, but I think that Old Tom was the perhaps the first/ one of the early ones to actually think about how a golf course played, so with his changes maybe was the first golf architect.

[Sean_A]

TOC will always be revered and rightfully so.  Contrary to some contrarians on this site, history does matter.  That said, the course is a jeckyl and hyde.  The front 9 is largely blah with a few major exceptions while the back 9 is all world.  I wouldn't class TOC as one of the very best, but it is great golf none the less. 

Where I think Marty takes a wrong turn is in praising modern design so vehemently.  The search for perfect design always fails and often times its the lack of the eccentric which does these designs in.  In other words, modern design tends to lean toward homogenization - designers don't want to mess too much with controversy.  That is a mistake which a guy like Strantz wasn't afraid of making and why his courses will always generate discussion - a sure sign of quality.

[Scott Warren]

Slightly OT, but when did it start being referred to as TOC? Or were the Scots of yestercentury actually savvy marketers who knew the value of branding and thus christened it TOC when they finished sinking the final hole?

[Philippe Binette]

probably when they built the New... I wonder if they had a name contest, could have turn out to be:

The Old Bitch
That Damned Field
The Long and Bumpy Road
Too Much Whisky
Back To 1 Golf Place

find another

[Anthony Gray]

probably when they built the New... I wonder if they had a name contest, could have turn out to be:

The Old Bitch
That Damned Field
The Long and Bumpy Road
Too Much Whisky
Back To 1 Golf Place

find another

This is funny. How about "Old Tom's Backyard"

[Niall C]

TOC will always be revered and rightfully so.  Contrary to some contrarians on this site, history does matter.  That said, the course is a jeckyl and hyde.  The front 9 is largely blah with a few major exceptions while the back 9 is all world.  I wouldn't class TOC as one of the very best, but it is great golf none the less. 

Sean,

Interesting point. How do you rate a course like this using the Doak scale ? When filling in the questionaire for the greatest/best golf course in the planet competition, there were a couple of courses which had some top notch holes but also a number of holes that were worse than ordinary.

Wasn't sure how that fitted in on the scale so simply compared it to other courses and worked out what I thought was "better" and marked accordingly.

Niall

[Niall C]

TOC will always be revered and rightfully so.  Contrary to some contrarians on this site, history does matter.  That said, the course is a jeckyl and hyde.  The front 9 is largely blah with a few major exceptions while the back 9 is all world.  I wouldn't class TOC as one of the very best, but it is great golf none the less. 

Where I think Marty takes a wrong turn is in praising modern design so vehemently.  The search for perfect design always fails and often times its the lack of the eccentric which does these designs in.  In other words, modern design tends to lean toward homogenization - designers don't want to mess too much with controversy.  That is a mistake which a guy like Strantz wasn't afraid of making and why his courses will always generate discussion - a sure sign of quality.

[Sean_A]

TOC will always be revered and rightfully so.  Contrary to some contrarians on this site, history does matter.  That said, the course is a jeckyl and hyde.  The front 9 is largely blah with a few major exceptions while the back 9 is all world.  I wouldn't class TOC as one of the very best, but it is great golf none the less. 

Sean,

Interesting point. How do you rate a course like this using the Doak scale ? When filling in the questionaire for the greatest/best golf course in the planet competition, there were a couple of courses which had some top notch holes but also a number of holes that were worse than ordinary.

Wasn't sure how that fitted in on the scale so simply compared it to other courses and worked out what I thought was "better" and marked accordingly.

Niall

TOC is 1* on the Rihcelin Guida which makes it somewhere around 7-8 Doak - though I hesitate to make comparisons between the two because they are really different systems.  All that said, I could see TOC possibly  going 2* if I knew it better.  I am not a huge fan of the 2-6 run or the short par 4 in the loop.  These holes are a combination of much of a muchness and a bit bland. 

Ciao   

[Bill_McBride]

I am not a huge fan of the 2-6 run or the short par 4 in the loop.  These holes are a combination of much of a muchness and a bit bland. 

As a relatively short hitter, and even from the forward tees the Links Trust usually sets up, I like #5 a lot.  The blind approach from in front of the Spectacles, or glory be, the occasional ripper second shot up past them, makes that hole a lot of fun.

 I could gladly play #5 and #14 in an endless loop.  So many options.....

[Adrian_Stiff]

TOC could be another case of a Doak *
You can make a case if you take away the history and the town and the ambience, consider the health & safety issues, the crossing holes, the blindness it could score quite low on any scientific scale.
The History, Town and ambience are there though (a bit like PB).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()