[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

Better read what I wrote about The Old Course again.  I think it is the most interesting golf course in the world, leaving history totally out of it.  The Doak Scale doesn't give any brownie points for history.

[Sean Walsh]

Sean,

I completely disagree with your valuation of 2-6. 

2 is a very good hole. 
3 a short hole that requires some thought and a great short game. 
4 follows needing a good drive and for many a very good long iron. 
5 offers reward for longer hitters, but more often leads them into temptation and then despair. 
6 has just enough about it to be interesting the angled fairway and dip before the green require either good placement of the drive to allow a full wedge or a good ground game.

You may be right about 9 from the normal tees but from the back tee it grows teeth, those bunkers are in just the right place and result in a lost shot to the field if you find them.  they also often force golfers to miss the fairway left which is the worst place to attack the hole from.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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

Classic!

The old Baltimore and Ohio RR was called the "University of Railroading" by some, because they were the first rr in America and had to figure out the basic challenges.  As history shows, they made some mistakes - notably deciding to route the track with the straightest possible alignment at the expense of steeper grades, when in fact trains can handle curves better than hills.  Whatever right and wrong choices TOC made, it is still the "University of Golf Course Architecture" for similar reasons.

I love the esoteric what if questions in this topic. I guess the more practical question would be, "What if TOC was built as a replica course today?" It's certainly possible, given there are detailied topo maps and other technology available.

What compromises would be made?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I completely disagree with your valuation of 2-6. 

2 is a very good hole. 
3 a short hole that requires some thought and a great short game. 
4 follows needing a good drive and for many a very good long iron. 
5 offers reward for longer hitters, but more often leads them into temptation and then despair. 
6 has just enough about it to be interesting the angled fairway and dip before the green require either good placement of the drive to allow a full wedge or a good ground game.

You may be right about 9 from the normal tees but from the back tee it grows teeth, those bunkers are in just the right place and result in a lost shot to the field if you find them.  they also often force golfers to miss the fairway left which is the worst place to attack the hole from.

Sean

If you think that highly of 2-6 than the back 9 must be holy ground for you! 

1. Too many of the holes in that stretch set up similar from the tee.  The greens are all terrific, but again, not terribly different from each other.

2. The out n back routing doesn't help with this sense of deja vu.

3. The 9th is a mediocre hole at best no matter which tee is used.  From the front its a driver or 3 wood along a flat expanse that is best described as a field.  From the back its a very easy layup/wedge.

Though I don't mind if you think those holes are terrific, but I don't think they help in making TOC one of the best on the planet nor are they the holes which generate much discussion - for a very good reason imo. 

Ciao

BTW If TOC were built today I reckon it would be treated like Tobacco Road.  Begrudgingly accepted by many (even on this site) as a bold statement with major flaws, but generally good for the game.  Absolutely hated by many.  Absolutely loved by many.  In short, it wouldn't make top 100 lists, but anybody who follows course design would know its name and probably want to play it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I don't think the front nine is particulary bad but the this excercise kinda ephasises Sean's point.
1 v 18 18 is bit better, though perhaps the history gives the edge
2 v 17 17 is much better
3 v 16 probably not a lot in it, nicer approach to 16 perhaps
4 v 15 I prefer 4 just
5 v 14 14 by a long way , 5 is good though
6 v 13 13 is a great hole, 6 is good though
7 v 12 I probably would say 7 but many wont agree 12 has great merits
8 v 11 11 is much better
9 v 10 10 wins the battle of the dull ones and has more interest than 9.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with you 100% on that list Adrian.  I'd go with 12 personally but I think 7 has great merits   Really both are great holes so I don't think anyone is wrong choosing in either one.

[Scott Macpherson]

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?

Yes, the St Andrews Links became known as The Old Course when the New Course opened in about 1895.

scott

[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

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   

Sean,

For clarity, and sorry for going off topic, but the course I was referring to were Cruden Bay and Valderamma. Cruden Bay with its run of blind holes spoils a great opening sequence while Valderamma in my humbe opinion is hugely over-rated. Good solid par 3's, some great par 4's but 3 out of the 4 par 5's are a sorry excuse for going from A to B.

TOC didn't give me the same problems as those two courses.

Niall

[Emil Weber]

I think you can't get an answer for this question because without the Old Course architecture wouldn't  be what it is now. The Old Course is the mother of all courses and without a mother - no children

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()