[Kenny Baer]

I just got word from a very reliable source that 20+ years ago an old golf course was purchased in the Atlanta area.   As terms of the sale; the seller was able to find land anywhere in and around the city and could then build a new golf course at UNLIMITED COST; including the clubhouse.

I would like to think under these circumstances one of the world's great courses could-should have been built. 

A pretty good course came of it ; a lousy clubhouse, when I heard this I couldn't believe it and still don't know if I do.

With those restrictions (basically there are no restrictions) how could you not have a world class course?

[Michael Blake]

$$$ does not guarantee the building of a great course...or even a good course.

[John Moore II]

Well, not knowing the course, its fairly easy to assume how they came up with an average course. You hire an average designer and wind up getting an average at best piece of land and you wind up with an average course.

[Tom_Doak]

Kenny:

I have seen five or six golf courses that were built on similar terms and none of them were very good.  The membership figures they've got all the money in the world so they hire an architect and basically tell him to go over the top on everything ... and the course winds up being way too severe and difficult, especially compared to the old-school course closer to town.

When they moved the CC of Austin from the old Perry Maxwell course across town to the new Pete Dye course, the club champ shot 86 in the grand opening.  The new Richland CC in Nashville was another example ... as is Egypt Valley in Grand Rapids MI.

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't this an example of the rather large dis-connect between what some(many, most) people end up thinking what makes a great course, and, those who actually quantify it, and intelligently build it?

[Mike_Young]

Kenny,
The course was the Standard club in Atlanta.....old course was good....I remember when it was built the supt could choose any irrigation he wanted etc and he chose a brand ( I can't remember the name) where all the heads and fittings were brass...just because he could...same with maintenance equipment..latest and greatest...It was a Jewish course at the time even though I think they now allow Gentiles to be members...Art Hills designed the .new course and was redone a few years ago by Mike Riley.

[DMoriarty]

It is generalization and there are exceptions (such as when there is one very large and expensive obstacle to overcome, like the giant rocks everywhere Rock Creek Cattle Company) but it seems that there is often an inverse correlation between the cost of building a great course and the quality of the great course.  

I once heard a top architect (and frequent poster, see above) say that you cannot have a world class course without a world class site, and even with supposed engineering marvels and the miracles of modern technology I tend to agree with this.   Again a generalization, but spending excessive amounts often seems to mean fighting what nature gave you, and I think this may be a recipe for a golf course that will ultimately be disappointing.  

[Link Walsh]

I had a feeling you were talking about the Standard Club.  I used to work there back in college in the summers, mostly for the free golf on Mondays.  The course was repetitively difficult with one angled green complex after another (and the requisite 8 foot deep bunker in front).  I hope it's better after the redesign.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kenny - maybe it's like golf itself, i.e. a game of opposites: if you want the ball to go up, hit down on it; if you want it to go left, aim right. I'm thinking a great golf site is great precisely because it reminds the architect that if he wants to achieve more he should do less. An unlimited budget probably blinds us to this world of opposites.
 
Peter

[Tom Yost]

$$$ does not guarantee the building of a great course...or even a good course.

Donald Trump on line 2...

[Kenny Baer]

From what I understand the seller also had free reign as to the new site. 

I would think with
1. Unlimited Money
2. No restriciton to where the golf course could be....within a 40 mile radius of Atlanta

A very good course should come of it.  I like the new Standard Club; it is by no means a bad golf course but it should be great.  Mike Riley did a good job and it is better now but I would like to think all of the Arch's on this board would have produced something much better and would dream of having a job with that little restriction; if the course does not end up fantastic then there is no one to blame but yourself.

Mike,

I was about 10 when the course moved to it's current location.  What was the "Old" course like?  My Dad said it was kind of similar to Druid Hills.  Who was the Arch of the Old Course, I can't find it anywhere. 

I like the new Standard; it is good just not great, not even close to great.

[George Pazin]

I think it is A LOT harder to choose a good site than most would think. I believe most of the times we hear "Well, they had a great piece of land to work with", it is said after the fact, with hindsight.

I don't know why this is (the difficulty of choosing good land, that is), just that it seems to be one of those talent things we can't really understand.

As an example, I'll cite Oakmont (of course). Superficially, the land does not seem that different from anywhere else in western PA. Yet there is unquestionably only one Oakmont in western PA.

Maybe that is making the case for the importance of how one uses the land, as opposed to how good it is to start.

[Derek_Duncan]

Mike,

I was about 10 when the course moved to it's current location.  What was the "Old" course like?  My Dad said it was kind of similar to Druid Hills.  Who was the Arch of the Old Course, I can't find it anywhere. 

I like the new Standard; it is good just not great, not even close to great.

Kenny,

Robert Trent Jones designed the original Brookhaven Standard Club course around 1947.

If there's a problem with the current Standard Club it starts with the site selection. Holes 11-16 play below the rift in that flat area next to Johns Creek and it's just not that interesting down there. The upper holes have much more space and movements to work with. It surprises me to know they could have built the course virtually anywhere, and that's the location that was chosen. At the very least I think there was room to build more of the course on the upper plateau.

I think you have to chalk some of what was ultimately created there up to what was being built in the 1980's. The entire conception of what comprised an elite golf experience had not evolved into what is has today. Or at least the ideals were different. I have no proof but I would bet that Peachtree was the model they were shooting for, and if that's true some of the decision-making starts to make sense.

I really like what Mike Riley did. Interestingly, I recently met someone who plays there regularly and he was much more fond of the course pre-renovation. To each...

[Bill Brightly]

As an example, I'll cite Oakmont (of course). Superficially, the land does not seem that different from anywhere else in western PA. Yet there is unquestionably only one Oakmont in western PA.

Having lived in Western PA 25 years ago, I remember how incredibly rugged the terrain was. Nothing was flat. So while you could certainly build a bad golf course, it would not be due to boring terrain...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()