News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« on: October 27, 2009, 11:15:14 AM »
Okay...I've been reading "The Links" by Robert Hunter.

In it he says the following..."There are many courses which are badly routed, and among the worst, I should say, are St. Andrews and North Berwick."

He goes on to say that many of the holes at St. Andrews run parrellel to each other and many times the best way to play a certain hole is from another holes fairway.

My point/question is this...does anyone agree or disagree?  I've heard many people talk glowingly about the course and how after you get to know it it is one of the greatest in the world, but I've never heard anyone say it is among the worst routed courses in the world.

I've never played it but am planning to go in May of 2011 and I am trying to learn as much about it as possible prior to playing it so I can try to avoid that let down that I have heard many people experience the first time they play it as they can't fully appreciate it their first time.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2009, 11:17:54 AM »
Put down the book and start working on putting from 30 yards off the green.....
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 11:23:35 AM by Jud Tigerman »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2009, 11:18:13 AM »


He goes on to say that many of the holes at St. Andrews run parrellel to each other and many times the best way to play a certain hole is from another holes fairway.



I've never had the pleasure of playing TOC, but just by that description alone, to me it says "adventure!" Obviously, the only way to know whether a hole plays better from another fairway is to do exactly that...and who wouldn't find that fun?

Thanks,

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2009, 12:03:16 PM »
There is no doubt a lot of the pros think that St Andrews borders on silly in several places and feel as a golf course it is hyped up and has many very average holes. Take away the history and 1 & 18 aint all that, 8,9 & 10 are pretty dull, the 12th green is too hard with the pin up and at many holes Mr Hunter could be right in saying you aim left to avoid the bunkers, so you are on another fairway, certainly with some pin placements best line is from the other fairway. He has a point.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2009, 12:05:04 PM »
clearly it's a dogtrack   ;)
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2009, 12:25:34 PM »
I would love if we could find a way to "blank" peoples minds and remove all their background knowledge regarding the TOC. Then, let them play it and give their opinion. I have never played TOC, but I get the impression that there are too many external factors influencing their opinion of the course.

Dónal.


Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2009, 12:55:49 PM »
I think it can't really be classified, for it is in a different sort of class on its own.  I have thought of the course as a routing the last few times I have done the Sunday walk, really pressuring myself to a consensus, but I just can't.  It is different, with aspects of good and bad, but mostly it is just different. 

For golf purposes, the width and the areas of play set up for a great amount of possible playing routes, but many of these routes are unconventional, dangerous, and a burden on pace of play.  Being given the time and freedom to play many matches with the course to yourself is really the best way to play and learn about her, but obviously that is far from possibility.  My early opinion has thus far held up my preconception that it could be the course with the most endless charm in the world, meaning it has the most to discover, but is there anyone with the time, money, or luck for that anymore?  Even the locals, students, and workers with links passes play the Old maybe a couple times a year.  It is too hard to get on, and too slow and tourist laden when you do.  I think I might be stumbling upon a new thread topic right now, but does anyone in this day in age get to PLAY the Old Course enough times to fully appreciate it?  It is a good question because I think it is different for every course, and I find it to be one of the highest qualities a course can have.

The other golf related issue with the routing is the wind.  I personally like more changes in direction from a variety standpoint and from a physical standpoint in that 7 straight holes into a killer wind can be overly taxing and/or boring.  I played 3 straight days on the New, Jubilee, and composite course, and the ~30 mph wind from the west was the same every day.  I had a blast with the firm conditions and the wind itself, but I was a bit disappointed it didn't change direction or speed much.  The routings of the New, Jubilee, and Composite switch directions more often than the Old, which was nice, but there were still stretches where it could get draining, especially by the 3rd day.  I could see the straight out and back nature of the Old getting a bit, well, old, whether its downwind, into the wind, or crosswind. 

I will be back in a bit give my two cents on the non-golf factor of the routing.
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2009, 01:22:30 PM »
I think it can't really be classified, for it is in a different sort of class on its own.  I have thought of the course as a routing the last few times I have done the Sunday walk, really pressuring myself to a consensus, but I just can't.  It is different, with aspects of good and bad, but mostly it is just different. 

For golf purposes, the width and the areas of play set up for a great amount of possible playing routes, but many of these routes are unconventional, dangerous, and a burden on pace of play.  Being given the time and freedom to play many matches with the course to yourself is really the best way to play and learn about her, but obviously that is far from possibility.  My early opinion has thus far held up my preconception that it could be the course with the most endless charm in the world, meaning it has the most to discover, but is there anyone with the time, money, or luck for that anymore?  Even the locals, students, and workers with links passes play the Old maybe a couple times a year.  It is too hard to get on, and too slow and tourist laden when you do.  I think I might be stumbling upon a new thread topic right now, but does anyone in this day in age get to PLAY the Old Course enough times to fully appreciate it?  It is a good question because I think it is different for every course, and I find it to be one of the highest qualities a course can have.

The other golf related issue with the routing is the wind.  I personally like more changes in direction from a variety standpoint and from a physical standpoint in that 7 straight holes into a killer wind can be overly taxing and/or boring.  I played 3 straight days on the New, Jubilee, and composite course, and the ~30 mph wind from the west was the same every day.  I had a blast with the firm conditions and the wind itself, but I was a bit disappointed it didn't change direction or speed much.  The routings of the New, Jubilee, and Composite switch directions more often than the Old, which was nice, but there were still stretches where it could get draining, especially by the 3rd day.  I could see the straight out and back nature of the Old getting a bit, well, old, whether its downwind, into the wind, or crosswind. 

I will be back in a bit give my two cents on the non-golf factor of the routing.

Brett, not to change the subject, but what is the "Composite course?"

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2009, 01:25:37 PM »

Mac,  Can you give me a page reference in the links, as I'd like to review that part.   Thanks. 

_________________________________

Brett, great description,  I think.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2009, 01:37:30 PM »
From an experience and flow point of view, I have come to like the routing of the course quite a lot.  I find it to be very natural, especially considering historical depictions of early golfers. 

Think of it.  You are at the edge of town and see this compelling links land.  You start walking out towards it, suddenly meandering through wispy hillocks, colorful gorse and heather, and scrapes of open sand.  You continue walking straight out until seeing the estuary, and by this point there is no choice but to get to the water's edge.  Then you turn back and see the town.  It is a great sight, but you are not ready to head back yet, for these dunes are too captivating.  You middle about a bit more before deciding to head back, take one last look over the water, and turn back into town, watching the buildings slowly grow until they are right above you.

That is the feeling I get when walking it, and it is sort of what happened for me the first time there.  I brought my clubs hoping to play somewhere, but I decided it was too late in the day.  Here I was though in St Andrews for the first time, a dream come true, and I had to explore.  I just started along the Eden path, not even knowing what it was or believing that the Scottish Right of Way I heard about was actually true.  I kept thinking about turning around, but I kept walking, clubs on my shoulder.  You could imagine I got all sorts of looks and questions.  Here I was walking along hole twelve with my clubs heading towards the estuary.  I was asked where I was going by a golfer, and he had a smile that basically just said, "you must be some sort of an idiot," which does make some sense now looking back at it.  I just replied in my dazed mood, "wherever the path ends."  Little did I realize the path ended at the first tee.  Pretty cool.

I can imagine too that this is how the game started, at least at St Andrews.  Shepherds, fisherman, whoever, would knock a ball or rock into scrapes (for money, of course) in a progression straight away.  Eventually they came to an end (The Eden Estuary), and after not too long they figured they might as well play going back in too, since, after all, they were walking that way anyway.  They went out, and came back.   Oversimplified, but it makes sense to me.  There are seemingly so many stories of the origins of the game here, and I was hoping to gain clarity from being here but the information and legends seem just as inconsistent.  Anyone with either some solid evidence, or are there any outlandish new theories to throw about? (since those are always fun)
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2009, 01:44:44 PM »
Bill,

The Composite Course is a mixture of the New and Jubilee used during the days of the Dunhill Links Championship.  There is one for the Eden and Strathtyrum as well.  Let me try and remember correctly--I believe the sequence went holes 3-7 Jubilee; 10, 14, 11, 9 New; 8-16 Jubilee.  I thought I might get annoyed with the broken routings, but I still enjoyed myself and found it a unique thing to experience. 
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2009, 01:45:15 PM »
Brett...I have nothing to help concerning the origin of the game of how St. Andrews developed...but that write up makes me want to jump on a plane right now and get my arse on the Old Course...I can't wait until May 2011!!!!!!

David...the version of hte book I have is published by Sleeping Bear Press, and it says it is a reprint of the 1926 edition.  The quote was pulled from the "Laying out the course" chapter and begins on page 33 of my edition.  The paragraph starts, "There are many famous courses..."  For additional assistance finding it, it is the fourth paragraph of the chapter.

Check it out and read further into that chapter...awesome read (or re-read)!

Later.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Anthony Gray

Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2009, 01:59:18 PM »


  Rich Goodale's book EXPERIeNCING ST ANDREWS is a must for the first time player. And I do not know of any hole that plays better from the other fairway. Maybe 14,but only if you cannot cross the bunker in two.

  Anthony


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2009, 02:24:48 PM »
Bill,

The Composite Course is a mixture of the New and Jubilee used during the days of the Dunhill Links Championship.  There is one for the Eden and Strathtyrum as well.  Let me try and remember correctly--I believe the sequence went holes 3-7 Jubilee; 10, 14, 11, 9 New; 8-16 Jubilee.  I thought I might get annoyed with the broken routings, but I still enjoyed myself and found it a unique thing to experience. 

I've only played the New so have no idea how either the Jubilee or the Composite play.  I guess they are taking the holes adjacent to the Old Course out of play.  Interesting, thanks.

TEPaul

Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2009, 02:41:08 PM »
Mac:

Unfortunately, it seems the way you cast what Robert Hunter said about TOC in your initial post and the way you appear to assume what he actually meant with the quotation you gave, is a classic example of just taking a remark totally out of the entire context it is in and needs to be in! If one continues to read the rest of what he said about TOC you should easily see what I mean. I realize some of those old guys had a different style of writing than some of us do. To say the least, it would be pretty hard to use sound bites (quick quotes) from them if you ever hope to understand what they are really trying to say.


Yes, Hunter did say TOC like a lot of the famous links courses was badly routed but did he mean that to be a real knock on the golf course itself or any knock at all on its architecture? Of course not and to prove that one only needs to appreciate what he said about it on page #35!

So what is Hunter's perhaps larger point in what he said about TOC compared to golf courses he saw being built? It looks to me like he's saying that if golf architects and golf architecture just gets into the same laundry list of "standardizations" (architectural formulaics) he felt it was getting into back then that it would pretty much serve to create courses that were pretty damn boring day in and day out simply because they really had little to no variety and consequently little to no interest or charm or fascination or mystery et al. About TOC Hunter ended up saying on page 35 it had more "vitality" than any other course in the world.

Again, was Hunter saying or meaning that what he referred to as TOC's bad routing an architectural knock on it? Hell no! I thnk there is no question he was making a very subtle and great point, and apparently subtely mocking towards the standardized and formulaic architects and architecture he was watching get built all over the place! His real point was TOC's bad routing (in the opinions of those standardized and formulaic mentalities) BE DAMNED----it was the most interesting course in the world despite that---or EVEN because of that!!  ;)

We have just got to understand there was a pretty interesting group around the time Hunter wrote The Links who were some revoutionary thinkers with some of their new (old? ;) ) ideas on architecture. They included those working in America at the time, Behr, Jones, MacKenzie and Hunter at least, and what was their real inspiration for their new/old ideas for the future of golf course architecture?

Goll-Danged, it was the Mother Earth course of them all, the one some of the architectural standardizing yahoos of the time were criticizing the most by saying it broke all the "Rules" of architecture ("man-made" Rules ;) or broke too many of them----The Old Course of St. Andrews!

Hunter's point was so what even if it broke every friggin' architectural "RULE" in the book, if it could actually continue to fascinate and interest and mystify so many golfers if they ever tried to really come to know it-----then THAT to the likes of Hunter et al should be the true paradigm for golf course architecture of the future!
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 02:54:18 PM by TEPaul »

Anthony Gray

Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2009, 02:43:35 PM »


  Out and back was what they had to work with. Looks like the only option at the time.

  Anthony


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2009, 02:57:29 PM »
Yeah Tom...I like it.

Here is what confuses/miffs me and maybe you or others on this site can help out.

He clearly states it is one of the worst routed courses in the world.  Then he talks about all the parrellel holes, etc.

And then on page 34 moving on to page 35, he says that "Such criticisms would be more than enough to destroy forever the reputation of any course in the universe, except St. Andrews."  Furthermore, he says that "it is rather difficult to explain why St. Andrews would be the one and only course which stands above and scorns all criticism."

And you are totally right, he goes on the say some great things about it.

But my point is and has been that I simply don't get it.  Hunter says there are flaws with St. Andrews that would "destroy" any other courses reputation.  But yet, it is still revered.  I am confused by this.

Is it just the magic that is inherent at St. Andrews and the history and the lore?  Or something else.  I've heard many, many people say they think it is over-rated.  And I've heard many many people say it is the greatest course in the world...once you have played it enough to "get it".

So, is the poor routing and other flaws what turns off some?  Is it the history , lore, nuances that make it wonderful to the experienced player of St. Andrews?

Either way I am totally excited to get over their and play it...but like I mentioned I want to do all that I can to appreciate it liek a seasoned pro.

Including practiing my 30 yard putts from the fairway!!! :)
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 03:01:35 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2009, 03:12:06 PM »
 
About TOC Hunter ended up saying on page 35 it had more "vitality" than any other course in the world.

Vitality.  Yeah, that was the word I looked for.

Anthony,

Out and back really isn't what they 'had to work with.'  There is a lot of linksland on that great peninsula, and I often wonder how a course would be routed starting from scratch today.  I am sure it wouldn't be as TEPaul was getting at with the end of his post, where it breaks every architectural rule in the book.  I suspect there might be something more akin to Muirfield, a great challenge and containing lots of great architectural ideals, but I think the mysticism and its endless discovery would would be greatly diminished.  TOC really is the great paradigm of golf, and that is why classifying it technically can sometimes be waste of time.  Debate everything else, but leave the Old alone as something different, something not quite regular golf, and something that could neither be built or conceived. 
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Brett Hochstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2009, 03:25:13 PM »
Yeah Tom...I like it.

Here is what confuses/miffs me and maybe you or others on this site can help out.

He clearly states it is one of the worst routed courses in the world.  Then he talks about all the parrellel holes, etc.

And then on page 34 moving on to page 35, he says that "Such criticisms would be more than enough to destroy forever the reputation of any course in the universe, except St. Andrews."  Furthermore, he says that "it is rather difficult to explain why St. Andrews would be the one and only course which stands above and scorns all criticism."

And you are totally right, he goes on the say some great things about it.

But my point is and has been that I simply don't get it.  Hunter says there are flaws with St. Andrews that would "destroy" any other courses reputation.  But yet, it is still revered.  I am confused by this.

Is it just the magic that is inherent at St. Andrews and the history and the lore?  Or something else.  I've heard many, many people say they think it is over-rated.  And I've heard many many people say it is the greatest course in the world...once you have played it enough to "get it".

So, is the poor routing and other flaws what turns off some?  Is it the history , lore, nuances that make it wonderful to the experienced player of St. Andrews?

Either way I am totally excited to get over their and play it...but like I mentioned I want to do all that I can to appreciate it liek a seasoned pro.

Including practiing my 30 yard putts from the fairway!!! :)


It's interesting.  A lot of people I think "just don't know."  Many will come to TOC one and play, and, shrouded in the lore of the town and the famous TV holes and the sheer name "St Andrews," claim it to be the best round and golf course they have ever played, even though they new little of its nature or  what that silly mound was doing there on Ginger Beer.  Others, seemingly more from the rest of the British Isles, may take some sort of high road and claim it to be over-rated even though they do not truly understand the charming qualities of TOC.  Yet, it does seem like everyone who has a lot of experience with the course does think very highly of it.  I think it is just the informed where the opinion is consistent.  Otherwise, who knows ;)
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

TEPaul

Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2009, 03:33:22 PM »
"But my point is and has been that I simply don't get it.  Hunter says there are flaws with St. Andrews that would "destroy" any other courses reputation.  But yet, it is still revered.  I am confused by this."


Mac:

I know you don't but I also think I know you will and hopefully soon. Call me when you get the chance. I'll leave my number for you again on the IM.

If you really try to read what these guys were trying to get at and read it and consider it in detail I know you're going to totally "get" what Hunter was saying in his The Links. It's of no real difference to what Mackenzie was saying in his Spirit of St. Andrews some years later or what Thomas was saying in his "Golf Architecture in America" or particularly what Behr was saying in far more detail in his articles written around the same time Hunter wrote his book you're reading.

But there is some pretty amazing irony in all this. Did they and their ideas expressed at that time win the day? In my opinion, not really and probably not even close. Did they win the future with the way golf and architecture was going to go in the ensuing 75 years or so? Not even close! And why not? That is such a fascinating over-all subject and story to consider Mac. It is essentially the big middle era of our architectural evolution.

But the thing is their day has probably come now. It actually may have happened in the last 20 years or so. We are into a renaissance in some ways now. Is it going to sweep the world and grab the entire pie of golf and architecture? Of course not, that's impossible, for starters because there are far to many perceptions and preconceptions of the way architecture should be that has built up over the years. In many ways that standardized and formulaic mentality got its way and for too long but that does not mean there will not be or is a very decent contingent that will really buy into most all the things those guys were saying, trying to say and were hoping for.

You'll see, but it is complicated for sure.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 03:36:16 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2009, 03:42:08 PM »
"and something that could neither be built or conceived."


Brett:

That's exactly right and do you really think it is completely coincidental that more than any golf course in the world in large part it (TOC) was neither built nor conceived, at least by Men who had their heads chocked full of architectural ideas and rules of what should and shouldn't be?  ;)  
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 03:45:09 PM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2009, 04:35:03 PM »
Interesting stuff.

Can't wait for a number of things to occur...

#1--Play The Old Course at St. Andrews!!!  Oh...it gives me goose bumps just to think about it!

#2--Continuing expanding my education concerning the subject of golf...history, architecture, etc.

I know I've said this a bunch of times and it may sound like B.S. or brown nosing, but it isn't.  Anyone who knows me would laugh at the idea that I would do such a thing.

Nevertheless, the knowledge in the brains of the members of this site concerning those topics is quite extraordinary.  And for me to be able to tap into it as a member, is really something special.

Thanks!!!

FYI...if more opinions on The Old Course, The Links, or Mr. Hunter need to be added...please feel free!

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2009, 07:13:25 PM »
And then on page 34 moving on to page 35, he says that "Such criticisms would be more than enough to destroy forever the reputation of any course in the universe, except St. Andrews."  Furthermore, he says that "it is rather difficult to explain why St. Andrews would be the one and only course which stands above and scorns all criticism."

But my point is and has been that I simply don't get it.  Hunter says there are flaws with St. Andrews that would "destroy" any other courses reputation.  But yet, it is still revered.  I am confused by this.

Either way I am totally excited to get over their and play it...but like I mentioned I want to do all that I can to appreciate it liek a seasoned pro.


Mac,

I think you already know why. In some ways St. Andrews, being the home of golf, manages to withstand criticism. The course has evolved over several centuries, so aspects of the course that we would view today as ridiculous or unfair, are accepted. If an architect designed a long par 4 with a green similar to the Road Hole, he's be chased out of town. We'd hear about how unfair it was, how impossible it is to hit it with a long iron, etc. These imperfections are accepted at St. Andrews because it's St. Andrews.

It's important to be honest with oneself about St. Andrews or any other course for that matter. Play the course and make a critical assessment of the course, it's layout, strategy and playability. When making your assessment, try to exclude all the possible external influences, both physical and emotional. When assessing a hole, I usually ask myself "would I view this hole differently if it was located along a cliff top with crashing waves below?" I think these are the type of questions we need to ask. Would we be more critical if the 17th was on another course? What would we think of the 1st?

I'm pretty sure I'd be overcome with emotion if I played the Old Course. But I'd like to think that I'd make an honest assessment of the course also.

Don't underestimate your level of knowledge and appreciation of architecture and TOC. Even though you haven't played TOC yet, you probably appreciate it today, more than 99% of the pros that play it.

Dónal.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Old Course according to Robert Hunter
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2009, 08:00:32 PM »
Donal...

Your point is what I think Hunter was getting at.  But since I've yet to play the course, I can't really comment on it directly.

Is the course great?  I think that answer is 100%, YES!!!  It has nuances, subtleties (did I spell that right?), and interesting quirks. 

Is is perfect?  I don't think so, espcecially after reading Hunter's book.  But I haven't played it, so I must yield to those who have...and i will not argue against anyone's opinion in a hostile way.  i think that is a pointless excercise.  In those types of situation, those who yell the loudest win.  I am not interested in being considered right by anyone at one given point in time, I am interested in learning what is the truth.

Your point about a modern architect building a course with some of the quirks that the Old Course has is spot on.  I think they would get killed by the critics.  I think that is what Hunter meant by his comment that the inherent items in Old Course would "destroy" the reputation of other courses. 

At least that is what I think he was getting at.

Understand, I am not putting down the Old Course AT ALL!!!!  I can't wait to play it.  I am reading up on it and studying it as I think it is the cornerstone and foundatoin for the spreading of golf aroundthe world.  it is the home of golf...it is a global treasure.

But you are correct, you must park your emotions and make an honest assessment of each and every course.

Right?

anyway, I've got to go put the kids to bed...but I'll be back in an hour or so.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back