News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Second Courses
« on: November 03, 2011, 09:47:19 AM »
Some post on here got me to thinking about second courses built next to existing, great courses, and how I had seen few that begin to match the original.  I'm talking about courses built on nearly the same land as the first, often by the same architect, with nearly the same chance of success.  But I believe few succeed.  In fact most are total failures.
Some examples--The second course at Ballibunion fails totally, in my opinion, to come even close to the original.  In the US, the Irish Course, built next to Whistling Straits, on the same basic land both by Pete Dye, doesn't make it.
In my opinion, the best success is probably Sunningdale, where the Old and New are both tremendous.  Maybe this is the exception that proves the rule.  (I think that multiple courses built in a complex like Pebble or Bandon are different than the right-next-door examples I am thinking of.)
If my premise of failure is generally true, why is this?  What other examples can you think of?

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 09:54:01 AM »
Successes:

Winged Foot East and West by Tillinghast.

Saucon Valley Old(Strong) and Grace(Wm. Gordon)


http://www.sauconvalleycc.org/club/scripts/section/section.asp?NS=PG

Baltusrol Upper and Lower by Tillinghast
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:06:06 AM by Steve_ Shaffer »
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2011, 09:57:09 AM »
The Berkshire.
Walton Heath.
Crail (many won't agree but I choose to play the Craighead as often as the Balcomie).
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2011, 10:03:37 AM »
Olympia North and South are a pretty stout pair, especially after the Smyers renovation of the South.

LACC North and South are quite good as well.  The South isn't nearly as challenging as the North, but it sure is fun.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2011, 10:11:02 AM »
The North and South courses at Forest Creek are equally strong, at one point they were both on the Top 100 Modern Golfweek list.
H.P.S.

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2011, 10:25:48 AM »
Stonewall's courses are both very good....

Michael Goldstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2011, 10:28:34 AM »
Peninsula on the Melbourne Sandbelt has two very good golf courses

@Pure_Golf

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2011, 10:29:50 AM »
Devil's Pulpit near Toronto, Canada is very good (GW no. 7 modern), it's newer, sister course, Devil's Paintbrush is definitely better (GW no. 2 modern).  Both were designed by the same architect.

Mike Viscusi

Re: Second Courses
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2011, 10:46:11 AM »
Stonewall's courses are both very good....
Sean, how close in excellence do you think the two at Stonewall are?  I think the North is a fine course and there are some good holes, but I don't think it's nearly as good as the Old.  On the Doak Scale I would think a 5 vs. a 7 maybe.  What do you think?

I would put Philly Cricket's two courses in the same category.  The newer course is a solid enough course but definitely inferior to the original, although those two are much tougher to compare than Stonewall given they come from vastly different eras and Architects.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2011, 01:15:02 PM »
Any newer courses actually considered better than the original?.... Pacific Dunes?

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2011, 01:30:26 PM »
Any newer courses actually considered better than the original?.... Pacific Dunes?

Ally, see my post two above yours.

Ash Towe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2011, 01:33:23 PM »
Lost Farm is an excellent second course to Barnbougle Dunes, there is however a difference in the ownership of the facilities.

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2011, 01:56:17 PM »
If anyone is looking for photo tour ideas, some of these second courses would be nice.

I'd love to see some pics of WF East or Oak Hill West.

What's the other course at Westchester like?
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2011, 02:10:04 PM »
Stonewall's courses are both very good....
Sean, how close in excellence do you think the two at Stonewall are?  I think the North is a fine course and there are some good holes, but I don't think it's nearly as good as the Old.  On the Doak Scale I would think a 5 vs. a 7 maybe.  What do you think?

I would put Philly Cricket's two courses in the same category.  The newer course is a solid enough course but definitely inferior to the original, although those two are much tougher to compare than Stonewall given they come from vastly different eras and Architects.

Agreed, but 5 and 6 is where I would have them....

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2011, 02:14:04 PM »
Second courses are seldom as good as the first course, because the first architect always has his choice of ground, and he's 99% likely to take the best part of it for himself.

Pacific Dunes is perhaps an exception, because Mr. Keiser did not own any of that property until Bandon Dunes was almost half built.  David Kidd did use a bit of the land to reroute his 5th through 8th holes at Bandon Dunes, but Mike didn't let him start over to incorporate the rest of the land that became Pacific.

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2011, 02:15:41 PM »
Sunningdale ...two courses that should be in the World Top 100.   8)

Bart

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2011, 02:29:33 PM »
Here's a question, how many of these second courses were intended to be as good the main courses ? I think I would be right in saying that very often in old days they were simply relief courses or dare I say it ladies courses eg. Kings and Queens at Gleneagles (FWIW I prefer the Queens). Is it perhaps a more recent phenomenum that the next course has been intended to be as good if not better than the original ?

Niall

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2011, 02:40:20 PM »
Peninsula on the Melbourne Sandbelt has two very good golf courses



Michael,

Agreed, although a better example would be Royal Melbourne, whose East course was much better than I had anticipated, standing up very nicely to all the other gems of the Sandbelt.

From what I've heard, the Ocean course doesn't stand-up very well in comparison to the Moonah at the National.

TK

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2011, 03:01:36 PM »
Any newer courses actually considered better than the original?.... Pacific Dunes?

Olympia Fields (North) is the poster child answer to this question.  It was actually built as the 4th course at Olympia Fields.  The course currently known as the South consists of 15 holes from the #1 course, two from other courses and one hole added when the composite course was created.  The other two courses were subdivided for housing after the club lost a lot of members after the Depression and other national events.  The North is uniformly viewed as the superior course and it was considered the best when it hosted the US Open in 1928 and in 2003.  That's a remarkable thing when you consider that those in charge of club affairs built three courses on what is arguably "better" land, especially the land for the #1 course, which has fun elevation changes, a meandering creek and native oak forests of some considerable size.  When I was a member at OFCC, I used to remind guests that the South was the first built and that they used the most ideal land first.  It's pretty unusual that a later course, and here the fourth course, would be uniformly viewed as the better course.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Mark Smolens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2011, 03:07:07 PM »
What became of the other two courses? Is it the housing located to the east and south of the south course? It's pretty remarkable that a wonderful place like Flossmoor is located so close by.

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2011, 03:23:36 PM »
What became of the other two courses? Is it the housing located to the east and south of the south course? It's pretty remarkable that a wonderful place like Flossmoor is located so close by.

I think that pretty much all of the houses in between Western Ave. and the railroad tracks to the West , and from Country Club Road on the North to the South boundary were part of the #2 and #3 courses.  There's a map of all four courses in the Stagg Room that is fun to look at.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2011, 03:47:07 PM »
I actually prefer Portrush Valley to Dunluce.  In any case, the pair are totally different and make a very good team.

I also think Burnham's second course is well worth the effort if playing the Championhsip course.  There are some cracking holes to be had for very little money.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Michael Goldstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2011, 04:00:12 PM »
Tyler, of course both Royal melb courses are great.  The thing about Peninsula is that I'm not sure which is supposed to be the big brother course.  It's probably the North (according to Golf Digest) but they are both very good.

At the National, #1 is obviously the Moonah!

I'm interested in Rye - I have heard good things but never played the second course - any thoughts?? 

@Pure_Golf

Howard Riefs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2011, 04:04:20 PM »
In a strict comparison of course #1 vs. course #2, Pinehurst #2 may be the holy grail.
"Golf combines two favorite American pastimes: Taking long walks and hitting things with a stick."  ~P.J. O'Rourke

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Second Courses
« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2011, 04:07:16 PM »
In a strict comparison of course #1 vs. course #2, Pinehurst #2 may be the holy grail.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back