[Mike Hendren]

I ask because even the farmers entrusted wtih constructing a course with nothing more than a Ross routing from topo seem to have pulled it off more often than not.

Bogey

[David Cronheim]

Michael,

that's an excellent question. I think that perhaps the simplicity of the designs made them easier to build. Many architects got a good concept and stuck with it. Ross had his turtleback greens, Raynor his templates, etc. That said, I can absolutely think of some golden age courses that I really don't like. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good. There are a lot of great courses out there from that era designed by "no-name" architects that are fantastic, but won't ever be regarded as highly as a so-so course built by a name architect.

[PCCraig]

Sure, drive around the North Shore of Chicago and you'll find a few.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - the easy/facile answer is that we think the old ones pulled it off "more often than not" mostly because all the examples of when they didn't (pull it off) have long ago been plowed under and away -- and so the percentages are skewed.  

But while that may be true, your question (and David's post) raises a still valid question: did the fundametal approaches and goals and golfing values of the golden agers translate to designs that were almost always solid, and often much more than that? I happen to think that the land-hugging and understated basics that were made manifest back then (both by choice and circumstance) helped the golden agers keep their eye on the prize, as it were.

Peter

[Mike Hendren]

Peter, I'm not sure about your premise that their lesser works didn't survive.  This was likely true for the work of their predecessors - not uncommon for early work of Bendelow and the Foulis brothers to last less than 15 years - that and 9 holes being redone in conjunction with expansions to 18 holes.   I submit the Golden Age NLE's were perhaps a victim of either the economy, over-leveraging or higher and best use of infill locales as residential development.  

I'm sure we could identify some of their courses as pedestrian today, but that's likely a function of poor stewardship and maintenance over decades as well as the hubris of committee members wanting to add their ornament to the tree.

Just a thought.

Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - yes, you may be right. But another thought (off of yours): "pedestrian" is just fine by me. In fact, I'd suggest that one of the reasons so many of the old courses hold up so well is that the golden agers weren't afraid to be "pedestrian", i.e. they were fine with accepting (and making the most/best "golfing use" of) sites that weren't spectacular or particularly interesting, in which cases they tended to drap the course over that land in a way that we can appreciate as "simple/pedestrian" in the best sense of the word. 

Peter

[Matthew Petersen]

I'll submit Wellshire Golf Course in Denver, which has Ross' name on it.

I've speculated previously that this may be one of the Ross designs built from plans, but even in that context it's just not a very interesting golf course.

But then again, I know very little about the history of the course. As it exists now (or when I was playing it 20 years ago) it seems very much the standard muni with straight, tree-lined fairways and bunker front left and front right of most greens. But maybe when it was built it had more interesting green complexes and a cross bunker or two, and those have been plowed under over the years.

But, as it exists now, I very much recall learning that I had played a "Donald Ross" course numerous times, and thinking ... what?

[Mike Hendren]

Mike - yes, you may be right. But another thought (off of yours): "pedestrian" is just fine by me. In fact, I'd suggest that one of the reasons so many of the old courses hold up so well is that the golden agers weren't afraid to be "pedestrian", i.e. they were fine with accepting (and making the most/best "golfing use" of) sites that weren't spectacular or particularly interesting, in which cases they tended to drap the course over that land in a way that we can appreciate as "simple/pedestrian" in the best sense of the word.  

Peter

Spot on.

Could be that often they were more interested in merely providing a venue to play the game than building a "great" golf course or expressing their artistry.  In other words it was more about the game than the course.

[Mike Hendren]

Matthew, thanks - that was what I was looking for.  Would you, however, consider the routing to be a notch above?

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

"In other words it was more about the game than the course."

Mike - IMO that is a perfect way to put it.

Peter

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew, thanks - that was what I was looking for.  Would you, however, consider the routing to be a notch above?

Mike

Not even that really stands out to me. The course is bordered tightly by two very busy roads and then homes on the other side. But it opened in 1926. The roads were likely there then but I doubt the homes were--it's entirely possible that homes caused changes to the course, but I have never been able to get a historic aerial going back any more than 30 years or so. (Not that I've tried too hard on that count.)

[James Boon]

Michael,

If you look through the history books of many courses in the UK, you will see that a Park Jnr course was then redone by say Colt or a Colt course was redone by Mackenzie or a Mackenzie was redone by Braid etc etc. A lot of this will have been to do with courses being lengthened, or more land acquired or lost and various other reasons. But one suspects that it also means at times the courses these guys designed just weren't always great?

Cheers,

James

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()