GOLF top 100 -- the ARTICLE

[Tom_Doak]

I finally got my magazine today, and the first thing I did was read through the article which I used to write ... appreciating the fact that the editors seldom let us write anything substantial.

I was surprised that no one here had commented on these lines:

"Redesigning is no fad; it is often a necessity."

"The question is," says architect Robert Cupp, "Which of the great old courses have enough room to add the distance they need to stay relevant?"

and my favorite,

"My fear is that 25 years from now, when I watch The Masters on TV, I won't recognize any of the holes," Weiskopf says.

Also, be sure to read through the lists and check out which architects take credit for their redesigns, and which architects keep their names off their restoration work.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

I'd love to know what great old course needs to do anything to "stay relevant" for 99% of the people playing the game.

Cupp sounds like a real gem.

[Kevin_Keeley]

How about this weird one from the same article: "South Carolina's Yeaman's Hall, calls to mind the intimate settings of Ballybunion and Merion."

What's intimate about Ballybunion?

[Tim_Weiman]

Kevin:

I've never used the word "intimate" to describe Ballybunion and have no idea what the writer had in mind, but if I had to throw out some possibilities it might be:

a) small size of property
b) proximity to town (I like walking over for coffee in the morning at what used to be the clubhouse location)
c) socially - Ballybunion is a place to gather with friends as much as it is a golf course
d) stopping at the O'Sullivan's house for tea, the only home on the course and the only place in the world I have done that
e) the second floor bar during the off season
f) the #6-8 quick loop
g) the #11 tee as a religious shrine
h) sitting by the putting green watching friends come up #18
i) memories of gathering in the old clubhouse and bar
j) memories of the Marine Hotel when it was really the only place in town
k) the tendency of locals to go out and play a few holes late in the evening
l) playing golf in January and February when there aren't any visitors

[Mike Nuzzo]

Article?

What about the cover?
an opportunity to showcase the most beautiful courses in the world...
and they choose a ball and club?

That's original.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

The first time GOLF ranked the top courses in the world in order, back in 1983, they put the #1 course (Muirfield!) on the cover.

George Peper remarked to me that was the only time they had put a golf course on the cover of the magazine.  And I am pretty sure, to this day, it still is the only time.

[Mitch Hantman]

Tom,

I'm curious just how popular this issue is.  Is the top 100 a very popular feature, or not?  If it is very popular, or increases newstand sales significantly, I would have expected some more mention of it on the cover than a small mention in the lower left hand corner of the cover.

[George Pazin]

Alas, I'm 99 and 44/100% certain that Pebble graced the cover shortly before the 2000 Open. I can still see the photo of the 7th in my mind. Could be wrong, though.

As far as the comments in the article, I think they tie in closely to all of the "ball needs to be restrained" and "renovation is not restoration" threads that we have all the time on here. We're simply taking a short breather from those in favor of rankings threads.

[Matthew Schulte]

I am pretty sure the September 1999 GOLF issue had #16 of Bandon Dunes on the Cover.  

[jimhealey24]

Without attempting to offend anyone here, we must remember that it is the job of an architect to get work. Whether that means new or a redesign, they have to secure enough business to keep things going. Whether it is Fazio or Cornish or Cupp or Foster or whoever, they will, most always, recommend that a course need some changes to make it 'better" or "more up-to-date" for today - whatever that really means. It's like asking an insurance salesman in your house and asking him not to sell you insurance. That's their job! This is not to criticize those who spend time "restoring" greens, tees and the like to their original designs.  Most of the blame, if we are to assess it here, goes to the golf committee and the clubs who want some or all of the following; "a longer course, deeper bunkers, tougher layout, higher slope rating, a championship course, faster greens, thicker rough, more water, less water, more bunkering, less bunkering" and the list goes on!

[paul cowley]

.....jim ,  thanks be for your thoughts that are wid us.........

[Tom_Doak]

Jim,

I disagree that it's an architect's job to sell clubs on making changes.

It IS human nature.  Whether they're selling a club on lengthening a course to "stay relevant" or restoring it to "bring back strategy," most architects are selling you what they believe you should do.

Unfortunately, though, most are still selling you something.  It will only get worse as there are fewer new projects to go around.  Caveat emptor.

[jimhealey24]

Tom

Perhaps I was a bit too strong about using the word "job", and you are correct, that isn't their primary focus. But you are correct that it often turns into that situation. I have nothing but respect for golf architects who desire to improve a course to make it more enjoyable for the players/members. However, I have seen where a particular architect firm, very well respected in the industry, came into a city and basically used a cookie-cutter approach to several clubs attempting to get them to make wholesale changes. On the other hand, the development of a master plan for a club to follow, that they agree would improve the overall facility, is a great idea and one that more clubs should adopt. This would reduce the "new greens chairman" effect that harms so many clubs while clearly spelling out how to accomplish the task from a time and budgetary view.
Jim

[W.H. Cosgrove]

"Without attempting to offend anyone here, we must remember that it is the job of an architect to get work."

We all need work.  But the nature of the work is what is important.  As aFinancial Planner it would be profitable to sell a big fat Variable life Policy to everyone who sat in front of me.  But too often it is my job to help a client to deide which choices are appropriate and which are not.  

An architect is often important to devise a plan that makes few or no changes as a way to defend the long term viability of a golf course.  Long histories of Green Committee chairs who make isolated changes all to often create a mess.  the architect needs subtlety and care to maintain a courses relevance.  Maybe Cupp thinks length is the only factor that matters.

When we are all 75 years old and busting our drives a whopping 195, that extra size will just be further to walk and more expensive to maintain.  

An analogy that enters my mind is the plastic surgeon that  sells a woman on a DD when a C might do.  The double D's are eye popping when brand new but over time they simply sag and look worse than they would have if left alone.