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.


Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Steve Burrows,

Three courses out of hundreds hardly supports your position and certainly doesn't refute any premise you somehow think I posited.

I would suggest that you reread the initial post and see if you can differentiate a query from a premise

I'd be curious to the percentage of 1900 - 1935 courses that relied heavily on pass/fail.  I grew up on a 1913 course, that didn't really have any pass/fail features (unless you count carrying a small creek).  Nine holes of my current club were built in 1904, and the only true pass/fail shot is if you'd like to cut off about 75 yards on a 570 yard par 5 by carrying tall oaks and OB, but there is another option.  Is it a change in architecture, or simply that only a select portion of courses in any era are made with that level of demand?  Is it just that the ones of the golden era that had that level of demand, as well as the location and membership to survive are now perceived as the pinnacle?

Andrew Buck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Interestingly, I had the chance to play Bull Valley Golf Club this morning and it brought to mind both this and the private club thread.  Bull Valley is a "GOLF" club, not country club, in the FAR NW suburbs of Chicago (probably 60 miles). 

Bull Valley is probably 25 years old, and has appeared multiple times on lists of toughest courses in America.  The tips are 7,300, 77.2/151, the tees I played are 7,000 75.6/145.  I can think of no fewer than 13 full shots today that were truly pass/fail of the highest order, about 5 tee shots and 8 approach shots.  That doesn't count several more where 25 yard wide fairways are lined with penal trees (but no O.B.) or the greens that still required a solid strike to reach, but a miss allows an opportunity for up and down.  The course is in great shape and has undulated greens at 11.5.

On one hand, I understand what Pat is saying about the excitement.  When any miss is going to be overly penal, there is a rush of executing a shot.  For example, the 13th is a 200 yard par 3 all carry to a narrow green through a shoot of trees with no bail out.  In this case, hitting a 4-iron solidly and seeing it land safely 20 feet beyond the pin gave me more enjoyment than hitting it to 4 feet on a similar length forgiving par 3 on my home course.  In addition, even though I wasn't scoring particularly well, each additional chance to execute provides some satisfaction. 

On the other hand, it's really trying without room for error on any shot.  As a scratch golfer, I didn't play *that* poorly and shot 83.  While some of it was poor lag putting that likely would be cured if I had a caddy or played the course regularly, there were 4 doubles due to tee balls that really weren't that bad.  Missing 25 yard wide fairways by less 10 yards or so and turning them into doubles.  While it would be nice to just accept higher scores, grab the thrill of good individual holes and enjoy, I'm not sure if I'd like the game as much if I had to play in that environment daily.

I know Bull Valley' ownership has changed hands a couple times due to financial difficulties.  This certainly isn't due to the condition of the course, or the challenge presented.  The location is certainly not ideal, but I'd suspect there are 200,000 people within 15 minutes, competitive rates, and only 30 minutes from affluent, well populated suburbs like Barrington.  By nature, they have gravitated to a high caliber of golfer as members, many of whom it's a second club.  The problem is, unless you are ultra elite, that isn't enough and without a pool or course that is playable to women and kids it's really hard to thrive.  I hope it continues to exist however, because it's a great place to play a few times a year and challenge the game.  That said, I can see why most wouldn't want to build a course like this, because chance of success seems low unless you know you have true greatness. 
 

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Steve Burrows,

Three courses out of hundreds hardly supports your position and certainly doesn't refute any premise you somehow think I posited.

It does in the context of the question originally posed by this thread.

If three dinosaurs were walking around today, they wouldn't be extinct.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Steve Burrows,

Three courses out of hundreds hardly supports your position and certainly doesn't refute any premise you somehow think I posited.

It does in the context of the question originally posed by this thread.

If three dinosaurs were walking around today, they wouldn't be extinct.

And neither do the three courses Pat focuses on throughout this thread (PV, NGLA, GCGC) confirm any sort of trend from 100 years ago toward "Pass/Fail" architecture.  They may well possess features that display this idea as Pat has defined it, but in truth, they are each special places that defy broad categorization(s).  In other words, they cannot be considered representative of any trend in design, much less a trend on the verge of extinction
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Steve Burrows

  • Karma: +0/-0
Steve Burrows,

Three courses out of hundreds hardly supports your position and certainly doesn't refute any premise you somehow think I posited.

I would suggest that you reread the initial post and see if you can differentiate a query from a premise

And you should know that a query, much like a premise, can be laden with assumptions...and yours most certainly is.
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes