[Steve Salmen]

I'm watching the GC coverage of golf in Scotland. From time to time, they show an aerial view of the golf courses. There are 5 courses adjacent to each other if I'm not correct?

My question is this: since the Old sits in the middle of a lot of golfing land and golf holes already in existence, what is the marginal effort required, if even possible, to improve the surrounding land or holes so they're comparable to those of the Old?

It seems odd to me that there are 90 odd holes and only a select 18 in the middle gets all the attention.  Why is a golf course regarded so highly surrounded by such relative mediocrity?

[jeffwarne]

The New anywhere else would get a lot of attention, and the other courses are quite good-though at times hurt by expansion of other facilities or renovation.


I'd guess if the Old didn't exist and the New was on the Open Rota it would be as famous at least as much as Troon or several other rota courses.


To the untrained eye (or the head of the R&A) it's the Old that needs the improving

[Steve Salmen]

Jeff,

I understand the courses are all very good and all are literally adjacent to each other. Basically, all are on the same piece of land.

That being said, how can 1 set of 18 be so far ahead of the rest? With effort, could relative mediocrity become excellence?

Steve

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

by that logic how is it possible to have one hole on a course better than any other? St. Andrews caters for a large cross section of players and so yes you need championship standard courses as in the Old, New and Jubilee courses but you also need courses for those who want to play shorter courses such as Eden, Strathtyrum or Balgove. The putting green also has an important role to fill.

If you think about it, Bandon has gone down this road with the building of the 12 hole course and large putting green.

Jon

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I understand the courses are all very good and all are literally adjacent to each other. Basically, all are on the same piece of land.

That being said, how can 1 set of 18 be so far ahead of the rest? With effort, could mediocrity become excellence?

Steve

I'd say if you'd play the other courses, you wouldn't think that all 18 at The Old are so far individually ahead of the rest. They all have their role, and more importantly, we are familiar with them.
I'd say you could sub in one of many holes on the other courses for 1,9, 10,18 or even a few other holes on The Old and no one who was unfamiliar with the Old and its history would think it was worse.(If you could find an educated eye who unfamiliar with The Old )


I'd go the other way and say with effort, good land and good work could become mediocre.  

[John Kavanaugh]

History matters, it's how we rate one TPC over another.

[Peter Pallotta]

This thread reminds me of a thought I've often had, i.e. that while great gca is indeed a craft, it is also not only an art but a kind of magic trick as well. And it's the "magic" that I can never put my finger on, and that makes all the difference between the good and the great courses of the world. With all the brilliant and seminal text books available to current practitioners on the theory and practice of golf course architecture, and with all the design schools and internship opportunities and countless examples of great golf holes/courses available and out there to be studied (and copied), and with the ability via earth-movers to shape the land to whatever necessary ends one wishes, why is not every golf course being built today a very good-to-excellent one, chock-full of engaging angles and thoughtful strategic choices and flowing and peaceful routings? I don't know the answer to that, and frankly no one here over the years has been able to provide one that makes much sense to me. So that's why I say: there must be an element of mystery and synchronicity and a near-magic at work, some alchemical process that elevates the very special courses from all the rest.  (I don't mean at/only at St Andrews specifically, but in general.)
Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

This thread reminds me of a thought I've often had, i.e. that while great gca is indeed a craft, it is also not only an art but a kind of magic trick as well. And it's the "magic" that I can never put my finger on, and that makes all the difference between the good and the great courses of the world. With all the brilliant and seminal text books available to current practitioners on the theory and practice of golf course architecture, and with all the design schools and internship opportunities and countless examples of great golf holes/courses available and out there to be studied (and copied), and with the ability via earth-movers to shape the land to whatever necessary ends one wishes, why is not every golf course being built today a very good-to-excellent one, chock-full of engaging angles and thoughtful strategic choices and flowing and peaceful routings? I don't know the answer to that, and frankly no one here over the years has been able to provide one that makes much sense to me. So that's why I say: there must be an element of mystery and synchronicity and a near-magic at work, some alchemical process that elevates the very special courses from all the rest.  (I don't mean at/only at St Andrews specifically, but in general.)
Peter

Peter,


Am I wrong that you have played less than a handful of recognized great courses?  Once you get a taste of enough great courses you will find that there is no more magic involved then what makes one pizza oven crank out a better pizza than the one next door.  It only smells complicated.

[Peter Pallotta]

 
It's true, John, that I have played very few recognized (or even top quality) golf courses, and so my point above might be worth very little and/or be misguided and misinformed. But your analogy clarifies my question, i.e. if there is a pizza oven than consistently cranks out top-rated pizzas, why don't other pizza-oven makers follow suit? I mean, if they have to build a pizza-oven anyway, why not just look up the specs for the best one and replicate it?
Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Many pizza operators have duplicated specifications in another location trying to make as good a pizza as the original.  They fail for the one obvious reason.  Pizza is only as good as you want it to be.  People don't want the new location to be as good so it never is.  Great golf courses are the same, they are as great as we want them to be.  Now explaining to your friends why one course or one pizza is the greatest ever is another story.

[Eric Smith]

That's why having friends who enjoy great pizza -- all kinds of great pizza -- is way more satisfying to me than searching for (or debating which is) the greatest pizza [boring].

[John Kavanaugh]

That's why having friends who enjoy great pizza -- all kinds of great pizza -- is way more satisfying to me than searching for (or debating which is) the greatest pizza [boring].

I'm up for a one hundred slice hike, who's donating?

[jeffwarne]

It's true, John, that I have played very few recognized (or even top quality) golf courses, and so my point above might be worth very little and/or be misguided and misinformed. But your analogy clarifies my question, i.e. if there is a pizza oven than consistently cranks out top-rated pizzas, why don't other pizza-oven makers follow suit? I mean, if they have to build a pizza-oven anyway, why not just look up the specs for the best one and replicate it?
Peter

Plenty of it going on


You never heard of Arthur Hills?
How'd his Dye envy work out.....


Still gotta know good from ....


and what you state is why fads are so prevalant in golf architecture, and why so few courses are actually different.


Ardfin from my limited picture viewing, seems to fit the different bill, ironically while its neighbor Islay is trying so hard to be less archaic and therefore less unique

[Adam Lawrence]

I object to the word 'mediocrity' personally. Not being as good as the Old Course doesn't equal mediocre golf.

[Bill_McBride]

I object to the word 'mediocrity' personally. Not being as good as the Old Course doesn't equal mediocre golf.

There is nothing mediocre about the New.  But it's not 400 years old with seven huge double greens, the R&A clubhouse, famous named bunkers and how many Open championships.   I enjoy playing it but it's not the Old Course!

[Paul Gray]

1) Great golf courses require the very best bit of land.

2) Not all duneland, even in the same vicinity, is equal.

3) Simply copying templates does NOT mean you are producing quality. I believe it was the utterly sensible Harry Colt who pointed that out.

And that's it. 

[Andrew Simpson]

Jeff,

I understand the courses are all very good and all are literally adjacent to each other. Basically, all are on the same piece of land.

That being said, how can 1 set of 18 be so far ahead of the rest? With effort, could mediocrity become excellence?

Steve

They may well all adjacent and on similar land but not on the exactly the same land. You shouldn't judge the course you are playing by what it is beside, only what you are playing. Unless you are a course snob obviously!
I like TOC but think the New is a better course for how we all play these days, The Eden is a good test and better than many from 100 yards almost  every hole. Judge the course/shot not what is nearby!

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Steve,


The idea of "improving" the surrounding areas in St Andrews to compete with the "Old Course" is ludicrous.



The golf courses at St Andrews are routed through links land that are natural alluvial lands that are quite prevalent in eastern Scotland, but also elsewhere in the UK.


I suggest you treat yourself to a trip and sample real links golf for yourself. You will see links land and appreciate it once you play it. It is truly different than anything you have probably experienced.


The best ones just are what they are with minimal intervention by mankind.


Look into Askernish on the Outer Hebridean island of South Uist for a wonderful example. Other than mowing there was little need for man's intervention to create a sublime test of golf!!!

[Matthew Essig]

If I split 10 rounds between the St. Andrews' courses, it would be...

Old: 3
New: 3
Jubilee: 3
Eden: 1

IMHO, superb quality is found throughout the property.

[Steve Salmen]

Malcolm, I merely asked a question. Had I not played 3 of the courses, I would not have brought it up. From the sky view, I think it's fair to ask how one swath of golf holes is vastly superior to the rest.

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

why do you think it is vastly superior? Most of the top 100 courses would not be in the top 10 of your average 28 handicapper though TOC might be.

Jon

[Steve Salmen]

John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.

[John Connolly]

I think it's a very erudite posit. My first reaction was, "what an interesting question." Having played TOC and Jubilee I understand the query. Righteous indignation at the thought of improving land for golf, even linksland, is a pretty baseless position. Like it's never been done? And it wasn't just improving land that Steve considered, it was also holes. Is modifying holes for better golf also ludicrous?

[Jon Wiggett]

John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.

Steve, but the top 100 for who? In a setting such as St. Andrews it is important that the courses cater for all standards of player and expectations.

Jon

[jeffwarne]

John, I think it's a fair question because there lies a course consistently ranked in the top 5 in the world, surrounded by courses nowhere near the top 100.

Steve, but the top 100 for who? In a setting such as St. Andrews it is important that the courses cater for all standards of player and expectations.

Jon

The New is Top 100 in GB&I.
If there was no Old course and they played the Open at The New, it would be Top 10-30 in the world.


If the Old were located in Nebraska, it wouldn't be called the Old, it would be called the NLE.
Most people don't get it, some are bullied into getting it, and the rest want to change it

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()