[Peter Pallotta]

We’ve often discussed here how dramatic scenery/settings impact our experience and impressions of a golf course, and even our evaluations of its architecture.
Tom H used to consistently argue, for example, that no one who ranks Pebble Beach can actually rank it independently of its striking ocean-side location; and Tom D has often acknowledged that, for better and worse, the settings of his courses do impact and have a direct influence on how highly they are rated.
My question: do you think that “history” serves a similar function and plays a similar role?
Let’s set aside the obvious ones - eg Augusta on television for the Masters every year.
For, say, the land-locked and lesser known Ross courses or the less famous inland Colts or Mackenzies or less dramatic  MacRaynors: does their history influence our experience and our impressions of their quality?
Can their histories be “separated out” from their ratings any more than the California or Oregon coastlines can be separated out from how highly folks rate Pebble or Cypress or Pacific?
What do you think?
Thanks
Peter

PS:
I played an old, land-locked and lesser-known Stanley Thompson recently and very much enjoyed everything about it; and on the drive home found myself thinking that I would rate it quite highly indeed.
Later, I was surprised to learn that the actual raters don’t put it even in the Top 100 in Ontario, let alone in Canada, and since then I’ve been wondering if its history had influenced my impressions. But I’ve also wondered if its lack of historical “profile” — it is well outside any big city and seems never to have been in the limelight — might’ve negated this historical affect/impact on Canadian raters.

[Tom_Doak]

For some people the history of a course is a huge part of its appeal, which is the main reason tournament venues are so highly regarded.  The 18th at Augusta is an awful hole, but people like it because Ben or Sandy or Phil won there.


In general I think history is in a different category to scenery because many golfers may be oblivious to the history, but it's difficult to miss the scenery of a Jasper or Bandon Dunes.


In the case you've cited it is as much about a brand name as about history.  And of course brand names are very influential in the world today.  It would be nice if people would judge each course on its own merits, but few do.

[David Davis]

Peter,


I'd 100% agree that tons of courses are in rankings due to history and championship pedigree.


Many receive a place in the US rankings just due to that IMO. Some such as Pebble receive much higher rankings due to this. Where would Augusta be without the Masters? I honestly don't know but it's just a question. What about other championship layouts most of which that have been significantly altered during the Dark Ages of GCA. Oak Hill, maybe Oakland Hills, Medinah etc. I don't think it's functions as but like Tom said I would agree it's a whole other category. In my personal rankings I try my best to ignore history and as a result some of these don't make the Top 100. Others are way higher than others seem to place them.

[Rick Lane]

There’s Championship history, as you cite, and there is history history. My old club is from 1895, first decade or so that golf came to the US. Early member of the USGA, ETC.  Gene Sarazen got started there.  Tillinghast reworked it. When we have guests, we walk them through the history, and spots on the course that go back in time over 120 years.  That history tour becomes a great part of the experience and their “opinion” of the course, I would say.  I , for instance, love Garden City GC.  The Travis and other history there for sure influences my opinion of the place.  Hitting shots and thinking I am walking where Travis and Oiumet walked, etc.   Love that......

[Tom_Doak]

There’s Championship history, as you cite, and there is history history. My old club is from 1895, first decade or so that golf came to the US. Early member of the USGA, ETC.  Gene Sarazen got started there.  Tillinghast reworked it. When we have guests, we walk them through the history, and spots on the course that go back in time over 120 years.  That history tour becomes a great part of the experience and their “opinion” of the course, I would say. 

Yes, but you're doing the hard sell on it all.  Without that, the majority wouldn't know and most wouldn't care.  They might not care now, and are just being polite about it.


P.S.  I actually don't know what club you're referring to, even though I would score better than most on a golf history test.

[Ira Fishman]

There is no question that history influences us.  After all, although scientists might yet prove that we are soulless machines, we think and behave as, well, humans, full of emotions and subjective biases.  I have played two US Open courses--Congressional and PH2 (pre-restoration).  Both times I played the week following the tournament so the the history (and fame) bias was particularly acute. However, I was a history major, and Edmund Morgan (one of our greatest historians) told us that he taught Colonial and Revolutionary Era American history because anything after 1800 was current events about which an immediacy bias would make it difficult for him to exercise good judgment.  I try to apply that teaching to everything I do, including golf.  So when I thought hard about the two courses, I realized that Congressional is very good but not truly great (a realization confirmed on subsequent plays) and that PH2 at least in the form I played it was great but not in the "best course I ever played" category that I had initially placed it. 


I do agree as well that there is a very strong scenery bias because the sensory effects can be so powerful.  This is particularly true for those of us who do not live near beautiful vistas.  However, it too can be overcome with some careful analytics.  Old Head is about the most spectacular setting one can imagine, a truly stunning place.  However, reviewing the course in my head with a drink in hand, it did not take long to conclude that the course is far from great.


Ira

[jeffwarne]

Perhaps, but not nearly as much as free green fees, lunch and drinks...and a caddie with an accent


I love historical courses, but generally not current "Championship" courses because of the compromises they have had to make to stay relevant.-or the atmosphere around because they are "relevant"


I much prefer a course that looks and plays old, especially in the grasses, maintenance and green design i.e. not super turf which creates the need for flattening overall tilt and creating tiers..
Where the irrigation isn't perfect and some spots are browned out and others not-maybe even a puddle or two where one area got too much while another starved-or God forbid a pipe drips.


Camden Country Club fit the bill just about perefctly-though I've not been there since my round with the late great Jamey Bryan about 6-7 years ago. Athens CC used to ,before the younger Bulldogs decided to keep up the mythical modern clubs down the road.
Even Palmetto has not been immune but they've overcome their 80's missteps and had something incredibly great to start with so it remains great-despite their proximity to a famous neighbor.


My newest pet peeve is when you walk toward a green and there is a distinct drop down (incredibly visible to the naked eye-especially looking back )to the next level of squared off super short grass-looks ghastly, and even worse if they've returfed just that area with pure bent(or some other fancy new warm weather hybrid down south) to allow that height(so everbody can play a chunk-or-putt shot.(I just coined that )


I'm always amazed at the massive $$ spent on "restorations" (interpretive of course) yet never afraid to display the latest modern fad in course conditioning and turf-even if the two don't remotely match.


Lack of money seems to be the key, and I guess this is why I "overrate" the no name UK/Irish links(or unheralded gems in the states) I prefer to frequent.
or maybe it's history, or even scenery-both on the course and off-or just plain simplicity.
Both rate way higher to me than modern conditioning, the "experience"(barf), and Championship pedigree.


I'd no doubt be a terrible and unpopular rater

[BCrosby]

Great question Peter.

History absolutely colors my experience of a golf course. I experience ANGC, Merion, Woking, and many other courses differently because they drip with history.

The problem is that you often need to have done a bit or reading or have a tutor to help "see" what is historical. But there is no question that having that background enriches my experience of playing a golf course. Not unlike the way having read a book on geology enriches what I "see" on a hike in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

I agree with TomD that scenery will trump history for most golfers. But the older I get the more important history has become for me. It is now the single biggest reason why I seek out different courses to play.

Bob   

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents.
Jeff's post reminded me of something Tom D wrote here once; to paraphrase: part of the reason a course of ours looks like it's been there for a hundred years is because, having moved so little earth, most of the course actually *has* been there for a hundred years.
Which is to say: there is obviously value and appeal in having a new course *look* old, i.e. look as if it has history behind it. 
So when a course in fact *does* have history and age behind it, I think most golfers can tell and appreciate it, at least on some level. 
I certainly did on the Thompson course I played. (And, to be honest, I think it was age/history more than "name" that resonated; Thompson has never been one of the golden age architects whose work - in photos and write-ups - appeals all that much to me.)
Courses like Camden, Mid Pines, Woking (or in my own experience a course like Strong's Lakeside) etc -- maybe it's my imagination, but it feels like the fact that tens of thousands of golfers have strode the fairways and hit millions of shots over 90 and 100 years has changed the "energy" of the place, the look and the ambiance.
That history/age won't be as immediate or striking as waves crashing against rocks or a vast and endless prairie sky, but perhaps it serves the same function, i.e. enhancing the experience by transporting us out of ourselves to something larger/wider/older.
Maybe we rate/rank them higher because of this.
Peter

PS - Maybe that's one of the more subtle appeals/impact of restorations that remove hundred of (committee-planted) trees from a classic old course. Folks say the course is better because vistas and playing corridors have been opened up, and that's probably true. But maybe it's also because our "eyes" see (physically and emotionally) more than we realize, and that what we're actually experiencing is a feeling of "Oh, yes, *this* is what the course looked like 80 years ago and was meant to be!".  It's like looking at a faded old photo of a beloved grandmother when she was a young woman...and we say "Oh, yes, of course, *that's* who she is...."     

[Peter Pallotta]

* sorry, double post

[Rick Lane]

I think your last bit is spot on.....Were my thoughts exactly when I went to Cricket Club post renovation......"Oohhh, this is closer to what Tillinghast was looking at...."

[Rick Lane]

There’s Championship history, as you cite, and there is history history. My old club is from 1895, first decade or so that golf came to the US. Early member of the USGA, ETC.  Gene Sarazen got started there.  Tillinghast reworked it. When we have guests, we walk them through the history, and spots on the course that go back in time over 120 years.  That history tour becomes a great part of the experience and their “opinion” of the course, I would say. 

Yes, but you're doing the hard sell on it all.  Without that, the majority wouldn't know and most wouldn't care.  They might not care now, and are just being polite about it.


P.S.  I actually don't know what club you're referring to, even though I would score better than most on a golf history test.

Brooklawn.  I think you gave it a 5, I think from 1980

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Good question.  I think history and setting/scenery are quite different because setting/scenery directly impacts the experience of the game while history is an indirect impact.  I would include the setting/scenery as part of a quality ranking, but only a small part.  History is more about the experience of the day....IF the history is showcased.  Many clubs don't do a good job of displaying their history which really means one doesn't need to be on site to be enriched. 

Ciao

[Ed Brzezowski]

Could it be that they drip with history because the scenery/course sent the events to those courses? Maybe in search of a better gate or better press coverage?

[Thomas Dai]

Carnoustie - "as ugly as sin" and "a good place to emigrate from" as I've heard it described, yet one historic (and magnificent imo) golf course. Not scenic!
atb

[Ed Homsey]

Old appeals to me.  If there's history that's of interest to me, the experience is enhanced.  Not just any old history, e.g. nothing about Augusta appeals to me.  Though I had opportunities, I never had a desire to go there.  I'd have much more fun on Grover Cleveland Muni, in Buffalo, wondering about the ancient landforms scattered about the course.  Yeah, there's some history there that taps into my particular interest and curiosity, i.e.  It probably means a little more knowing that Travis did some work there.  Another example would be the Ross nine at Thendara, with it's wonderful examples of old cross-bunkers and quirky greens.  It's just old and fun.  The Pinehurst courses have some appeal; particularly Southern Pines CC.  Mid-Pines and Pine Needles are nice, and there are some other courses there that I played, but can't remember their names.  Played a oceanside course in Santa Barbara a few years back.  Wonderful setting, but the course didn't impress.  The rantings of an old man.

[Kalen Braley]

I would have to agree that History is a completely different category than setting/beauty.


But it certainly adds to the enjoyment of the round to those who know about it and are sentimental to it. Torrey Pines has gotta be the poster child for a course that is mundane otherwise but squeezes every last dollar out of its location and history....

[Ira Fishman]

Old appeals to me.  If there's history that's of interest to me, the experience is enhanced.  Not just any old history, e.g. nothing about Augusta appeals to me.  Though I had opportunities, I never had a desire to go there.  I'd have much more fun on Grover Cleveland Muni, in Buffalo, wondering about the ancient landforms scattered about the course.  Yeah, there's some history there that taps into my particular interest and curiosity, i.e.  It probably means a little more knowing that Travis did some work there.  Another example would be the Ross nine at Thendara, with it's wonderful examples of old cross-bunkers and quirky greens.  It's just old and fun.  The Pinehurst courses have some appeal; particularly Southern Pines CC.  Mid-Pines and Pine Needles are nice, and there are some other courses there that I played, but can't remember their names.  Played a oceanside course in Santa Barbara a few years back.  Wonderful setting, but the course didn't impress.  The rantings of an old man.

Ed, your post made me think of a course that you may have played--the one at the Bethel Inn.  It is an "odd" set up in that six or seven of the holes are from the original 100 or so years old course and the other 11 or 12 are "modern" in a Fazio-like way.  The old holes are short and quirky with tiny greens.  I always enjoyed the juxtaposition of history and new.


Ira

[Ed Homsey]

I'm not familiar with Bethel Inn (will look it up), but it sounds a little like the Dorset Field Club.  It's hard to know how I would react to it, till I saw it, but I can understand how sections of the course with contrasting styles and eras, could create some interest and enjoyment.  I may be getting a little too stodgy to really appreciate it, but would be willing to give it a try.   

[Tim Martin]

I'm not familiar with Bethel Inn (will look it up), but it sounds a little like the Dorset Field Club.  It's hard to know how I would react to it, till I saw it, but I can understand how sections of the course with contrasting styles and eras, could create some interest and enjoyment.  I may be getting a little too stodgy to really appreciate it, but would be willing to give it a try.

Ed-I love the original holes at Dorset but the new ones fall flat for me. Tons of history for sure and a cool place but I would rather go around and around on what was there prior to 1999.

[A.G._Crockett]

What a great question!

For me, the history of a place, be it golf history or other types of history, is important.  Not as important as the scenery, but at least to a degree equally inseparable from the course itself. 

Like scenery, history can't save poor design, and a lack of history can't ruin a great design.  But Fenway and Wrigley and Lambeau and others are more than just the parameters of the field or court; golf is no different.  East Lake's history FAR outweighs the design itself, as do lots of the courses at Pinehurst.  I'll even go a step farther on this; I've played a number of courses where pieces of the history are still there; a chimney, a family cemetery, an old mill works, a trading path, and so on.  These things give me pause, and make me more aware of my surroundings; they enhance a golf hole and a golf course for me.

And for me at least, personal history is even more impactful than local or golf history.  Places where I've played with my son, or with my best friends, or on buddy trips; the history of these places make them special beyond simply the design of the holes.  That stuff is real to me!

So I guess my answer is not only "Yes!", but, as with setting/scenery, why would I want to even try to separate it?  Why would I want to think about what Pebble would be like if it was in Kansas, or what the Old Course would be like in Georgia?  Why would I want to try to suss out how ANY place that has meant lot to me on a personal level would be absent those connections?  Those things are as real, and arguably moreso, than a bunker constructed a few years ago, or the flow of a dogleg, or any of the rest of it.

[Peter Pallotta]

A.G. - actually, the great question is yours, as contained in your last paragraph, i.e.

"Why would I want to even try to separate it?  Why would I want to think about what Pebble would be like if it was in Kansas, or what the Old Course would be like in Georgia?  Why would I want to try to suss out how ANY place that has meant lot to me on a personal level would be absent those connections?"

Ah, why indeed -- and yet we're on a website dedicated to Golf Course Architecture (capital letters), and on a site where it seems every 3rd thread contains some type of rating and ranking of said Golf Course Architecture, where, if we take the analysis and descriptions at face value we have to conclude that great Golf Course Architecture is about "options" and "choices" and "strategy" and "variety" and "width" and "recoveries". 

Perhaps it is. But as I often ask in various ways, what about the purely subjective, i.e. the personal reactions, the way the history/age of the course makes us *feel*? Is that not also part of great Golf Course Architecture? 

Your other line also resonated with me: "Those things are as real, and arguably moreso, than a bunker constructed a few years ago, or the flow of a dogleg, or any of the rest of it." 

It reminds of how sometimes we say things like "Oh, that was just a dream"...and thus forget that it was indeed a *real* dream. Or, on a golf course, where for a moment we might get a little misty eyed and have some fleeting feeling of peace and transcendence that the history (of the course and/or of our own) has engendered, and then quickly tell ourselves to snap out of it and pay attention to what's actually "out there" (the bunker or the dogleg etc)....as if what's out there is any more real or valuable than what's "in here"

Peter

[Derek_Duncan]

Peter, I alway have thought of East Lake in this regard.


Most people I've met love it, and many get caught up in the hallowed ground/historical impact the club has had in Atlanta golf, the home course of Bobby Jones, former site of the Athletic Club, Ryder Cup, etc.


The property is pretty with gentle hills and it's a great setting for golf. The lovely clubhouse is frequently in view. The golf, however, is modern tournament Rees Jones, but that's usually is overlooked because of all the history.

[Ed Homsey]

Tim--Yeah, the mix of old and new at Dorset is a little confusing and off-putting, but as you say, it is a very cool place.  A wonderful sense of history permeates the whole area. 

[Laz Versalles]

The single most historic site I've seen on a golf course is the 7th at SFGC "The Duel Hole" where a colorful piece of American history unfolded. Then there's the presidential trappings of Cape Arundel...and the graveyard there. 


I guess I'm talking about history in an more general/academic sense, but that's where my mind went.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()