[Rich Goodale]

Niall


Coore and Crenshaw are now BLG's (Barely Living Guys).  I'm a non-Archie BLG, but I can still sniff good golf when I see it (or not).  Now that I walked this week two 18's recently in the English heat and cut my handicap (finally!) I think I can comment as to what i feel.


Jon


I will never bow before TOC until somebody explains to me why holes 2-6 being blind off the tee is a good thing.  The rest of the course is fine, but pretty simple (with a few exceptions like 12, 13, 16 and 17).


IMHO


Rich

[Jason Topp]

Sand Hills starts with S
The Old Course starts with T

[John Kavanaugh]

Frank,

The last time I was asked this question it was at the dinner table celebrating my Dads 88th birthday. I was sitting next to my Dad and the question was asked by a man kind enough to show up on a Tuesday evening. This was not the time or place to create yet another regret for my Father to wrestle with in these few remaining years we all hope he enjoys.

I wish your father decades more of health, happiness and great/beautiful years!

That said, the easy answer is "They're both great. Don't turn down an opportunity to play either...they're equally as good." I'm not sure how that response would ever cause a regrettable situation.

For clarification. The exact question I am asked most often is: "What is the best course that you have ever played?"


I hope someday to have played Augusta and find the strength to not mention her in polite conversation. It is a question that opens the floodgates on lake braggadocio. Lord knows that I have had a cabin on that lake since I could first speak.


In that vein, I shot 69 at Sand Hills once. I find it odd that Rich says it is harder than St. Andrews.

[Eric Smith]

Please list one pro or con on why either course is superior to the other. Please, just one pro and/or con per post or feel free to argue why a previous opinion was nocuous.

The fact that I've been to Sand Hills and played a late day 9 hole match from the 150s with just my host and the rest of our foursome seemingly the only ones out there is a pro. It's nice being alone in a place so vast.


However, I do love the sense of occasion when playing the Old Course with the crowd walking along (4 golfers, 4 caddies, even local photographer FBD ) so it too feels "right" for that setting.


Wish I was at either course this weekend!

[Jim Hoak]

Would any (most) of the people on here rank TOC as the best course in the UK?  It's wonderful, but the best in the UK?  Better than Muirfield?  Royal County Down?  Dornoch?  I don't think so.  So, if it isn't, why is it so hard to believe that as a course (not a total experience), it's less good than the best modern course in the US?

[Sean_A]

Would any (most) of the people on here rank TOC as the best course in the UK?  It's wonderful, but the best in the UK?  Better than Muirfield?  Royal County Down?  Dornoch?  I don't think so.  So, if it isn't, why is it so hard to believe that as a course (not a total experience), it's less good than the best modern course in the US?

I have no idea if SH is better than TOC.  I am merely curious as to why some think SH has the superior land....this I find hard to believe as the terrain, turf and location of TOC is as perfect as perfect can be.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon


I will never bow before TOC until somebody explains to me why holes 2-6 being blind off the tee is a good thing.  The rest of the course is fine, but pretty simple (with a few exceptions like 12, 13, 16 and 17).


IMHO


Rich

Rich,


I suspect that when originally played there was less blindness on those holes with no gorse, different tee points and shorter shots. 2 would not have been blind, 4 and 5 not either. Don't forget that the course used to run much more down the center.


I do agree that several holes that are blind played one after the other is not ideal but then the course that conforms to all the ideal technical principles would probably be quite bland

[Kalen Braley]

Seems like trying to compare these two is apples and oranges.  I've never been to either but.


New course vs Old as dirt
Super remote vs Scotland small urban location
Big massive scale vs compact intimate course
Tons of space vs OB on every hole
No after golf nightlife vs plenty to be found.


etc, etc...

[John Kavanaugh]

I think you could compare the short par 4's. Sand Hills 7 and 8 vs TOC 1 and 18. How does that play out?

[Peter Pallotta]

Which is the better golf course?


Bill C, Tom D, Jeff B, Ally M, Mike Y, Ian A etc -- I assume they are all justifiably proud of the work they do, because it is good work.


And if there is 'good work' then there is also 'less good work' and 'marginally better work' and 'great work'.


Which is to say: there are better golf courses and worse golf courses and the best golf courses.


So, stepping courageously from out from behind the curtain of subjectivity, please tell me:


Which is the superior field of play: Sand Hills or The Old Course?     

[Eric Smith]

I have no idea if SH is better than TOC.  I am merely curious as to why some think SH has the superior land....this I find hard to believe as the terrain, turf and location of TOC is as perfect as perfect can be.

Ciao

Perhaps as Dr. Mackenzie wrote in The Spirit of St Andrews, and I'm paraphrasing, that if only one could SEE Hell Bunker before negotiating it? Sand Hills does have some rollicking terrain, but TOC is in no way dead flat either. 

[Mike Hendren]

Sand Hills Pro: Wonderful and varied topography.
The Old Course Pro:  Extreme width provides bonafide and meaningful alternative strategy off the tee (not just wide for width's sake).

The Old Course Con:  Over-emphasis on putting pace.
Sand Hills Con:  Two shot holes are a notch below the one and three shotters. 



 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sand Hills Con:  Two shot holes are a notch below the one and three shotters.

Doesn't that just mean the the par fives and threes are just awesome?

[Mike Hendren]

Tommy, that's a very reasonable interpretation.  I tend to think of two shot holes as the heart  of a golf course.

Cheers,

Mike

[George Pazin]

Would any (most) of the people on here rank TOC as the best course in the UK?  It's wonderful, but the best in the UK?  Better than Muirfield?  Royal County Down?  Dornoch?  I don't think so.  So, if it isn't, why is it so hard to believe that as a course (not a total experience), it's less good than the best modern course in the US?

I have no idea if SH is better than TOC.  I am merely curious as to why some think SH has the superior land....this I find hard to believe as the terrain, turf and location of TOC is as perfect as perfect can be.

Ciao

This is one of those separator types of issues. Do you consider ideal golf land to be a wide variety of longer slopes, real macro changes - uphill, downhill, sidehill, etc - or do you consider ideal golf land to be minimal overall changes, but lots of rolling hillocks, where few opportunities abound for a level stance/lie?


I know which I prefer, doubt it's what others prefer.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tommy, that's a very reasonable interpretation.  I tend to think of two shot holes as the heart  of a golf course.

Cheers,

Mike

14 par 4's. You have to be kidding me.

[Sean_A]

Would any (most) of the people on here rank TOC as the best course in the UK?  It's wonderful, but the best in the UK?  Better than Muirfield?  Royal County Down?  Dornoch?  I don't think so.  So, if it isn't, why is it so hard to believe that as a course (not a total experience), it's less good than the best modern course in the US?

I have no idea if SH is better than TOC.  I am merely curious as to why some think SH has the superior land....this I find hard to believe as the terrain, turf and location of TOC is as perfect as perfect can be.

Ciao

This is one of those separator types of issues. Do you consider ideal golf land to be a wide variety of longer slopes, real macro changes - uphill, downhill, sidehill, etc - or do you consider ideal golf land to be minimal overall changes, but lots of rolling hillocks, where few opportunities abound for a level stance/lie?

I know which I prefer, doubt it's what others prefer.

George

Yep, thats fair enough to prefer one over the other, but to flat out say one is better is a bit much.  As I get older I lean much more toward a friendly walk over humpty bumpty ground without much hill climbing.  I guess it also begs the question for those that love the hills which can often generate long distances between greens and tees...are they walking? 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Would any (most) of the people on here rank TOC as the best course in the UK?  It's wonderful, but the best in the UK?  Better than Muirfield?  Royal County Down?  Dornoch?  I don't think so.  So, if it isn't, why is it so hard to believe that as a course (not a total experience), it's less good than the best modern course in the US?

I have no idea if SH is better than TOC.  I am merely curious as to why some think SH has the superior land....this I find hard to believe as the terrain, turf and location of TOC is as perfect as perfect can be.

Ciao

This.  St Andrews is great because it is on perfect land for golf.  Anyone not understanding that should be banned from this site.

[John Kavanaugh]

The land is so perfect at St. Andrews that we fit 18 holes on every other inferior piece of land we play.

[Kalen Braley]

Just because the land is perfect, which I believe it to be as well....


...doesn't mean whats there is perfect.


If anyone tried to build something like that today, i suspect it'd be a career ender...

[Mark Pearce]

Just because the land is perfect, which I believe it to be as well....


...doesn't mean whats there is perfect.


If anyone tried to build something like that today, i suspect it'd be a career ender...

Several people have said that the land at Sand Hills is superior.  The Yank and I have both said that, in our view, that land at St Andrews is perfect.  Neither of us has commented on either course.

[Jon Wiggett]

Kalen,


What is wrong with a course having imperfections? Its the imperfections that give the charm and the charm improves a course. Perfection is a corporate ideal but in the end striving for it leads to conformity which in turn becomes all day boring.

[Mark Chaplin]

The land is superior at TOC as it offers infinite options to the player, the fairways are massively wide but narrow when the pins are hidden.


The accommodation at Sand Hills is disappointing, totally detached from the golf and at the bottom of a steep slope, who wants a hike to dinner.


Rounds at St Andrews take 4.40 max, door to door (or car to car), that’s impossible at Sand Hills.

[Sean_A]

Rounds at St Andrews take 4.40 max, door to door (or car to car), that’s impossible at Sand Hills.

That is no advertisement sir.  Other than slow play, a big issue I have with TOC is no proper house by the 18th.  Once done with golf, unless you know a member of a club (and even then getting window seats can be difficult) there is a complete divorce from the course...serious drag.  "Right, your day's done, go sit in the drab building 500 yards down the way." I am somewhat surprised the Links Trust has not obtained a building along the 18th as a proper TOC house.

Ciao

[James Brown]

Here’s a little thought experiment.  My guess is that 100 years from now people will still be riddling over the subtleties and complexities of TOC.  Has anyone ever made a clay model of the greens at SH at home?  Are there books written about SH?  How many people dream of playing there their whole golfing lives?   I’m not saying SH isn’t great as a course or a destination, just wondering if there is a closet SH obsession out there that I’ve never heard of.  The fanaticism for TOC is a real thing.


Also, I wonder if any of this would be different if SH wasn’t closed to the public?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()