Why does the southeast have relatively fewer great courses than the north?

[Kalen Braley]

Of the top 25:

18 are 1933 and earlier
5 between 1974 and 1998
2 after the year 2000

[Kalen Braley]

A chart....just for Fun! 


This shows the GD Top 100 List, per decade built.  A lot of these courses have been restored/removated, but this is per the original build year as shown in GDs list ( The one exception being MPCC Shore which was completely redone by Stranz so it appears in the decade he put the new one in the ground)

[Tommy Williamsen]

I've seen this chart. It is absolutely fascinating. I can't decide if the courses in the middle years were really so dreadful or if we have changed our attitudes.

[Kalen Braley]

If there is further interest, I could put more of this stuff together for GW top 100, and perhaps GD World Top 100.


I also thought it might be interesting to see how many of these show renovations/restorations and when those were done.

[V. Kmetz]

I've seen this chart. It is absolutely fascinating. I can't decide if the courses in the middle years were really so dreadful or if we have changed our attitudes.

I echo your surprise and ambivalence as to what it all means. I had the rare occasion of seeing GD's Ranking issue on the rack today at Stop n Shop and my first wonderings about the clustering of the chart are:


1. As the history of GCA is "only" 120 or years or so, isn't it perhaps quite understandable that there would be peak eras and fallow ones...hills and dales that -- when you chart it up with cultural events like Depression and War and geometric expansions of technology -- make sense? I mean, if we really want to talk about fallow, let;s discuss 1453 to 1860.


2. Which of course, leads to another muse; Golf (though it has a lineage from centuries) and the public enjoyment, spectacle recreation of all "sports" is a relatively new item in the eyes of your World History book...all sport and Golf is a "modern" game, changing from the Open era at every turn....I really think we're all still "workign it out" as it were...


3. The 1930-80 period saw a lot of municipal (not just public) course building -- architecture, that if it was ever even intended for greatness, frequently suffered from crude, laughingstock neglect.  So much of this type of building was done in these fallow decades - another rationale for why the chart reads the way it does.


4. The period/decades least well-represented (1940 - 1980) and that almost directly coincides with the pre-eminence of RTJ, with his hard par-easy bogey, heroic cum penal shots, large divided triad greens, requring large care, expensive earthmoving, trim bunkers, Course Beautiful, almost every course a championship course in some aspect. These qualities and features are the opposite of what it is valued today...in the environment of raiders.


So that's the interim question I'm left with from this chart...will the RTJ thesis ever be rehabilitated/refurbished/re-imagined? I understand it's almost diametrically opposed to the thesis of today.

[Kalen Braley]

I though I'd put together another chart.  This shows the last renovation/restoration by 5 year time period going back to 2000.

32 in the GD list don't attribute any additional work, including Shoreacres and SFGC.
Of the 68 that have been attributed, 12 are less than 30 years old, most notable Erin Hills - 2006 creation, 2013 - modified.

[Mike Sweeney]

So that's the interim question I'm left with from this chart...will the RTJ thesis ever be rehabilitated/refurbished/re-imagined? I understand it's almost diametrically opposed to the thesis of today.

Interesting question on RTJ, and let's extend it to Rees and Bobby. My guess is probably not for the question of "rehabilitated/refurbished/re-imagined" as they are actually all good to very good courses. The only RTJ course that I think of as "bad" is West Point GC and that was simply due to an awful property for golf. It really is/was a ski hill before a golf course and the long long cart rides are crazy. The rest of Jones Family courses that I have played are enjoyable to play individually, but a little repetitive over time collectively.

[Mike_Young]

None of this has to do with good or bad but more with advertising dollars and how much new construction is going on.  I'm with Mike Sweeney regarding the Jones courses being basically good but so were so many others during their time.  Dick Wilson IMHO was a very good architect but the Jones marketing machine was better.  The dude that creates the right perception is the reality as with most businesses.

[Joe Hancock]

Regarding which turfgrasses grow where; The architecture and maintenance are intertwined, yes. But, it seems to me that many people are smitten by the “pimped out” look and the prestige that comes with it. I lived in NC for 10 years, and had some of the most fun golf years of my life while there. Using bermudagrass, or any other grass as a judgement on a golf course shows more about what a golfer values. Not that that’s wrong.


There’s a whole bunch of Ross courses in the SE that fly under the radar because they can’t afford to rachet up the maintenance level to todays’ expectations of what “great” is. We’re in an era of less grass (lower mowing heights) equals better golf, and thus, better architecture.