While I abhor ratings of golf courses nearly as much as Tom Paul (it has devolved into a mechanism to get guys on courses and a conduit of political processes rather than the best use that is spotlighting great golf architecture and being a catalyst for proper restoration and the furtherance of great architecture projects) I do think it interesting to look at comparisons and contrasts of golf courses by the same architect, those in the same time period, and in the same geographical location and/or agronomic and soil type.
Tom Paul is absolutely correct, there is Shinnecock Hills and there is everything else in his portfolio of course designs, that is with Flynn's contributions at Merion aside. Was this because the land was so good? Probably not, the land surrounding SHGC seems to me to be better--NGLA's property for instance is much better in a general regard. But SHGC is great because Flynn's concepts and executions were great.
I agree to a point with Mike Malone's observation that parkland courses with elevation changes are a basis for great golf courses, but there are many so-so courses on this kind of terrain. Far more than great ones, by definintion. Really great courses come from really great architects irrespective of terrain.
Did master architects utilize what was available on the ground better than others? Of course, this is the main reason why they were master architects. Did they do it better than architects of today? For the vast majority, yes since they used more of what was there in their plans. In Flynn's case, where he did make large changes to the site, he did so with an eye towards naturalism that hid his handiwork. Maybe that's why he is less admired than some. Most figure his work is mostly using nature, where it is clearly a combination of using nature and immitating nature.
Flynn was able to design great courses on terrain varying from flat such as (Kittansett, Boca Raton North and South, Atlantic City, Opa Locka, etc); courses that are both flat in parts and undulating in others (Cascades, Shinnecock, etc); courses that are rolling (TCC, Rolling Green, Lancaster and other Philly area courses); and to mountainous courses (Eagles Mere Old and New). Some land and soil conditions are better for golf than others. Better architects can overcome most obstacles given certain budgetary constraints. Granted the Golden Age architects didn't deal with the environmental issues that the architects of today have to and this needs to be considered.
I do believe that with the continued execution of Gil's master plan and an incorporation of some of my own ideas (which I have put to paper and will send to anyone who cares to see them) can place RGGC second to SHGC in the Flynn portfolio and in the highest regard of anyone be it someone's top 50 or another's top 100 or someone else's top 20.
In the case of RGGC, it all comes together; the ground is first rate for a parkland course, the routing is superior, and the variety of holes, shot testing, and appeal to all levels of golfers (depending upon what tees are played from). The maintenance practices integrated to the architecture needs to be worked on to optimize the "Maintenance Meld." A number of trees (both for agronomic reasons and where they are impeding strategy) need to come down as all cognscenti who have visited can attest. I'd say the course is only about 75% of where it can be if properly restored and conditioned. Given that people already think it great is a credit to its architectural underpinning that is somewhat hidden. If it comes closer to its potential, it will be much more regarded than it already is.
Ran was visiting not long ago and he compared RGGC to Cascades in hole by hole match play and it fared well. Ran's regard for Cascades is well known, and I believe his analysis is deeply considered. My feeling is that RGGC in its current state will match up well to any Flynn and comes close but in the end loses to Merion. Now if the master plan and the Wayne Morrison variation is fully implemented....watch out!
