[Matt_Ward]

Just wanted to ask those in the know there take on whether or not composite courses should be rated? I have a few friends of mine who are split (myself included) and it usually comes down to this -- if the composite course is regularly used for actual play that's one thing -- if it's just concocted for one-time events or those that are not a regular part of a club's order then they should not.

There are feelings that when you create an "all-star" layout you really have taken things beyond what was "originally intended." I mean what's to say at a course like Bethpage you simply pick the best holes and if you have to trek / walk a bit further so be it. I mean you could play the 1st on the Red Course and simply hoof it over to the existing 2nd!

Clearly, there are some leading courses across the globe (Royal Melbourne, TCC, Congressional) that feature such layouts. I wonder how people assess "composite" sites and where they fit into the big picture with courses that don't do such a thing. Or -- as a friend of mine said -- does it matter?

[ian]

Yes, it is still the venue of many major tournyments. Just because visitors can not play it is unimportant. Remember they combine holes to primarily avoid the road crossings rather than to take the best pieces.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

NO.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Interesting and fine question! Seeing as "composite" courses are quite rare (and rarely used as "composites") I'm not sure how much an answer really matters but personally I'm more than a little fascinated by a composite course provided it "composites" in solid and interesting ways that fulfill all the same criteria that's asked of a standard or traditional 18 hole course. That'd obviously include routing, balance, variety etc. A composite course where you'd have to walk some huge distance between holes would obvious fail an important criteria. But if a "composite" passes all the criteria of a really good non-composite course I sure would have no problem seeing it rated as a "composite".

Frankly,  I'm becoming of the mind that Shinnecock just might deserve to go to #1 in the World!   I realize this would not be the type of "composite" you're speaking of but there just may be a "composite" routing sequence within Shinnecock that may be even better than the way the course is now played!!

Now wouldn't that be interesting if the normal Shinnecock went to #1 and it's mysterious "composite" sequence was even better? Then perhaps Golf and Golf Digest could rank them #1 and #1a!!

That might sell a few more magazines, huh?

[SPDB]

Don't know if I qualify as being "in the know" but that won't stop me from adding my $.02.

I think they should be included, but only in isolated circumstances where their use is by now entrenched (e.g., TCC, RM).

What keeps a course like BPB from submitting an admittedly hypothetical course combined of the best holes on the prop? Probably the fact that it has no institutional value, e.g. it is never used, except in the imagination.

Why don't we put a theoretical limit on it. If the composite course has hosted more than a thousand rounds than it can be used, if not, it cannot.

Deal?

[TEPaul]

SPDB said;

"Don't know if I qualify as being "in the know" but that won't stop me from adding my $.02."

Sean:

Don't you worry one little itty bitty iota about that! In the broad scheme of things your $.02 has to be worth just as much as Pat Mucci's $.98!    

 

[ian]

Doesn't The Country Club use the combined (US Open) layout to make its 18 too?

[SPDB]

Sean:

Don't you worry one little itty bitty iota about that! In the broad scheme of things your $.02 has to be worth just as much as Pat Mucci's $.98!    

 

That little? Either you underestimate me, or, more likely, you are wildly overvaluing Pat. At least give me the benefit of the entire dollar.  

[SPDB]

Doesn't The Country Club use the combined (US Open) layout to make its 18 too?

Ian - no. Essentially TCC consists as 3 nines (Clyde, Squirrel and The Primrose). The normal 18 you play there outside of events is the Clyde/Squirrel.
The "composite" course borrows 3 holes from the primrose (actually 4, but they combine 2 of them to make one hole).

[Pete Lavallee]

Doesn't TCC allow its members to play the composite course occasionally? I thought I had heard they have a tournament on it monthly.

[Brad Klein]

If you showed up on any regular day at The Country Club, Royal Melbourne or Congressional-Blue, you'd have no chance of playing the tournament courses since in each case they borrow from other courses on the grounds. So they might be well-entrenched historically for the very occasional major, but not for member/guest play.

[SPDB]

Doesn't TCC allow its members to play the composite course occasionally? I thought I had heard they have a tournament on it monthly.

They usually use it once a summer. Typically when a tournament is scheduled, as in the Ryder Cup. They will have members play the Open course continuously that summer. I've played it, and it is a b*tch. I've said it on here before, but #12 on the open course (Par 5 8 on the Primrose) is the toughest par 4 I know of.

[TEPaul]

"Doesn't TCC allow its members to play the composite course occasionally? I thought I had heard they have a tournament on it monthly."

Wayne and I asked their historian about that when we were up there doing Flynn research and they sort of do that apparently sometimes (and in other interesting iterations) but not as completely as something like the US Open the Ryder Cup events. To do what those events do when they generate the "composite" course completely entails things like temporarily obsoleting one of the squirrel greens so the pros can play right over it to a another green farther on!  

[JNC Lyon]

Is it possible that the composite course is not as good as the regular design? The routing flows better, and the holes eliminated are deemed to easy (read short) and too quirky.

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't there a distinction in the art of a great courses design and a collection of 18 holes?

If the "committee" decides to not play the artful design and goes with a composite, does it diminish the art that is there? or does it just improve the challenge?

[George Blunt]

A few thoughts on RM as a composite:

It is played by members on a few occasions throughout the year as a competition course, and certainly it is possible to play the composite course whenever the lack of crowds permit.  However I personally do not feel that this is sufficient to give it a rating.

The gripe I have with RM composite being rated, is that it denies discussion about the merits of both courses.  It also denies discussion about RM West vs Kingston Heath, from a rater's perspective.

I think a rating that included RM East, West, and Kingston Heath would have far more validity in the context of Australian golf architecture discussions.

Cheers,

George

[Chris Kane]

George,
Amen.  Precisely the conclusion from our conversation about this very issue last week!

By ranking the Composite course - which is twenty shots ahead of anything else in Australia - the much more interesting issue of the East/West/Kingston Heath/Royal Adelaide/NSW is avoided.  Most would agree that the West would still remain #1, but where the East course fits in is an enduring question.

Although the Composite course might be more familiar to the worldwide golf community than the West course, to anyone familiar with the club, it is the West course which receives adulation, not the Composite.  If I go to RM as the guest of a member, I can't play the Composite (unless I break the rules!).  Why rank a course that is only played by the members?  

[Mark_F]

Chris, George,

... but at least you can play it.

If you aren't going to rate composite courses, then surely those ultra-exclusive clubs like Ellerston and Capitol shouldn't be ranked either.

[Paul_Turner]

Frankly,  I'm becoming of the mind that Shinnecock just might deserve to go to #1 in the World!   I realize this would not be the type of "composite" you're speaking of but there just may be a "composite" routing sequence within Shinnecock that may be even better than the way the course is now played!!

Now wouldn't that be interesting if the normal Shinnecock went to #1 and it's mysterious "composite" sequence was even better? Then perhaps Golf and Golf Digest could rank them #1 and #1a!!

That might sell a few more magazines, huh?

Tom

Are you saying you might finally be converted to rankings if a (mostly) Flynn course: Shinnecock was at #1    

[Nigel_Walton]

Only if they can be played on any sort of regular basis. Courses that are playable once or twice are year, are not really courses. How about a composite of the Sunningdale Courses or Walton Heath courses or Winged Foot courses? If we play them once, by the logic of your magazines, they exist.

[Matt_Ward]

A good friend of mine put it this way regarding this topic -- if a course layout is not the one continually played (by members and those who pay to play) then it can't be rated as the day-to-day course.

If a course is put together to contain all-star holes from another course how is that different from viewing the All-Star game in baseball when the line-ups for that one-time event are there only for that special occasion?

TEPaul: You make a good point about the merits of such things provided the walk between holes isn't out of league with reality. But, what's to stop a layout like Winged Foot / Ridgewood / Montclair and others with more than 18 holes to simply include an all-star gathering of holes simply for a major event that only comes by every 10-15 years -- even if the walk isn't onerous?

I'm personally on the fence with this question but I'm starting to lean in the direction that Pat mentioned.

[TEPaul]

Paul Turner asked;

"Tom
Are you saying you might finally be converted to rankings if a (mostly) Flynn course: Shinnecock was at #1"  

Paul:

Nope--I'll never endorse magazine rankings even if Shinnecock went to #1 (composite) and #1a (Regular Shinnecock 18). All I'm saying is that kind of ranking would show some real architectural imagination on the part of these myopic raters and that'd be interesting---more interesting than "ambiance" or whatever other nonsense they get into when they fail to properly observe golf course architecture.

And what's this "(mostly)" nonsense about Flynn's Shinnecock? Are you trying to make some case now that Colt was THE Architect of Shinnecock too? I think you might be by assuming that since Hugh Alison did a wonderful analysis of Flynn's preconstruction plan and that since Alison was Colt's partner Colt should probably be considered THE Architect of Shinnecock!  

You might even have a shot at convincing Shinnecock of that since Dick Wilson appeared able to hoodwink them for a time!  

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward asked:

". But, what's to stop a layout like Winged Foot / Ridgewood / Montclair and others with more than 18 holes to simply include an all-star gathering of holes simply for a major event that only comes by every 10-15 years -- even if the walk isn't onerous?"

Matt:

Nothing is to stop them. What's the big concern about it? Let's just say a 36 hole club had the ablity to "composite" a routing of their two courses that was even better than either 18? So what's the problem? Maybe they might even choose to play it that way once or twice a week or something. Wouldn't that be intereting? And what if the remaining holes of the two courses could be "composited" in a way where members could play the rest of the holes in another interesting way?

Have you ever heard of my idea about a golf course that's designed to play as "courses within a course"?

[Chris Kane]

Mark,
The issue with RM isn't really about the Composite, but the East and West courses separately.

Ellerston and Capital are on another planet when it comes to exclusivity - everyone is familiar with the RM composite course, while very few know Ellerston and Capital.  Anyone can attend the Heineken Classic and become knowledge about the Composite, or watch the tournament on tv.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()