The Consensus Problem: Classic vs Modern

[Tim Martin]

Ford has built a lot of Mustangs in the past 60 years but the ‘65 remains a classic.  Not necessarily the greatest, but clearly a classic.  The sticker price on today’s high end model is around $85,000.  Sure, it’s a better car ( starting with a/c) but it’s not a classic that will be time honored. 


Just like you can’t make old friends, you can’t build a classic golf course.

If “patina” counts for anything as it relates to golf courses which I believe it does than this post hits the bullseye. It’s not a knock on the moderns as only time can deliver it.

Warm-season grasses do not produce this “patina” and that is one of the many subtle biases against courses from those regions.


By contrast, Pacific Dunes and St Patrick’s had a patina almost immediately, due to the way we handled the soils.  Perhaps too much of one, for some tastes!  Whether you like the style or not, minimalism is the quickest route to this in a new course.

Tom-Thanks for that response as is so often the case on GCA I learned something new.

[David Wuthrich]

BLUF: Modern courses are getting screwed.


TL;DR: Using Golf Magazine’s Top 100 in the US list (someone please feel free to do this with other lists and across other regions or worldwide), by my count, only 1 of the top 10 were built in the last 40 years. 4 of the top 30. 25 of the top 100.


Were the ODG’s just THAT much better? Or is consensus too hard to break? Or are a lot of those classic courses that are still great precisely because a lot of the new good guys have worked extensively on them?


Ben, if you use the 2023 Golf Digest Top 100 US, you get the following 1 in the top 10, 8 in the top 30 and 46 in the top 100, so quite a difference between lists.


Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

[Ira Fishman]

BLUF: Modern courses are getting screwed.


TL;DR: Using Golf Magazine’s Top 100 in the US list (someone please feel free to do this with other lists and across other regions or worldwide), by my count, only 1 of the top 10 were built in the last 40 years. 4 of the top 30. 25 of the top 100.


Were the ODG’s just THAT much better? Or is consensus too hard to break? Or are a lot of those classic courses that are still great precisely because a lot of the new good guys have worked extensively on them?


Ben, if you use the 2023 Golf Digest Top 100 US, you get the following 1 in the top 10, 8 in the top 30 and 46 in the top 100, so quite a difference between lists.


Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

David,


I assume that for the GD numbers you are including Tom Fazio and Mr. Dye in the moderns count. I think T. Fazio has 14 courses in the GD US Top 100.


I have played more great moderns in the US than classics, but I respectfully disagree about the moderns being distinctly better.


Ira

[Ben Sims]

Two things.


1) the proportionality viewpoint is a poor one. The idea that CB Macdonald or Alister Mackenzie know more about golf and golf architecture than Bill Coore or Tom Doak is fiddlesticks. I am a proponent for improvement through experience and learning. Humans get better at MOST things over time. That they *wouldn’t* get better at making golf courses seems off to me.


2) I also don’t buy the patina and survival concepts. If we had the technology to plop a person down on the bottom end of the fairway on #2 at Ballyneal and then magically teleport them immediately to the 3rd fairway at Machrihanish, I’d bet cash money that the votes for which one is oldest would be dead split. Heck, I’ll go one farther. Do the same exercise with 3 at NGLA and 16 at Old Macdonald.


The fact that golf course enthusiasts and raters can somehow wave a magic wand and totally dismiss the age and reputation of a golf course is wishful thinking. Consensus over time penalizes modern works.

[Tim_Weiman]

Two things.


1) the proportionality viewpoint is a poor one. The idea that CB Macdonald or Alister Mackenzie know more about golf and golf architecture than Bill Coore or Tom Doak is fiddlesticks. I am a proponent for improvement through experience and learning. Humans get better at MOST things over time. That they *wouldn’t* get better at making golf courses seems off to me.


2) I also don’t buy the patina and survival concepts. If we had the technology to plop a person down on the bottom end of the fairway on #2 at Ballyneal and then magically teleport them immediately to the 3rd fairway at Machrihanish, I’d bet cash money that the votes for which one is oldest would be dead split. Heck, I’ll go one farther. Do the same exercise with 3 at NGLA and 16 at Old Macdonald.


The fact that golf course enthusiasts and raters can somehow wave a magic wand and totally dismiss the age and reputation of a golf course is wishful thinking. Consensus over time penalizes modern works.

Ben,


What do Bill Coore and Tom Doak know better about golf architecture than CB Macdonald and Alister Mackenzie?


Tim

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim, they know how to build better. That is not always - usually but not always - a blessing.


Ben, sorry but I don’t buy your not buying the patina thing. It’s real, at least for me. However, Tom touched on something earlier. Real minimalism (not the pretend stuff that’s thrown around so often these days) is the quickest way to achieve it. Generally it’s the style / design traits of a Doak or Coore that give away that - say - St. Patrick’s is modern, not its “look” of newness.

[V. Kmetz]

1) the proportionality viewpoint is a poor one. The idea that CB Macdonald or Alister Mackenzie know more about golf and golf architecture than Bill Coore or Tom Doak is fiddlesticks. I am a proponent for improvement through experience and learning. Humans get better at MOST things over time. That they *wouldn’t* get better at making golf courses seems off to me.

2) I also don’t buy the patina and survival concepts. If we had the technology to plop a person down on the bottom end of the fairway on #2 at Ballyneal and then magically teleport them immediately to the 3rd fairway at Machrihanish, I’d bet cash money that the votes for which one is oldest would be dead split. Heck, I’ll go one farther. Do the same exercise with 3 at NGLA and 16 at Old Macdonald.


The fact that golf course enthusiasts and raters can somehow wave a magic wand and totally dismiss the age and reputation of a golf course is wishful thinking. Consensus over time penalizes modern works.

Consensus (and in this thread the List courses that make the debate) IS Time -
or at least Time is its parent; and as a word or concept, Modern is just Time's most recent birth...of course this latest child can't/won't be said to be the equal of its older brother (Consensus)...Consensus has already gone through puberty, gone to school, graduated, got a job, has their own family, and has done everything to good effect.  It's name is "Pine Valley" at birth, but over time, down on the street, we call it Consensus (maybe "Connie")...and we might start calling the younger brother too, once he's gone out and done some stuff.

1. While there are a plethora of  things human beings get better at, the Arts/the Making doesn't seem like one to me...are we painting any better than Renaissance masters or even the Impressionists just a century ago?  Is anyone doing better than Bach or Mozart or Gershwin or the Beatles? How about construction building or facility?  It might take le$$ time to build a gleaming office tower or SoFi stadium but are any of these better than the great medieval cathedrals?  Maybe the hot term is "better" but that should demonstrate its all subjective...I reserve "better" for myself...if many agree, there's a consensus but it doesn't mean anything, even commercially...

When I first encountered this Board in 2005, the ethos was so diametrically opposed to all this list geshrie...the "consensus" for several seasons was that Lists were almost purely a commercial consideration, and if you really want to evaluate/enjoy architecture you hadn't seen and put it in context of what you HAVE seen, you went to the "consensus" of individual expert voices and thus inured the "consensus" of time honored voices flowing from the investigation...you prolly didn't read Dick Wilson or Desmond Muirhead or even Pete Dye, you read Thomas or CBM or Ross or Wind...

I don't know how things got where every 10th thread is about it...just eat your spinach, and live 150 years and wait, Ballyneal may surpass Pine Valley in the consensus of 2125 rankings... but it probably won't be upon a static set measurables, just like it isn't now.

[Sean_A]

Ben, sorry but I don’t buy your not buying the patina thing. It’s real, at least for me. However, Tom touched on something earlier. Real minimalism (not the pretend stuff that’s thrown around so often these days) is the quickest way to achieve it. Generally it’s the style / design traits of a Doak or Coore that give away that - say - St. Patrick’s is modern, not its “look” of newness.

Ally…I agree with you completely.


Ciao

[Tim Martin]

1) the proportionality viewpoint is a poor one. The idea that CB Macdonald or Alister Mackenzie know more about golf and golf architecture than Bill Coore or Tom Doak is fiddlesticks. I am a proponent for improvement through experience and learning. Humans get better at MOST things over time. That they *wouldn’t* get better at making golf courses seems off to me.

I’ve read through this thread a couple of times and can’t find any reference to the notion that “CB Macdonald or Alister Mackenzie know more about golf and golf course architecture than Bill Coore or Tom Doak.” How is “knowing more” defined and does it get you to building a better golf course?

[Don Mahaffey]

BLUF: Modern courses are getting screwed.


TL;DR: Using Golf Magazine’s Top 100 in the US list (someone please feel free to do this with other lists and across other regions or worldwide), by my count, only 1 of the top 10 were built in the last 40 years. 4 of the top 30. 25 of the top 100.


Were the ODG’s just THAT much better? Or is consensus too hard to break? Or are a lot of those classic courses that are still great precisely because a lot of the new good guys have worked extensively on them?


Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

Better...why? Because they make more sense? Because you can figure out the reasons things were done in one visit?  Just because we know more and have better tools and expert bunker builders punching them out all over the world doesn't mean we actually build better...smarter?...by your definition, maybe...better?...I'm not convinced.  I very tired of seeing courses where everything makes sense.   The dumbing down of golf by making everything pretty and easy to care for continues....

[Ben Sims]

I’m really appreciative of everyone’s responses but in particular my friend Don. He’s right. The best moderns haven’t designed out the quirk/interest (for lack of a better term)


This line of threads regarding rankings, judging courses, hard won consensus, and groupthink has really challenged my status quo and many of my ideas.


On other threads people beat down the DG with charges of groupthink. And yet, here we find ourselves on this thread with the overwhelming majority of posters defending classic courses as really THAT much better than modern iterations. Defending decades of hard won consensus about a designer and their work.


I find this more than a bit paradoxical. Surely someone will tell me that no, this version of the rating courses discussion IS consensus but THAT version of the conversation was groupthink.


I don’t think you can have it both ways. I don’t think raters and enthusiasts can defend the glaring lack of modern courses among the top courses (defending consensus for classic courses) in the world whilst also saying that the ratings themselves are groupthink.


I say once and I say again, modern courses are under represented compared to their quality. Bandon Trails is the equal of Pine Valley. Pacific Dunes is the equal of Cypress Point. And Cruden Bay ain’t got nothing on Old Barnwell.

[Sean_A]

On other threads people beat down the DG with charges of groupthink. And yet, here we find ourselves on this thread with the overwhelming majority of posters defending classic courses as really THAT much better than modern iterations. Defending decades of hard won consensus about a designer and their work.


I find this more than a bit paradoxical. Surely someone will tell me that no, this version of the rating courses discussion IS consensus but THAT version of the conversation was groupthink.


I don’t think you can have it both ways. I don’t think raters and enthusiasts can defend the glaring lack of modern courses among the top courses (defending consensus for classic courses)…,

Is this really your take away from this thread?

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

The Old Dead Guys knew when to stop.  In other words- when enough was enough.

[Kyle Harris]

The Old Dead Guys knew when to stop.  In other words- when enough was enough.

*eyes Pinehurst #2*


I think I agree but I don’t think you meant “when the client stops paying” like I do.

[Ben Sims]

On other threads people beat down the DG with charges of groupthink. And yet, here we find ourselves on this thread with the overwhelming majority of posters defending classic courses as really THAT much better than modern iterations. Defending decades of hard won consensus about a designer and their work.


I find this more than a bit paradoxical. Surely someone will tell me that no, this version of the rating courses discussion IS consensus but THAT version of the conversation was groupthink.


I don’t think you can have it both ways. I don’t think raters and enthusiasts can defend the glaring lack of modern courses among the top courses (defending consensus for classic courses)…,

Is this really your take away from this thread?

Ciao

Your question caused me to pause for sure. But yeah Sean I think so.


I don’t think one can say that patina and survivorship over the years means something and then also say that the ranking are heavily weighted to groupthink. Have those courses earned it or are we predisposed to greatness?
Is how we feel about golf courses from a century gone by groupthink or is it not?

[Tags:]

Tags: