Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ben Sims on February 20, 2025, 07:49:04 PM
-
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.
-
If time is truly a crucible for great architecture, as many have said, then perhaps this is what distinguishes the various iterations of holes 100-600 yards in length combined to form 18 as much as anything else.
-
Maybe the fact that they are still golf courses 100 years later says something about them. Maybe a course shouldn’t even be on the list until it is 75 or 100 years old to prove it can stand the test of time! Golfweek does make this distinction but many don’t like that because a golf course is a golf course regardless when it was built and they want to see them all compared to one an other.
Let’s face the elephant in the room, this game and the courses it is played on have a lot to do about tradition for many (not all) and there is something about standing on the tee at The Old Course or Merion or Shinnecock Hills,…, and recognizing the history that happened there. Maybe golfers will feel the same way one day when they stand on the tee 100 years from now when they play some of these “modern” designs that survived and persevered until then.
I have to laugh, we had two raters show up at my club last fall (neither from Golf Digest by the way) who didn’t know who William Flynn was or had any idea what courses he designed (including ours). Are you kidding me and these guys were raters for a major golf publication trying to decide how good or bad our course was!!! Then it got me thinking, maybe raters shouldn’t know a thing about GCA history or anything about the course before playing it or who Donald Ross is or Tom Doak or Bill Coore,…. Maybe then they would truly just be looking at the design with no bias. It’s a great concept but Good luck finding those kind of panelists who are really capable of determining the best of the best. That kind of panelist doesn’t exist at least not for long ;)
-
Kyle and Mark,
Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.
If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.
-
Kyle and Mark,
Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.
If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.
Is it your position that a course can’t be tied, then? I can’t think of much else. How do you break a tie?
-
Kyle and Mark,
Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.
If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.
Is it your position that a course can’t be tied, then? I can’t think of much else. How do you break a tie?
Kyle,
I acknowledge what you’re trying to ask me. I’m cool with ties. But based on my OP would you assert that classic and modern architecture is tied?
-
Kyle and Mark,
Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.
If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.
Is it your position that a course can’t be tied, then? I can’t think of much else. How do you break a tie?
Kyle,
I acknowledge what you’re trying to ask me. I’m cool with ties. But based on my OP would you assert that classic and modern architecture is tied?
If we posit that classic architecture is anything that isn't modern and modern architecture is anything that isn't classic, sure.
This brings in an even greater problem, though.
A golf course that has managed to survive the various challenges of a century (or more) of economic pressure could be argued to be "better" than a course that's only managed to survive one Great Recession. Even at the highest level, golf is a consumer good.
-
I think the survivorship bias is strong in the older courses (Matt Schoolfield has brought this up before). Not only do we only see the best of the ODGs, but those courses have had 100 years to evolve and improve.
In 2100, does anyone think Pacific Dunes and Streamsong and Sand Valley will be worse courses than they are today (assuming they are cared for)? I think they will all get better as the owners and supers tweak them for a new era. You could argue that whatever tweaks were made to the classics are not enough to make them uniformly appear ahead of moderns in the rankings and I would probably buy that, but we are seeing close to the best version of the classic courses. I'm not sure if we have seen the best version of the modern greats or if we just have to wait another 75 years?
-
Joe,
On most (definitely not all) of their designs, I think most Golden Age designers would be in awe if they could see their courses today. First they would be thrilled to see they are still golf courses and secondly they would be amazed at how they evolved to still hold and create interest, excitement and challenge for golfers playing a game that they would see has changed quite significantly in 100 years. The maintenance practices in particular would blow their minds and they would quickly realize this had to have an impact on the architecture and their design.
These architects knew the game was going to change and some even planned for it building elasticity into their courses or providing tree planting recommendations etc. Some lived long enough to modify their own designs as they felt necessary but none believed as far as I could tell that what they did was perfect and shouldn’t ever be touched.
If I could bring three architects back to see three courses it would be Ross to see #2 and Mackenzie to see Augusta National and Crump to see Pine Valley (especially since Crump never saw it completed). Their reactions would be something to witness but either way, jaws would be wide open for all three of them.
-
Is some of this a real estate issue? The land you build a golf course on has an impact on its quality. Presumably people would start off with the best bits of land (100+ years ago) and are now looking for not such good property on which to build the newer courses? I don't think it's an accident that a lot of the strongest new courses are built in the middle of nowhere. Prime real estate for golf courses near major metropolitan areas must be very limited.
-
Michael,
Location and land is part of it. Clearly many of the best modern courses are built on the best sites. It would be interesting to see a list of the best modern courses built on the worst or less than ideal sites. It would be a very different list with some different architects.
-
Michael,
Location and land is part of it. Clearly many of the best modern courses are built on the best sites. It would be interesting to see a list of the best modern courses built on the worst or less than ideal sites. It would be a very different list with some different architects.
That would be pointless. Golfers aren’t going places to give a grade to the architect - they’re going to play the finished product. And nobody really knows how to judge what parameters we started with (permitting, budget, etc).
-
Tom,
I agree, there are so many factors most will never know about. And yes golfers just care about the end product and not what it took to get there. But there are some great courses out there that were it not for the vision and creativity of the architect (and in some cases a good budget) that great golf was created out of almost nothing.
-
Ben:
I think your title explains it all.
A brand new course has no consensus on where it ought to rank, unlike the older ones. There is a huge rush to judgment when the course opens, but it’s 100% based on first impressions, which partly explains why new courses come in hot and most fall down the list in the years that follow.
There is also a consensus about who are the great architects of all time and therefore (indirectly) how many places they deserve out of 100. But for anyone still active, the consensus is unclear because we still have more to do. The first test for Childress Hall will be how it compares to Tara Iti, Ballyneal, and Rock Creek. The panelists are trying hard to arrive at a consensus of where it fits on my own totem pole first, and they are influenced by each other’s opinions. I don’t know what my glass ceiling is, but I must be close enough to wear a helmet.
By contrast, new architects don’t have that ceiling yet, so it’s easier to make room for their first really excellent course - by definition, it adds to the variety of the list.
-
There also is the math to consider.
On the one hand, it seems odd that the 30 years since Sand Hills has seen so few courses displace the Golden Age courses in the top quartile given that the Golden Age was roughly 30 years. However, hundreds and hundreds of courses were built in the Golden Age compared to the relatively small number in the past 30 years and particularly from 2008 until just recently.
The interesting question from a design philosophy standpoint is why so few courses among the thousands built from 1950 to 1990 fare well among architecture fans.
-
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.
-
There also is the math to consider.
On the one hand, it seems odd that the 30 years since Sand Hills has seen so few courses displace the Golden Age courses in the top quartile given that the Golden Age was roughly 30 years. However, hundreds and hundreds of courses were built in the Golden Age compared to the relatively small number in the past 30 years and particularly from 2008 until just recently.
The interesting question from a design philosophy standpoint is why so few courses among the thousands built from 1950 to 1990 fare well among architecture fans.
This was where I was going to go…
Ben mentions 25 of the Top-100 built in the last 40 years. That is probably over-proportionate to the total courses built in the time period, not under.
(Perhaps not given the proliferation of builds in the ‘85 to ‘00 timeframe but then most of those courses were built on bad land using a real estate model).
-
Ally,
Your point about many courses being part of real estate complex is a good one. But it also shows how important the surrounds are to a great golf course. Many here say they don’t consider what is “off the golf course” but apparently they do when it comes to houses and condos, etc ;)
If they were just rating “the golf course” why would the real estate around it matter?
-
The real estate model often defined the corridors the golf course could use. So it put constraints on the routing… It wasn’t all about the - undeniable - negative aesthetic of playing between houses lining both sides of the fairway.
-
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.
-
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.
-
There also is the math to consider.
On the one hand, it seems odd that the 30 years since Sand Hills has seen so few courses displace the Golden Age courses in the top quartile given that the Golden Age was roughly 30 years. However, hundreds and hundreds of courses were built in the Golden Age compared to the relatively small number in the past 30 years and particularly from 2008 until just recently.
The interesting question from a design philosophy standpoint is why so few courses among the thousands built from 1950 to 1990 fare well among architecture fans.
This was where I was going to go…
Ben mentions 25 of the Top-100 built in the last 40 years. That is probably over-proportionate to the total courses built in the time period, not under.
(Perhaps not given the proliferation of builds in the ‘85 to ‘00 timeframe but then most of those courses were built on bad land using a real estate model).
By my quick count, Ross has 9 courses in the GM US 100. He designed over 300 courses. C&C and T Doak have a combined 8 in the GM US 100. I doubt that they have designed a third as many as Ross.
On the flipside, Dr. Mac does seem a unicorn at least in terms of his US designs.
-
I don't believe quotas should matter here, even if I understand why some may analyze the lists in this fashion.
A great to elite course ought to stand on its merits...aka what was put in the ground.
-
I don't believe quotas should matter here, even if I understand why some may analyze the lists in this fashion.
A great to elite course ought to stand on its merits...aka what was put in the ground.
I am not advocating for quotas. I am just pointing out that in proportion to the number of courses designed, the best of the modern architects do well—higher than a “quota” in fact.
The question of course is whether in a hundred years, that will still be true.
Ira
-
I don't believe quotas should matter here, even if I understand why some may analyze the lists in this fashion.
A great to elite course ought to stand on its merits...aka what was put in the ground.
I was thinking about this a little this afternoon. If someone came along who could somehow create 100 perfect copies of Pine Valley (and you subscribe to the idea that PV is the best course in the world), arguably those 100 courses would completely fill the top 100, but that would obviously not be particularly helpful. So I can see the desire to have some variety at least in the type of courses. I don't think a course should be excluded because its architect already has x number of courses in the top 100 and someone decided that was enough.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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....
-
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.
-
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
-
The Old Dead Guys knew when to stop. In other words- when enough was enough.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
Lord help you Ben 😎. If you think moderns are underrepresented that’s fine. It’s another opinion on the pile. Just tell folks which courses you dig and forget rankings. It’s not as if you have something to gain or lose.
Ciao
-
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.
Ben,
I have not played Pine Valley or Old Barnwell so I cannot respond to those comparisons, but I have played Pac Dunes a few times and CPC once. CPC is the better course. The site is better, and Raynor/Hollins/Mackenzie made the most of the site.
I think Bandon Trails (which is a favorite) is more comparable to CPC because of the variation in the land form.
Having said that, many years ago before I was a victim of gca.com group think, I posted that on a 10 round split, I would say 5-5 on BT and Mid Pines. I also said 7-3 Pasatiempo and Pac Dunes.
Ira
-
Just wanted to pop in here and say that I don't think the concept of survivorship bias is really being clearly articulated. The problem of survivorship bias is a sampling bias. In this scenario, it would be that we cannot compare any potential weaknesses that modern courses have to the weaknesses that previous-era courses had, because all those courses are long gone. It’s directly related to Joe’s point, but in the term of persistence in ratings, it’s not exactly representative of exactly what we are discussing.
The principal I think would be more relevant to this conversation is the Lindy effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect), which is generally something being "tried and true” and is what people seem to be getting at. More specifically, it is that the expected cultural life-expectancy of aspects of culture are proportional to their age. It's basically an inverted half-life, the longer something has survived, the longer we should expect it to survive.
Whether and why this effect exists is debatable, but the theoretical idea behind is a type of application of the ideas behind evolution applied to simple trial-and-error (usually artistic) creation, when the creations have a theoretically infinite lifespan. This means that the longer something has survived, the more robust it seems to be to different potential extinction events.
This typically has to do with the relevant qualities on the bit of culture trying to survive: bad movies don't stay culturally relevant because nobody wants to watch them, just as bad golf courses don't stay in culturally relevant because nobody wants to play them. If we suppose cultural preferences vary over time, the courses that survive though those changes likely are more culturally robust, they survive, and we should expect them to survive more than younger courses that have not seen a crucible before.
This effect should theoretically apply to rankings. Even getting to #1 status means your much more likely to stay #1, simple because something would have to change to lose that spot, staying #1 for a long period likely means that excellence is robust enough to maintain that position over time in the face of constant challengers, and will likely survive against future challengers.
---
To be as cliched as I can, here at the end of the post I will try to undermine the premise: unlike most bits of culture, these golf course rankings aren't democratically decided, as so one could easily suggest that the Lindy effect applies to who gets to be a rater more than it applies to the courses and their ratings themselves.
-
I'll chip in my two cents.
Not only do modern architects have an extra century of course history to gnaw on, they are also designing for the modern game. The game itself has evolved quite a bit. Back in the 1980s when I started playing, I remember the golf announcers occasionally praising a player for laying up on a par 5 because the players had less control to stop the ball close to the hole from 40, 50, 60 yards away. So guys would lay up 80-100 yards away so they could stick it. Nowadays the good players all have the two bounce and bite shot from the short grass for virtually all distances. If anything, the decision is sometimes made to use an extra club and swing easy so the ball won't spin back too hard.
The fairways and greens are cut short on many courses, and the best players know how to use the modern agronomy to their benefit. Similarly, the players benefit from modern equipment, and excellent players have a big variety of shots they can execute. Finally, a new course is more likely to feature a pleasing or unique natural environment.
I think modern courses are a bit underrated overall.
-
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.
Ben,
I have not played Pine Valley or Old Barnwell so I cannot respond to those comparisons, but I have played Pac Dunes a few times and CPC once. CPC is the better course. The site is better, and Raynor/Hollins/Mackenzie made the most of the site.
I think Bandon Trails (which is a favorite) is more comparable to CPC because of the variation in the land form.
Having said that, many years ago before I was a victim of gca.com group think, I posted that on a 10 round split, I would say 5-5 on BT and Mid Pines. I also said 7-3 Pasatiempo and Pac Dunes.
Ira
CP has a better entree and Pac Dunes is the better meal. One thing the modern guys do is design better “weak” holes than the ODG’s. I put weak in quotations because the term is relative when we’re comparing the tippity top of courses. I think PD’s weaker holes are distinctly stronger than CP’s weaker holes.
Like you I have played PD a number of times and CP once. I think CP is one of the very best I’ve ever seen. But so is Pac Dunes. That one is seen as clearly better than the other smacks of groupthink to me. Not hard won consensus.
This is the point I’m wildly gesticulating to make. These courses aren’t better because of any reason other than the fact that we’ve been told they’re better for a couple generations.
-
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.
Out of curiosity have you taken time to write down your personal top-10 in order?
If so, would you be willing to share?
-
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.
Out of curiosity have you taken time to write down your personal top-10 in order?
If so, would you be willing to share?
Sure. Number of plays in parenthesis.
NGLA (1)
Pac Dunes (~5)
Cypress (1)
Ballyneal (~30)
Bandon Trails (3)
Pine Valley (1)
Old Macdonald (3)
Royal Dornoch (2)
Old Barnwell (~20)
Crystal Downs (1)
This list evolves. I find it brutal to try and rank stuff with one play. My own bias towards modern courses may be from having played them a lot more than the best classics I’ve seen. This list also fails to mention which of the great courses I’ve seen and haven’t seen. So it’s hard to judge my own preferences. For instance I’ve seen Oakmont and Friars Head. Amazing courses. Not on my top 10. Do I think Old Barnwell is better than Oakmont or do I just like it a lot more? You’ll have to judge that.
I think I rated 8 of those 10 for Golfweek way back when and I can’t remember what I gave them. I’d be shocked if this Top 10 was close to how I ranked them at the time.
The bottom line is my list is unreliable, filled with bias and personal preference, and generally kind of crappy.This is the reason why aggregate consensus through years of learned expertise is so incredibly important. Yeah magazine rankings are flawed. But are they less flawed than my mumbo jumbo above? Of course. People can get angry about the absurdity of magazine rankings. But I think what they’re missing is that it serves as an extremely useful and important place from which to start discussion about what good golf architecture is. Striving to get the lists better and understand what they’re saying is important in my opinion.
-
Ben,
Why should I care which courses you think are "better".
You have me interested if you talk about courses you like. Courses that stir your soul. Those courses that bring you to a different emotional state.
Tell me if you want to go back, or join and why. Better? There's been 1000s of posts here with this vs that or why this or that. Most of them are just people trying to empirically describe why they like something. Lets get past that and talk about why we are willing to drop everything on a moments notice and drive 5 hours for the chance to play a course that brings a feeling you don't get anywhere else.
To me, the greats are the ones that suck me in and make me NOT want to analyze what makes them special.
-
Ben,
Why should I care which courses you think are "better".
You have me interested if you talk about courses you like. Courses that stir your soul. Those courses that bring you to a different emotional state.
Tell me if you want to go back, or join and why. Better? There's been 1000s of posts here with this vs that or why this or that. Most of them are just people trying to empirically describe why they like something. Lets get past that and talk about why we are willing to drop everything on a moments notice and drive 5 hours for the chance to play a course that brings a feeling you don't get anywhere else.
To me, the greats are the ones that suck me in and make me NOT want to analyze what makes them special.
Don,
Exactly my feeling. I’d don’t care about rankings. I just want to see and play courses I enjoy.
Tim
-
The bottom line is my list is unreliable, filled with bias and personal preference, and generally kind of crappy.This is the reason why aggregate consensus through years of learned expertise is so incredibly important. Yeah magazine rankings are flawed. But are they less flawed than my mumbo jumbo above? Of course. People can get angry about the absurdity of magazine rankings. But I think what they’re missing is that it serves as an extremely useful and important place from which to start discussion about what good golf architecture is. Striving to get the lists better and understand what they’re saying is important in my opinion.
Ben,
I've been enjoying this thread immensely, but am a bit confused with this last part above.
Admitting the current rankings are incredibly important on a number of levels while also conceding your views are biased and "crappy", seems in direct contradiction to your Original Post where you posit Modern courses are getting screwed over because they aren't better represented in these ranking lists. I'm not trying to criticize you here, just curious if you can expound on this.
-
Let’s hope GD and GM never decide to publish the correct Top 100 list because we would have nothing to debate about. Maybe these incorrect lists do serve a valuable purpose after all ;)
-
Don,
For many years I’ve had to defend my desire to “understand” golf courses and I’m just over it. I’ve been around too long and care too much to be chastised for wanting to analyze. The point I’m desperately trying to make in these threads is that over time we have gained something between subjective and objective. We’ve batted around these subjects with too much detail and analysis for it all to be wistfully brushed aside as trivial and what really matters is what the individual “likes.” I agree with you that we shouldn’t care what one person thinks is better but I’d also argue we shouldn’t care what person necessarily likes either. I think we should instead try to better drill into the WHAT and WHY. I enjoy what Blister Review does in the outdoor space. They have perfected near unbiased reviews of outdoor gear, primarily snow sports, without the need to rank anything. They are absolute geniuses at comparing and contrasting without assigning merit. We don’t have that in the golf architecture world. But magazine lists provide a decent starting point for us to try.
Kalen,
I see what you’re asking. My subjective opinion is that modern courses are underrepresented in many of the rankings. But I was trying to use objective numbers to show that under representation using the GM Top 100 America list. My opinions *are* crappy. As are many opinions. The lists are important for the reasons I’ve stated (and others I haven’t) and I still think it’s clear, objectively, that modern courses aren’t represented accurately.
-
Ben,
Why should I care which courses you think are "better".
You have me interested if you talk about courses you like. Courses that stir your soul. Those courses that bring you to a different emotional state.
Tell me if you want to go back, or join and why. Better? There's been 1000s of posts here with this vs that or why this or that. Most of them are just people trying to empirically describe why they like something. Lets get past that and talk about why we are willing to drop everything on a moments notice and drive 5 hours for the chance to play a course that brings a feeling you don't get anywhere else.
To me, the greats are the ones that suck me in and make me NOT want to analyze what makes them special.
I don’t disagree with this, but only a very few people in the world are in the business of trying to create such places. And I think that’s part of the problem with this whole discussion — if that is such a small subset of the business, should it be what the rankings and the discussion are about? It’s really irrelevant even for the vast majority of the new courses being built.
And for those in the minority who do get to work on such projects, how much of it is golf course architecture, and how much is setting or attitude or things that are independent of us?
Everything I think about is what will make a course special, not about what will make it good or great.
-
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.
All rating systems deal with "consensus" bias to a degree, but if trends and history are any indication, the Golden Age has rightly earned its recognition. The Golf Digest ratings from '77 are JARRING! Look at the number of courses ranked above Chicago GC. If anything, I would say recency bias tends to be stronger. Will courses like Old Barnwell (which I haven't played but am fairly sure I would love) age like some of the Dick Wilson and RTJ courses in terms of ranking over time? Only time will tell, but I doubt the trends will ever conclude that the top tanked classics are overrated.
https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg (https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg)
(https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg)
-
The gods gave Prometheus permission to provide humans with "fire" in the form of unlimited earth-moving capabilities, digital measuring techniques and applications, budgets meant to be busted, and virtually free advertising on social media.
In way too many cases sterility, homogenization, and tedium have been the result.
-
Will,
Not sure how you can say that 1977 list is JARRING? No question there are a few courses on there we might beg to differ about but most every one of them are pretty good tracks (only two or three I haven’t seen or played). Forget the order they are in as that is a impossible task; the fact that they are on the list is really all the matters when you are talking about the top 100 out of literally thousands and thousands of designs.
-
Will: I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981. They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill). It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.
-
Will,
Not sure how you can say that 1977 list is JARRING? No question there are a few courses on there we might beg to differ about but most every one of them are pretty good tracks (only two or three I haven’t seen or played). Forget the order they are in as that is a impossible task; the fact that they are on the list is really all the matters when you are talking about the top 100 out of literally thousands and thousands of designs.
I see your point, but respectfully I do think the order matters on some level. A world where Firestone South is a top 30 course with many below it that almost everyone on this discussion board would agree should be above it is notable. Disney Palms is another that is hard for me to believe was ever seen as a top 100 as I found it to be relatively unremarkable.
My larger point is simply that I do not think modern courses are getting shafted in the rankings, as historically they tend to be overrated and then fall off over time while the classics have much more staying power. The exceptions to this rule (Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, etc) are already solidly in the top 100.
-
Will: I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981. They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill). It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.
Tom, appreciate that context. I confess I wasn't around in '81 so that would be a blind spot for me ;D . With that being said, I still try to limit how much course conditioning impacts my rating when I see a course. If a course has obviously good bones (or generationally good bones in this case) and is a bit scruffy, it will still beat pristine courses with uninspiring architecture. Of course, there are limits to this.
-
Here is the other challenge we are dealing with and there is no right or wrong answer. I have played Oakmont before and after all the tree removal. It might be the most dramatic before and after difference out there. And I have talked to well traveled knowledgeable golfers/critics that are diametrically opposed as to which version is better!!! So when you have personal opinions that are that different, how could we ever agree on what golf courses are “the best”? It’s all good fun and other than when it was all about trying to match Augusta’s conditioning (we are beyond that now at least GD is) they have been mostly good for the game as they promote dialogue about golf course design.
-
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.
All rating systems deal with "consensus" bias to a degree, but if trends and history are any indication, the Golden Age has rightly earned its recognition. The Golf Digest ratings from '77 are JARRING
https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg (https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg)
(https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg)
WOW! That's amazing!!
Champions GC jumps out at me....Cypress Creek listed at #22 and Jackrabbit in the top-100.
I looped in the 1993 US Am there. Justin the defending champ (nice win last week!), was hitting the miniscule 7* Pittsburgh Persimmon with the gold/boron shaft, wear spot the size of a nickel right in the middle of the face. Notah was there with a Bullseye putting left-breakers righty, and right-breakers lefty (gold loop earring in both ears). His future Stanford teammate was there and had crowds 20X+++ following him vs. any other player (not an exaggeration) -- he lost to an Englishman named Paul Page in round 2, but won the next 3 US Am's. We were paired with Miller Barber's step-son, he was a beast. Brian Gay was there, did any player ever max-out their talent more than him? 🙌 A forty-something guy won the tourney, turns out he was one of the baddest and most under-the-radar great athletes in history, All-American in hockey (NCAA Champion) and golf (Big-10 individual & team Champion). Lumpy was there pining for a matchup with Notah's future teammate, suggesting he was going to show the youngster "what bigtime amateur golf is all about"... ;D Jay Sigel and Justin (30yrs age difference) sat at the 4-top next to us for dinner at a great Mexcican joint one night. Mr. Burke was omnipresent -- a man's man that fella was!!
👊
Sorry for the stream of consciousness... That said, I sure would like to get back down there and fish those lakes!
-
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.
All rating systems deal with "consensus" bias to a degree, but if trends and history are any indication, the Golden Age has rightly earned its recognition. The Golf Digest ratings from '77 are JARRING! Look at the number of courses ranked above Chicago GC. If anything, I would say recency bias tends to be stronger. Will courses like Old Barnwell (which I haven't played but am fairly sure I would love) age like some of the Dick Wilson and RTJ courses in terms of ranking over time? Only time will tell, but I doubt the trends will ever conclude that the top tanked classics are overrated.
https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg (https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg)
(https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg)
We must remember that the courses are ranked as they were in 1977, not 2025. I dare say the Chicago Golf was not the course that it is today.
-
Will: I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981. They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill). It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.
I may have skimmed the list too quickly, but I think Chicago GC is the only MacDonald or Raynor course on the list.
-
Everything I think about is what will make a course special, not about what will make it good or great.
That’s saying something!
Ciao
-
Will: I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981. They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill). It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.
I may have skimmed the list too quickly, but I think Chicago GC is the only MacDonald or Raynor course on the list.
I saw that too - WILD. I suspect the conditioning issues Tom referenced at Chicago GC plagued other MacRaynors at the time. Even still, I find it very interesting that Dick Wilson and RTJ had multiple courses where MacDonald and Raynor only had one. I guess that's the dead horse I continue to beat here, which is that I think modern courses are getting a fair shake at the rankings. At the end of the day, rankings are always inherently subjective (which makes it so fun to debate). I've never played a Doak or Coore Crenshaw course I didn't absolutely love - no shade to the great modern architects who have ushered in a second golden age! But there is a reason the OGs are where they are.
-
No NGLA at all in the top 100? Is there anything going on there? I was kind of surprised that Cypress and Shinnecock are both not in the top 10, but NGLA missing from the top 100 is quite the outlier.
-
The biggest stand out to me is seeing Cypress and Colonial, Pine Tree, and MV in the same group. If we think of the courses in the same group as comparable, I can't imagine anyone thinking it's a toss up if they want to tee it up at CP or Pine Tree tomorrow. It's wild to me that at some point in time, people viewed that as a coin flip.
-
And yet it is hubris for us/we/groupthink/consensus to believe we know better only 50 years later.
Ira
-
Will: I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981. They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill). It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.
I may have skimmed the list too quickly, but I think Chicago GC is the only MacDonald or Raynor course on the list.
A similar fate for MacKenzie with only Cypress Point, ANGC and partial credit for North Shore on the 1977 list.
-
And yet it is hubris for us/we/groupthink/consensus to believe we know better only 50 years later.
Ira
Thanks for that Ira. Pretty funny. I’m not quite sure if we fall on the same “side” of this discussion but sheesh, yeah, you’d think we’d learned a thing or two since the Golden Age. Or even 1975.
-
CP has a better entree and Pac Dunes is the better meal. One thing the modern guys do is design better “weak” holes than the ODG’s. I put weak in quotations because the term is relative when we’re comparing the tippity top of courses. I think PD’s weaker holes are distinctly stronger than CP’s weaker holes.
Like you I have played PD a number of times and CP once. I think CP is one of the very best I’ve ever seen. But so is Pac Dunes. That one is seen as clearly better than the other smacks of groupthink to me. Not hard won consensus.
This is the point I’m wildly gesticulating to make. These courses aren’t better because of any reason other than the fact that we’ve been told they’re better for a couple generations.
I think time has a tangible physical impact on golf courses, and that it takes years not just for the maintenance to be dialed in, but for three-dimensional aspects of the playing field to become their best selves. Even some of the most sensitively built modern golf courses that I've seen, when relatively new, have a less lived-in look and feel than the contours and bunkers of courses that are older. I know "patina" has been the term used, but it might actually be something closer to "umami." There's a depth of physical flavor, if you will, that abides at golf courses that have not been heavily touched over the years. The curing process does something similar to golf courses to what it does to cheeses or the finest jamon iberico.
-
CP has a better entree and Pac Dunes is the better meal. One thing the modern guys do is design better “weak” holes than the ODG’s. I put weak in quotations because the term is relative when we’re comparing the tippity top of courses. I think PD’s weaker holes are distinctly stronger than CP’s weaker holes.
Like you I have played PD a number of times and CP once. I think CP is one of the very best I’ve ever seen. But so is Pac Dunes. That one is seen as clearly better than the other smacks of groupthink to me. Not hard won consensus.
This is the point I’m wildly gesticulating to make. These courses aren’t better because of any reason other than the fact that we’ve been told they’re better for a couple generations.
I think time has a tangible physical impact on golf courses, and that it takes years not just for the maintenance to be dialed in, but for three-dimensional aspects of the playing field to become their best selves. Even some of the most sensitively built modern golf courses that I've seen, when relatively new, have a less lived-in look and feel than the contours and bunkers of courses that are older. I know "patina" has been the term used, but it might actually be something closer to "umami." There's a depth of physical flavor, if you will, that abides at golf courses that have not been heavily touched over the years. The curing process does something similar to golf courses to what it does to cheeses or the finest jamon iberico.
I believe that's the case Tim, but going back in time, I vaguely recall Darwin being ready to call Lido the greatest before the flavor fully developed. Why was he ready to do that, but we aren't?
-
I believe that's the case Tim, but going back in time, I vaguely recall Darwin being ready to call Lido the greatest before the flavor fully developed. Why was he ready to do that, but we aren't?
I think that probably has to do with the golf course construction methods of that day vs. today. I think that if a course were built today entirely with pre-WWII equipment/techniques, it would probably come out of the box feeling truer to that patina/umami feel than most anything built with contemporary methods.
FWIW, Lido is the American course I've seen that seems the closest in spirit to The Old Course, so maybe Macdonald got something unusually right back then, and Tom and Renaissance Golf were so successfully faithful to the original that they managed to transmit it in a way that included whatever patina/umami the original had.
-
I believe that's the case Tim, but going back in time, I vaguely recall Darwin being ready to call Lido the greatest before the flavor fully developed. Why was he ready to do that, but we aren't?
I think that probably has to do with the golf course construction methods of that day vs. today. I think that if a course were built today entirely with pre-WWII equipment/techniques, it would probably come out of the box feeling truer to that patina/umami feel than most anything built with contemporary methods.
FWIW, Lido is the American course I've seen that seems the closest in spirit to The Old Course, so maybe Macdonald got something unusually right back then, and Tom and Renaissance Golf were so successfully faithful to the original that they managed to transmit it in a way that included whatever patina/umami the original had.
I'd really like to hear the opinions of the architects and builders of new courses on your first paragraph. That could be interesting to hear.