Architecture

[T_MacWood]

Trends come and go, but human nature remains the same -- certain things appeal to human beings and always have.

[ForkaB]

Ran

My support for Pete's statement is just recognizing my own ignorance as to how even seemingly great layouts (e.g. Sand Hills, Pacific and Bandon Dunes, Applebrook, Friar's Head) are going to evolve.  You are very right that one of the factors that seems to lead to enduring greatness is the presence of some major domo who had the skill and love to shepherd the evolution of a course over a significant period of time.

I also think that it is arguable that on a purely "technical" basis (i.e. shot values, strategies encouraged or required, routing, diversity, green complexes, placement and playability of hazards, "maintenance meld"etc.) there are a lot of very, very good courses being built today.  I don't think it is the sites, per se, which are "holding them back" (in terms of recognition), but the "total package.  I wonder how highly ranked many of our old favorites would be if they were stripped of their libraries and trophy rooms and old routing plans on the wall and blueblood membership lists and restrictive guest policies?  Or, alternatively, how highly we might rank a course such as Stevinson Ranch if it were reincarnated on the land which curves around Peconic Bay?

And, times and tastes do change.  When I played Myopia a few times in the early 70's it was considered a museum piece, and far less of a golf course than it's nearby neighbor, Essex.  Is this not also true of NGLA, prior to Olsen's influence?  Who knows how long the wild and wooly look of Pacific Dunes and Whistling Straits will be fashionable?

In general, I think that we on this site are far too quick to criticize new courses and far too unwilling to look at "classic" courses with a critical eye.  Just because a course has been standing for 100+ years and has a lot of cachet does not mean it is necessarily great.

[THuckaby2]

Whew!  Saved by the master.  I was getting in way over my head there.

Thanks, Rich.

TH

ps:  Yeah, what he said!

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

Don't you imagine that the same people who viewed Myopia Hunt as a museum piece in the 1970s view it as a museum piece today?

And don't you imagine that those who viewed it as a cornerstone of design then view it in the same manner today?

As for NGLA, it didn't deserve the adoration that is thrust upon it today back in the 1970s because too many of its playing characteristics had been lost.  Like Bel-air today, one could sense the greatness but it sure didn't play great, through no fault of Macdonald's.

My contention is that courses that adhere to nature shouldn't long haul experience wild fluctuations in how they are perceived. Those eight courses that I listed a post or two back are still held in similiar high regard to this day. Certainly your beloved Dornoch falls in that category as its supreme naturalness is its ultimate trump card.

That in turn makes your point on Whistling Straits a particularly interesting one because it isn't a natural course - it was completely created, and thus,  it could indeed be more susceptible to wild swings in public perception.

Man will come and go but long haul, NATURE RULES!

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

I wasn't at all into golf course architecture in the early 70's, but from what I know now I don't think that too many other people were either, and those who were would probably have considered Ross or RTJ as the creme de la creme, depending on their preferences.  Plese enlighten me if I am misinformed.

The setting at Dornoch is natural, but there is a lot of man's work there, too--even on some of the better holes (e.g. 2, 6, 10, 12).  Also, as 1/3 of the current course didn't exist prior to 1946, Dornoch is hardly timeless.  I would even argue that if those new holes (6-11) hadn't been built we would not hold the course in anywhere near as high regard as we do today, as the ones they replaced were very much inferior.

If "nature rules" why is it that probably the best hole on TOC, the 17th, is a manufactured one?

Cheers

Rich

[Jeff_Lewis]

When we played Sanctuary, we were told that the only person who had ever walked the golf course was the chef. It took him 10 hours, and he apparently was concerned at several points about whether or not he would EVER make it back to the clubhouse!
I don't know about you guys, but I really prefer those "old-fashioned" courses one can walk in 5 to 7 hours.

[DavidN]

Jeff,
I'm guessing there is no small coincidence that your mention of Sanctuary, which I'm quite sure one could walk in less than the aforementioned 10 hours, is a design of Jim Engh, who started this whole thread.  Sure, Sanctuary has eye-candy written all over it, but is it the kind of course you would want to play everyday (a value which seems be integral to many of the best courses)?

[Rick Shefchik]

Maybe a better non-commital answer to the question than "Time will tell" is "depends on who's judging."

If it is the typical GCA respondent, I think the values currently held that tend to favor the older, classic courses will still be the values used to judge the new ones. Those that measure up -- Sand Hills, etc. -- may eventually elbow their way to the top, but I believe they will always be judged -- by folks like us, anyway -- against the classics. And by that standard, it's hard to believe that many will measure up.

Dan:

When I said the best sites were mostly taken, I was thinking primarily of coastal sites. I agree that in Nebraska and elsewhere, you can still do amazing things. But I still haven't seen a big rush to the interior, away from population centers, to build great golf courses. One or two per year is not a rush, when compared with the hundreds of course being built each year in America.

[Peter Galea]

OK Ran, if "Time will tell" doesn't work, how about, "We'll see" or "I'll be the judge of that." I hate to say in 200 words what can be said in 3.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Is the 17th manufactured? The green complex seems to be the key strategic piece of the puzzle and I assume that is completely natural. And I believe the road pre-dates the course, so the hole was designed to utilize its existing environment. Not unlike the Roman ruins at Huntercombe or the railway line at Aberdovey.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I read somewhere recently that the green and/or the Road Hole Bunker were built by Alan Robertson around 1850, and that this constituted the first ever man-made featurer on a golf course.  Sorry,but I don't remember the source

PS--As I mentioned on another thread today, the 18th green at TOC was manufactured in the mid-1870's.

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

When you say "Also, as 1/3 of the current course didn't exist prior to 1946, Dornoch is hardly timeless", are you implying that  there is a connection between being timeless and when a course is built?

I would certainly argue that there is not  as any course can enjoy a timeless appeal if it uses the timeless elements provided by nature. The obvious example is Sand Hills, which enjoyed a timeless quality the day it opened in 1995.

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

I wasn't implying that, and in fact I'm not really sure what I was thinking when I used the word "timeless" !  My best guess as to what was going through my brain when I said that is that I wanted to make the point that all golf courses are mutable, even great ones.  Exactly what that has to do with the Jim Engh quote (which, of course, Jim informed us wasn't really a quote!) is a mystery to me.  Sorry.

PS--there may be a good thread somewhere relating to "timelessness."  I'm struggling to think of a new course that meets that descripion.  Perhaps Skibo.  Perhaps Kingsbarns.  Gotta get out to Mullen some day.........

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich, Wouldn't the quality of timelessness be a great criteria for Golf Diest to add to its ballot?! It makes more sense than their other ones  

[ForkaB]

Only if we get them to agree to allow BarnyF to define it .

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Let me say this about that.....

That doesn't sound like the Jim Engh I have come to know and admire.

The Jim Engh I know is a bright, personable life-loving, opinionated and not worried about letting people know it-kind of fellow who makes a great drinking partner at 1:00 in the morning, whilst sitting in the deep bowels of the Bandon Dunes Bunker Bar.

I do think that he is making every attempt in the world that he knows, to build the best courses of all-time, today, but knows that the art has a long way to go.

That is the Jim Engh I know!

[John_Conley]

Ran:

I didn't read through all 40 posts, but I am going to lob in on behalf of Jim Engh, who lurks on the site but doesn't post... so I think someone is posting a quote from him without identifying themselves.

You are only focusing on the top of the top of the top of the tip of the iceberg when you focus on World top 50s.

If you look down, where most rounds of golf are played, I don't think there is any question.  An average course from the 90s is so much better than an average course from the 60s or 70s when it appears to me that completing a course was enough to please the owners.

Many of the average courses from that same Golden Age are NLE, so it is hard to compare today with then.  What's left tend to be private clubs that have above-average means on the economic spectrum of golf.

I interpreted Engh's quote differently, and I don't think he was saying "Sanctuary and Tullymore are better than Cypress Point and Quaker Ridge."

Rokke picked up on this right away, so I know at least one other guy didn't take it to mean what you meant.

That said, there are a lot of great courses that have been built in the last 15 years and may not enjoy the magazine rankings of others because they are run as for-profit vs. equity club.  Cuscowilla, Princeville, Kapalua, Pine Barrens, etc...  Nearly all of "today's best" have some RE component.  Not the case pre-Depression.

I don't think a man in his industry would get many jobs if he went on record with the opposite.  

"I think we've been on a downward spiral since man first golfed the Old Course, and I'm trying to do all of my work sooner rather than later so that none of my finished work is awful." - John Conley

Can I design Carthage?