News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Modern classics next to older classics
« on: November 02, 2002, 08:10:15 AM »
Patrick's assertion that any modern course built next to NGLA would suffer by comparison (& therefore many architects would likely consider passing on the project) got me wondering.

Are there any modern courses that either fit this theory? Any that don't?

Are there any modern courses that surpass their older neighbor (besides the obvious Pinehurst nos. 7 & 8 vs. no. 2 :))?

P.S. Doesn't have to be right next door, could be down the block.

P.P.S. I can't believe any architects on this board would be intimidated into passing on this project... I'd think all would rise to the challenge!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2002, 08:33:12 AM »
best modern course within 15-20 miles of one or more World Top 25's look towards the east end of Long Island, but then again it isn't right next door. Maybe Kingsbarns fits also, but I have yet to play. Prior to these two efforts I think you'd have to look to Spyglass Hill. Other thoughts?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2002, 08:47:48 AM »
I would think that Nicklaus is going to downplay his course in comparing it to NGLA.  

At Olympic when Weiskopf built to Ocean course a few years ago he was always talking about a 2nd course that was a compliment to the Lake course.  Never did he mention that the Ocean course was going to be better than the Lake course or even try to compare the two.  Smart choice.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Tim Weiman

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2002, 08:54:34 AM »
George Pazin,

You laugh about Pinehurst (#7 or 8 vs #2), but more than twenty years ago I played Pinehurst #6 and before teeing off was told by resort staff that it was the best course at the resort, much better they said than old #2.

Strong endorsement for a course I haven't heard anyone mention for the past twenty years!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2002, 09:50:18 AM »
George Pazin,

I think there is a Fazio course not far from Pine Valley,
I have not played it, but I believe that Mike Cirba and others have.  Perhaps they can comment on the comparison of the two courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2002, 10:15:59 AM »
Patrick;

You don't really want me to go there, do you?   :P

I'm trying to learn to be nicer as I've been told that I'm sometimes too negative and heaven forbid that as a consumer and student of GCA that I criticize anyone or any golf course in the industry while trying to identify and point out the distinctions between commerce and art.  

Let's just say that if one is in that neighborhood and expects to play the new one to get a sense of what is at the other, they are either likely to be very disappointed or they just don't know any better, anyway.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2002, 07:37:59 AM »
No more than 15 minutes from Raynor's Lookout Mountain, Doug Stein built Black Creek GC.  BC was designed by Ron Silva "in the style of" Seth Raynor and it is a raging success, overshadowing, I think the original just down (or more precisely, "up") the road.

I'm probably not being completely fair to Lookout Mtn. It was not built with the full complement on Raynor features (budget) and other holes were changed to accommodate a clubhouse location that Raynor would not have approved.

But playing both courses is a wonderful way to see how classic design principles can be reinterpreted and renewed. If you are in the Cattanooga area, play them both. Black Creek is a treat.

Bob  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2002, 09:02:00 AM »
How about the new 9 at Rolling Rock vs. the original Ross 9, which was considered one of the top 2 9-hole courses in the naton for a long time.  The Silva 9 doesn't get the same kudos.

How about Hudson National in it's ritzy part of Westchester county, not far from Sleepy Hollow.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Joe Andriole

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2002, 04:07:13 PM »
I think the term "modern classic"  is an oxymoron.  But in the spirit of this thread I find it interesting to look at golf clubs that have more than one course from different eras.  In this way the architecture can be compared in several ways since maintenance practices are likely to be similar.  Such a club would be Saucon Valley which has 3 courses from 2(or 3?) different eras.  Each course is unique and represents changing trends in architecture.  In many ways this is more interesting than side by side courses from the same architect at the same time.  Other examples don't rush to mind but I'm sure there are many.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2002, 06:15:50 PM »
Patrick:

I just want you to know that I feel it would be a super hard act to follow to build a golf course contiguous to NGLA (that being the Bayberry land).

I have it on good authority that the job was run by Ben and Bill! They passed on it out of their complete respect for NGLA.

But I want you to know, in a way I'm glad they did because in my opinion they would have blown the old gal away with what they could have done next to her!

(How do you do those smiley faces?).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2002, 09:43:01 AM »
yes, redanman was so confused by the doppelganger likeness of the two courses that the last time we drove into Pine Valley, he excitedly asked the guard, "Is this Pine Hill?".  

True story....Seriously!  ::) ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

SPDB1

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2002, 09:47:18 AM »
What about the new Militia Hill course that abuts the Tillinghast Wissahickon course? I know that H&F were on record saying that they designed the course to complement Tillie's style, particularly on bunker shaping/placing. Haven't seen it yet.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2002, 09:51:40 AM »
SPDB1;

Friends who've played it have told me that it's a good course, but unlikely to overshadow the original (now known as the Wissahickon course) Tillie design.  

I'm also not sure that Hurdzan/Fry were trying to emulate Tillie specifically, but I understand they were asked to create something in a "classic style".

I'm hoping to get out there next season to see for myself.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt_Ward

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2002, 10:09:32 AM »
Forgive my ignorance -- can someone define for me what an "older classic course" is with a "modern classic course?" Is such a definition very narrow in its applicability?

Is one to assume that any course of significant age is "classic" or is there some sort of criteria that one affixes to that meaning?

Also -- when someone says "modern classic" how is that defined? It certainly can't be because of age.

Many thanks ...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2002, 10:42:05 AM »
Matt -

I didn't really have any specific definition in mind & I was somewhat at a loss for words. I was simply wondering if a situation like Bayberry/NGLA already existed & whether in any case the newer course surpassed a course considered a top notch course.

You know, kind of like The Bridge surpassing Shinnecock.  ;D

(THIS IS A JOKE - I KNOW SHINNECOCK IS YOUR FAVORITE COURSE & FRANKLY I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE GENERAL PROXIMITY OF THE TWO.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Matt_Ward

Re: Modern classics next to older classics
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2002, 11:54:09 AM »
George --

Good stuff indeed! I almost fell off my office chair. ;D

You know when you mention The Bridge / Shinnecock -- I am sure others will mention Friar's Head and its close proximity to the other east end great courses.

Still -- would like anyone to define for me "older classic" and that of "modern classic."

Is there some sort of ingrained formula that both adhere to?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up