Classic Courses Obsolete?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

If the classic courses of the Golden Age are truly great tests of golf, with strategic options for all level of abilities, why are they considered obsolete?  Aren't great courses timeless?

Therefore, why are they deemed to be obsolete?

Is claiming that they are obsolete more a statement pertaining to their architectural short-coming (as they exist today), rather than a critisism of today's play?

[TEPaul]

Jeremy:

Not sure I understand your last paragraph and question!

Some probably think some of the classic courses are obsolete today because they may not offer the SAME shot requirements and demands they did when they were created!

Obviously this thinking has much to do with advances in equipment technology and such.

But what those who say those courses are obsolete don't seem to realize is how adaptable those old courses can be!

I'll never forget something Jim Finegan said about those old courses and how they transition into the modern age of golf. He said we shouldn't forget how they were designed to be played but we also shouldn't overlook advances in agromonics and other advances in golf maintenance that can not only make those old courses play as they were designed to be played but probably even better than they ever did play even in the era they were created!

I think there's a lot in what he says! I also think the key to what he says is not in architecture at all, only in maintenance!

[mike_malone]

I agree with Finegan.Our bent greens ,cut as low as they are,roll much faster than Flynn imagined.We find that our newly seeded approaches,some sloped,are very slick.This is leading to balls coming up just short and rolling back 20 yards.
 This is  happening on holes where it did not before.I think it is the modern version of the classic design.Something not designed originally has evolved to test the modern game.
    What may be missing today from the classic design of then is "seasonality".The more consistent course conditions desired by many and achieved by watering has reduced the differences between the dry seasons and the wet seasons.I wonder how much the classic designer's planned for these wide differences..

[Tony Ristola]

When you're hitting 9-irons where 5-irons were once planned, the course is overrun.  

With wind you've got a defense, but how many inland championship course are known for their constant wind?  Not too many.

Courses will still present challenges, but it's like drinking non-alcohol beer instead of the leaded version.  Something is missing (for the better players) and the only way to get that something back is to add length or pray the USGA & R&A wake up some day and do their duty.

Of course the USGA and R&A grow walls of rough along their noodle thin fairways to counter the problem...but what a terrible long term solution.

[Jeremy Glenn,]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is one of two things happening:

1)  Classic golf courses are obsolete.  In that case, they must be some sort of design short-coming, because a truly great golf course would be timeless.  It wouldn't matter if you are hitting a 5-iron or a 9-iron.  In which case, older courses aren't as good as we think they are.

2) Classic golf courses are not obsolete, because they still offer strategies and challenges to all players, throughout the age.  In which case, technology isn't a problem.


I think its alot more 1) than 2).  Classic golf courses are obsolete, and the blame is not only increased distance, but also failure on the part of the original designers to create a truly timeless, adaptable and strategic layout.   Obsolete has nothing to do with low score.  It has to do with lack of interest for today's long ball, as they carry all the hazards, wedge it on the green, and reduce tournaments to putting competitions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeremy,
I have only one word for you- Yale.  

[Rick_Noyes]

Jeremy,

I feel that you would have to analyze this on a course by course and player by player basis.  Pinehurst #2 is still challenging.  Hit driver if you want, but you had better be on the correct side of the fairway.  I don't care if you next shot is wedge or 5-iron.  If you're in the wrong place to approach the hole, you're dead.  For the Open I believe they made hole #8 a par-4.  It's still 485.  If you make 4, whether or not you call it a birdie or a par, it's still a 4.  I don't recall any new tees being built to lengthen the course.  The rough was not grown up that high, bemuda rough to the usual USGA height would have killed them.  The greens were redone and planted with G-2 and were not mown any closer just double cut.  I don't recall the stimp reading.  And as you may remember, it was raining all week so the course was there for the taking.  And what won?  1-under - 2-under?
IMHO #2 is not obsolete.

Rick

[Hart Huffines]

Glad someone brought up #2.  Hole #3 there is an
example of a classic hole which shouldn't become
obsolete, whether the pros tee off with driver or 4 iron.  
What is it, 330 yards from the tips?

Rick, I believe several holes were lengthened, including
5, 8, 12, and 16, which played as a 485 yard par 4.
Also, the greens have been modernized beyond what
Ross put there in 1935.  That said, the course retains a lot
of classic architecture.

[Phil_the_Author]

I am in agreement with those who ask the question "Who are clasic courses obsolete for?"

Just because modern technology has created a game that the Tour professional needs a course of at least 7,200 yards or more and put into a state that is the toughest that it can play before par becomes a good score, DOESN'T mean that the course is obsolete for the 99.999999999% of all other golfers. Every player that I know who has come to any proficiency would give anything to play the great classic courses that are talked about so often. They just don't have the connections (and that includes me) to walk the hallowed grounds of Merion, Shinnecock Hills, Garden City, The Country Club, Riviera, Pine Valley, Olympic and so many others ranked or not. Those who can play them should treasure their experiences there (or at least invite me to play and I'll treasure it for you!).

[Tony Ristola]

PARAPHRASING:

"A great course should be a challenge to all classes of golfers."  Dr. Mackenzie

The surest test of a players skill is a long iron to a well protected green. Donald Ross

The courses will never be obsolete for 99.9% of the golfers, but they are watered down for those at the pinnacle of the game.  The problems of 25 years ago were significant...today they have been reduced...emasculated.

Some holes surely won't be obsolete, but most are over run.  

If the ball were rolled back 7 to 10% (and I believe it will be done), it would solve cost related & challenge related problems with virtually no effect on the masses.  Most players are so inconsistent they wouldn't notice the difference of a shorter ball if you didn't tell them.

[TEPaul]

I don't think many of the classic courses that are fine designs were created with today's tour pros in mind and whatnot!

So, I don't really think I would hold that against them and call them obsolete today and not timeless!

Are they still timeless for those they were designed for? That should be the only question!

But the classic course that was clearly created to be or to double as a championship venue certainly can be analyzed in light of today's technology and player ability to determine if it's timeless and not obsolete for today's tour player caliber!

We were looking closely at Shinnecock the other day and it's no secret at all that Flynn designed in a good deal of "elasticity" into the course where he apparently felt it might be needed someday!

That (elasticity) was definitely no accident for some of the "Golden Age" designers and we can also assume that Flynn's writings (1927) on the problems of the future distance of the golf ball were no accident either!

So I would call his design ideas timeless to some extent and Shinnecock may show that in 2004 (certainly it can with the proper set-up and I mean by that one that's right for the overall design intent of the golf course).

It may be worthwhile to identify the "championship" venues of the classic age and discuss how they're doing today with the abilities of today's tour players and how they hit the ball and score!

"Elasticity" is an interesting concept for an architect to "design into" a golf course and I think I can say it's not that easy to do in many cases!

Even with some of the best in "planned elasticity", as has been mentioned on this site before, it seems only to be a form of "one way stretch"! That would be from the tee to the tee shot landing area!

Unfortunately, a "two way stretch"--from the tee shot landing area into the green or with the second shot is much more difficult to do and "plan in" architecturally.

But maybe even that would be possible in the future somehow. Consider for a moment greens that would be longer or far more complex in their rear sections! That would be the only form of effective "planned two way elasticity" I can think of at the moment!

Would that help to make courses timeless and not obsolete in the future in a more overall or "two way stretching" sense?

By the way, the culprit that Flynn identified in his articles about distance problems in the future and what to do about it was the ball, not impliments!

I consider that extremely prescient of Flynn and I think that is the vast majority of today's problem--the ball, what FLynn called the "elusive pill".

I also heard very recently from what I consider to be a very good inside source that the USGA has no plans at all to do anything about the ball generally or a "competition ball" either! They just don't like the idea of a two sets of B&I rules and regs for the golf ball! They've always had one and apparently they plan to stick with that!

[Tony Ristola]

TEPaul:  The architects certainly wrote about elasticity...George Thomas Jnr., Dr. Mackenzie, Flynn, but I doubt they really thought 50 yards would be needed to restore the original intent.

Those at the USGA with their hands on the levers, if what you say is true, are purely and wholly deliquent.