Mark
I was under the impression that the vast majority of Muirfield is Colt with perhaps some usage of bones and a few changes by Simpson which stuck. Muirfield is a remarkable design which I could see being built today - it hasn't dated in the least.
I agree about Swinley - it is a Colt stand alone. I think of the course as exactly what Colt wanted to build with very few restrictions.
Ciao
Sean,
Clearly the man to speak to when it comes to Colt. The first question that springs to my mind, and hence me starting this thread, is how much of a course is still down to the original designer ? I suspect that over 80 to 100 years very few courses will have come through completely untouched or even lightly touched.
The second question your post raises is what is a better example to judge an architect by, is it a completely new routing or a redesign. I suspect most would go with the new design. And if you are judging him on new designs, how do you distinguish between a new design on a relatively flat bit of land and virgin linksland which is full of natural features. Is the measure of his ability what he can do with nothing ie flat land, where it should certainly be easier to see his ideas, as opposed to a great site ?
Not sure I know the answer to that one myself but you have given me enough to go for Colt, thats for sure.
Niall
Niall
I am a far cry from a Colt expert, just a fan of his incredibly highly consistent work.
I think there are as many as 13 Colt holes at Muirfield, but I am sure on the front nine some corridors from the previous designs were used. The course had been drastically lengthened by at least 1000 yards from the Old Tom original by the time Colt showed up. Simpson removed many dozens of bunkers, added others, tightened some entries to greens, but did not make any routing alterations. It would be cool to know which bunkers are Simpson's.
For an architetct like Colt, who worked on many original designs and did anything from minor to major alterations on many championship, minor championship and well known inland courses that, I don't see how one couldn't partly evaluate his work based on redesigns. I think his redesign work may have been his best strength. He seemed to know what to discard and what to keep in helping to give courses (or retain) an identity of their own. On the other hand, wih modest budgets Colt was able to builld countless courses, most of which will never see the light of GolfClubAtlas day (I am trying to change that!), but which are in the main very good (say 4-6 Doak Scale). I absolutely think of Colt as the father of modern inland architecture from the perspective of asserting the most influence on modern design principles. His direct counterpart and in the States from the perspective of carrying that on that lineage was, imo, Ross.
Colt was willing to try all sorts of stuff on all sorts of land. I couldn't begin to try and pin point specific traits or tendencies based on the type of land other than perhaps with bunkering.
Ciao