How many classic era courses are really good?

[Tim_Weiman]

CDisher:

Thanks for your comments.  I've had drinks at the Naval Academy officers club, but never played the golf course.

I like your story.  It would be interesting to see what discussion would be like if we banned talking about top 100 stuff for a while.  I wonder if that would force people to detail what they liked about classic era or modern courses that didn't win in the ratings contest.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

My only point is that some people on GCA should get out and see many of the modern courses being opened today. Many are very good and they are good because the architects responsible for their design have studied and included many of the key ingredients the giants such as Tillinghast, Ross, Mackenzie, et al, used in their efforts.

Again, I chuckle when people romance the past with this idealistic notion that all was so "wonderful" and that in today's age we are "missing" something. I'm not saying that all modern golf should be placed on a pedestal, but far too much is routinely assumed about the classic courses being some sort of untouchable contribution.

Just because something has been around a long time ago does not automatically convery some sort of magical qualityto it. Sometimes old courses are really "old" in what they do deliver.

Let me just finish by saying that the all-time great courses continually mentioned here (PV, Merion, WF, Oakmont, ANGC, PB, etc, etc) are titans of the game no less than Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Williams, were in baseball. They deserve the ink -- but there's more happening out there than many really see. I just hope many people would not automatically assume that all of modern golf today is really just slapped together in 20 minutes with little or no strategic value. That is far from the case from the travels I have made.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Bias is such an inflamitory term. How do you determine when someone is biased? How do you differentiate between a difference of opinion and a bias? For example I believe Pinehiurst #7 is a mediocre design, you like it. Am I biased. You believe Nantucket is a masterpiece, I think it was an opportunity lost -- are you biased?

If you study the courses of the past and identify what makes those courses interesting, you will find that those same features are also interesting on modern designs. If there are biases, it is a bias toward interesting natural golf courses -- past or present.

Very interesting thoughts on routing, I take it you don't place much importance in maximizing a sites natural advantages? When evaluating a routing do you see yourself as a golfer, an architect or a GD panelist?

You have said on several occasions that you chuckle when people romance the past, how would you evaluate your knowledge of the past? Do you consider yourself well read on the subject; have you studied architectural theory?  And if not how do you know what you read on this site is romanticized? I've read analysis of past and present, I read historical accounts and perspectives of past and present - I don't see much romantic waxing of the past. What has been said that is historically inaccurate or inflated and who has said it? Perhaps you have a theory as to why the courses of the past dominate your own personal preferences - do you just like things that are old.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

You really think we talk about the golden age classic courses too much? How about these other guys building these great courses today we talk about? Do you think we should be talking more about their courses, like a Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, PD, Applebrook, Rustic Canyon than we already are and less about the Pine Valleys/

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
I think Geoff Shackelford was not neccessarily referring to 90% of the courses being lost, but that 90% of the courses had been altered.

It's a personal preference. An interesting excercize is to take Golfweeks Classic list and Modern list, and ask yourself which list you would prefer playing. I personally lean toward the classic list, I believe the quality of the modern list is very thin. Perhaps I am one of the biased GCA particpants that Matt refers to or perhaps I have descerning opinion.

I don't think I'm alone, if you look at Golf Magazines top 100 in the world there are only 24 modern courses. On the other hand GD has 50 modern courses among its top 100. I believe GD's emphasis on conditioning and difficulty might explain the difference. I also believe the typical GD panelist understandibly goes out of his way to play a lot of modern courses because of the annual Best New Course. They no doubt see the most new courses of any of the ranking system and they probalby see the most mediocre designs, which might effect/erode their perspectives. That focus on new courses often results in a group of the newest spectacular courses sneaking on bi-annually and then subsequently falling off a few years later being replaced by a newer set of courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood,

I know Geoff to be a thoughtful observer, so maybe he could clarify what the 90% means.......if he ever even said such a thing.

Your point on GM vs GD are interesting.  I don't know what the influence of conditioning and difficulty might be.  Don't many classic courses score pretty high on the conditioning factor?

On the other hand I am inclined to believe GD's Best New process must influence their total ratings and encourage a more positive assessment of modern courses.

Beyond that, I like your question to Matt Ward about what "bias" means.  Off the top of my head, I'd say bias is more likely to be a factor when a person comments about a course or the courses of a particular architect when they haven't really seen them.  In other words, it is not what a person says, but rather on what their comments are based on that determines the likelyhood of bias.

I very rarely comment on someone like Rees Jones because I haven't seen much of his work.  Saying I don't like his work just because I'm not thrilled with the mounding at the Atlantic, seems inappropriate.  I can't evaluate whether someone like Matt Ward is correct in suggesting "there is a new Rees".  Maybe, there is.  Maybe, there isn't.  I just don't know.  If I were to throw in my two cents, it would only be based on my limited exposure to the "old Rees" and guess that would make me "biased".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
There are a lot of older courses that are short and a lot of older courses with less than flat tees and/or bare patches -- courses designed by Colt, Simpson, Thompson, Park and Raynor to name a few. It doesn't bother me, but it does bother others.

Biased is an easy escape for those who have difficulty rationalizing their views. The disqualification card comes out normally when someone doesn't like what there hearing about a particular architect or course. Matt's real sensative about the work of Rees Jones and I'm sure he thinks I'm biased, but I've seen enough to have legitimate opinion. I have no opinion of his new stuff and hope to see some of it this summer.

Just as I think Tommy has seen enough of Fazio's work to have a legitimate opinion, you might not agree with it, but its based on experience.

In my opinion if you think someone is biased you need to have them explain there opinions with examples -- that is why I was a little disapointed when Matt was unable to provide examples to illustrate some of his opinions.

[TEPaul]

If we're going to have a discussion of how many classic courses are really good let's just have a discusion of how many classic courses are good and ditch this subject of who is biased about what, who and why that seems to plague almost every single topic that actually discusses architecture on this website.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

As far as the original question is concerned it depends on your definition of really good. In my view there may be a point where modern courses match and surpass the quality of older courses - at least in the US - probably never in the UK. But I don't think this site has ever been about evaluating the medium courses. I think every great architect - past and present - has a number of mediocre designs. While that should not be ignored, I think it is more useful to identify and study the great work. This site has been more interested in evaluating and seeking out the cream of the crop -- both modern and classsic. If you look through the courses profiled on this site, you can see some excellent examples of courses not ranked in the top 100 which are interesting and well-designed -- architecture that many of us would want to in explore. And it definitely has an older leaning.

[Mark_Fine]

What Geoff was referring to and if he's out there, maybe he'll chime in, was that less than 10% of the work of classic era still remains as the architect designed it.  

His comment came about while we were talking about how you recognize Ross's style vs. maybe Flynn's style.  Essentially he was saying that most of the work these and other classic architects did has been changed, altered or just wiped out over the years.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

To answer you rquestion -- when people start providing "analysis" solely from pictures (i.e. remember The Bridge thread) I have to wonder if they are truly biased because of who the designer is. Some people on GCA should
actually get to the course, play it and forget about the singular focus on WHO the architect is. I judge product -- not person.

Yes, architects can change their approach and I believe Rees has done that with his design. But, I'm not interested in just about Rees -- my point is that people should be open minded enough to know that each new course is really another new experience and go from there. Bias is where people maintain fixed ideas irrespective of any clear changes that have come about. The mind is closed to making some sort of change from their previous thinking.

Tom MacWood:

Let's be straight -- there are people who simply are enthralled with the "classics" but rarely have played many of today's modern courses. I've played a significant number of the classics in America that are constantly talked about on GCA. I know people in the metro NJ / NY area who think golf is simply winter rounds at Seminole and summer rounds at Shinnecock. Hello -- anybody listening? There's plenty of golf beyond that.

Tom, I'm not going to play Clintonese with you on words. Yes, people can have valid differences of opinion -- I favor Pinehurst #7 and I especially like Nantucket. You see it differently -- so be it. You say you have a "legitimate opinion" on Rees Jones designs. Really? How many courses have
you actually played or walked from his portfolio? Is a meaningful judgement possible from just two or three layouts?

When I say bias I'm talking about people who conveniently broad brush the old time courses in some sort of super grouping and convey a sort of mythical quality to them without doing their homework on modern courses
today. The healthy skepticism that comes forward on new modern courses is usually thrown out the window when old time "classic" courses are discussed. Why is that? Are they immune from such comments??? Are they all perfect???

Tom, I am a golfer first. I try to visualize how the architect tried to include "unpredictability" in the design. Great routings always have change of pace and force the golfer to use their "mind." A great routing takes into account varying length, direction, terrain (wherever possible) and playing
ability levels (within reason) so that a player must maximize the total usage of all his / her clubs.

Tom -- I don't use the word "bias" as some sort of escape hatch or easy label to latch onto someone. If anyone believes that I will use other language that better conveys the point I am making. If anyone believes I demeaned them or their opinions I apologize. That was and is not my intent.

I've gone in the field and played a host of courses and I generally believe I have a pragmatic sense of quality golf that I like. You may not like it. You know what they call that -- America ... a true difference of opinion.

I've made it a point to try to illustrate my likes / dislikes with concrete examples. My sensitivity on The Bridge was not about Rees, but the lack of homework from people casting "informed opinions" when they have not been to
the course(s) being discussed. Now tell me who really is biased? I'm just peeved that people pull this nonsense and when someone like me or Pat calls then on it we get labeled as being the bomb throwers. Amazing.

One last note -- I started playing golf on a public course that could not grass by design if they had a roadmap. I am not a person that places undue consideration on conditioning. Hell, for the longest of times I was a great promoter of Bethpage Black when the closest thing they had to a tee was a
rubber mat. I think I can visualize quality and move beyond a absolute emhasis on conditioning. I see the shot making requirements and how skillfully architects try to have a routing that maximizes the property they must work with.

Tom Paul:

Yes, I think it's great the revered classic courses are valued the way they are. They are the models ... they are the inspiration for many of today's architects and you see many of these qualities by these same architects on many of their projects around the country today. I've listed a
few on other posts. Usuaully, in a year I get to see 40-50 new courses per year and while many are fairly pro forma layouts, there are a few gems that I would not hesitate for a second in returning to play (i.e. Pac Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs, The Kingsley Club, The Bridge, Wolf Creek, The GC at
Thanksgiving Point, Paa Ko Ridge, plus a host of others).

PV is a great, great golf course. Unfortunately, PV is like a Playboy centerfold. You may see pictures of her, but for the vast number of people it's nothing more than a pipe dream. I give you credit in having discussed Hidden Creek, Anglebrook, Rustic Canyon and a host of other courses that many people can actually pay to play.

Modern design has a number of fine
architects who are really creating a number of exciting designs. Not all of them will be rated by GD or GM but who cares. I know you and a host of others who post on GCA regularly do in fact search out other courses. For what it's worth I would just hope more discussion can take place that delves into what is actually coming onto the scene -- a lot of it is really good stuff.

[BillV]

Matt

Talking about modern designs you note that most won't be rated by GD or GM.




New courses are more likely to be recognized by Golfweek rather than the other rags    you mentioned.  



Do I detect a bias? ? ?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I share your frustration that threads often seem to go off on a tangent about who is "biased" on what particular topic.  It can often be quite an annoying distraction from the main point of the thread.  As I initiated this thread, I'm not especially inclined to fall into that trap.

But, I'm hard pressed to think how we will ever eliminate people asking questions about the basis for which statements are made about a course or a particular architect.  Nor do I necessarily think it is inappropriate for people to raise questions about "bias".  Afterall, the person who made the original statement in question always has the option of:

a) providing more detail about the course or architect
b) clarifying the extent of their own experience on that course or with that particular architect

Tom, you may recall that a while back I wrote some critical threads about Doonbeg, the Greg Norman project in Ireland.  I have visited the site four times, once for a discussion with the property owner and three times to walk the course.  Still, there were people who felt I was being "biased" against Greg Norman simply because I hadn't yet played the course.

Perhaps insisting that four site visits is not sufficient to judge a course is a little bit extreme, but like Matt Ward, I do wonder if we sometimes go to the opposite extreme: we make strong comments about things we haven't seen or make broad statements about architects when we haven't seen the most significant body of their work.

I can't help but think that this practice does as much to undermine the quality of certain threads as anything else.


Tom MacWood:

I agree with your point that suggestions of "bias" should not be put up as a "disqualification card".  If I person says they like short courses, I'd have to consider that a "preference" rather than a "bias".  Saying their opinion is "biased" because they may not be a long hitter seems kind of silly.  

On the other hand, I do believe some standard of experience/exposure should be met before making strong comments about architectural matters.  I'm aware, for example, that there has been a golf boom in Spain during the past decade.  But, I haven't seen any of this work, so am I really "qualified" to comment on Spanish golf courses?

Based on the same logic, I think I'm unqualifed to comment much on Rees Jones' work as I really haven't seen much (only Atlantic, Arcadian Shores, Pinehurst #7 and Charleston National).

It's kind of obnoxious to declare someone unqualifed to address a particular topic, so we have to somewhat rely on an honor system with each person policing themselves.  But, if I start talking about Rees' work, it would certainly be fair for someone to say "Tim, you really haven't seen enough of Rees' work".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
I've played or seen six Rees Jones' courses - Nantcuket, Pinehurst #7, Talamore, Currituck, CC of Hilton Head and Oyster Reef. How many courses should one play before their opinion is legitimate?

Experience is irreplaceable, but experience does not neccessarily translate into a well reasoned opinion. You have no doubt played more classic and modern courses then nearly everyone on this site, including myself, and no doubt your opinion should be respected, but to how much weight (if any) your opinion or my opinion should be given is up to every individual. How much weight one gives to individual opinions can be a complex equation -- their experience, their insightful observations, lack of insightfulness based on similar experiences, the intellegence or the reasoning of their views, parallel interests, similar/dissimilar preferences, are they a student of the art, their golf game, possible conflicting interests, consistency, taste, etc., etc.  Everyone looks at it differently, but hopefully everyone at least listens and then evaluates. Accusations of biases or setting a standard of legitimate experience tends stifle thoughtful conversation and analysis.

I think the Bridge thread is a good example, there were several who commented on what they saw in the photographs or asked questions about the photographs - I recall Dick Daley and Mike Cirba as two off the top of my head - but not a single person rendered a judgement on the quality of the golf course. I was very hesitant to get involved for fear that I would face a good tongue lashing for simply commenting on a photo. In fact simply commenting on Rees is the surest way to derail any honest or intellegent conversation.

Tim
Its too late this thread was hi-jacked when I responded to the charges of bias. I probably should have ignored them, but unfortunately I did not. I disagree on setting a standard of experience. If you disagree with someone's view, ask them to explain their opinion and then illustrate the differences of your two views. No need to ask them their qualifications or to recite your own qualifications - your reasoning or lack of reasoning will stand on its own merits. And I've played X number of courses is not good explanation of an opinion.

There are many insightful people out there who I suspect are hesitant to share their experiences or opinions because they don't have the experience of X - are you going to say they don't have legitimate view or an excellent grasp of the subject or a fascinating observation?

If you can not comment on your experience/views after playing four courses, then what good is this site? On the other hand I'm sure there are many individuals who would rather not comment on Rees' work either - for fear of the rath of the Hounds of NJ - including myself.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Well said. I mentioned in my previous post that the use of the word "bias" should be avoided until it is blatantly obvious. I try to make a spirited defense in any post I make -- I do not mean it to be perceived as insulting / demeaning. That's never been my intention -- just good ole debate. Just lay off the Hounds of NJ -- Pat may not want to be grouped with me.

To answer you question -- I would way someone should try to sample a number of courses ... there being no exact number. I would hope people keep an open mind as the years go by because work from any architect can evolve and methods in course construction / hole philosophy can change. Clearly, I have learned a great deal about a variety of courses from the insightful comments from a number of people on GCA. But, you are right that personal experience is no better a teacher -- ditto actually walking and playing the course(s) in question.

The legitimacy of a person's opinion does not have to be based on playing "X" number of courses. I agree with that -- but at the same time I don't believe we should devalue those who do have the time and energy to sample a wide cross section of courses provided their insights are grounded in reason and logical elements. Those who can play a wdie wealth of courses can hopefully provide the cross comparisons that are really helpful in getting the total full picture of opinion on any course.

My only point is that modern golf offers quite a few solid alternatives throughout the nation. Not all by any means is anywhere near the titans of the game often mentioned on GCA, however, there are present day architects who know full well how to design a course that keeps you interested time after time. I would hope more time and posts could be directed in this manner but that's just my opinion.

I'll say this again I am not a PR hire for Rees Jones or any other architect. I rate courses -- not people. My interpretation from The Bridge thread was that people were lobbing in comments about certain items simply from photos and then stretching those particular comments into full bore assessments of a course they had not yet played.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

I don't know if we will ever be able to avoid threads getting hijacked!

As for setting a "standard for experience", it is not something I'm especially comfortable with either.  We are trying to attract more people to the site, so suggesting people shouldn't comment without meeting some standard doesn't seem the way to go.

Equally, I don't think we should be so politically correct that we should avoid pointing out when a person doesn't really have a strong basis for his opinions.

That is why, on another thread, I cited the example of a British co-worker who was quick to declare "California had no wine", as he could surely assure us after working in France for three years!  Two years after starting in LA his obvious enjoyment of many California wines demonstrated his original opinions (based on ignorance) weren't worth much.

So it is with golf architecture.  Yes, I feel qualified to comment on the four Rees Jones courses I've played, but I can't evaluate Matt Ward's claim about a "new Rees".  I just don't know.

As a rule of thumb, it is probably better to see and/or play a course before saying too much.  It would also be better to sample an architect's prominent work before commenting too often or too strongly about that work.

I know you are enough of a Mackenzie fan to believe a person who only saw Sharp Park would hardly be qualified to declare Mackenzie overrated, even if that person could explain in detail why SP was basically an average course.

Anyway, here in Cleveland Manakiki and Sleepy Hollow stand out as classic era designs that don't make the "top" lists.  What would be comparable in Columbus?