[Mark_Fine]

There are some courses that if you are lucky enough to see or play give you goose bumps.  They are truly “Hallowed Ground” and some of the best of the best.  This is by no means a comprehensive list.  I limited the names to a random list of 45 that I have seen and/or played.  All these courses show up on someone’s Top 100 list for sure and all are over 75 years old.  They fit in that Hallowed Ground category (few golfers would argue that).  They all have at least one other thing in common.  This is not a trick question and most here are studied enough to know what that is:

• Pine Valley
• Cypress Point
• St. Andrews Old Course
• San Francisco
• Shinnecock Hills
• Royal County Down
• Newport CC
• Oakmont
• Augusta National
• Royal Portrush (Dunluce)
• Pebble Beach
• Merion East
• Pinehurst #2
• Turnberry (Ailsa)
• Los Angeles CC (North)
• Winged Foot (West)
• Plainfield
• Riviera
• Seminole
• The Valley Club of Montecito
• Inverness Club
• Sleepy Hollow
• The Country Club (Clyde/Squirrel)
• Shoreacres
• Southern Hills
• California Golf Club
• Bethpage Black
• Maidstone
• Aronimink
• Royal Liverpool
• Oakland Hills (South)
• Sleepy Hollow
• Olympic Club (Lake)
• Inverness
• St. George’s Hill
• Oak Hill CC (East)
• Baltusrol (Lower)
• Medinah (No. 3)
• Scioto
• Quaker Ridge
• Cherry Hills
• Milwaukee CC
• Olympia Fields (North)
• Myopia Hunt Club
• Kittansett Club

[John Emerson]

They were built before WWII

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I believe that is a correct answer but not the one I was looking for 


Any more guesses? 

[Tal Oz]

Mark, I'll bite... They have tournament history?
I believe I used the words hallowed ground on my instagram post a few years back after playing Olympia Fields North.

[JMEvensky]

Each has been restored/renovated/re-worked by someone other than the original architect.

[Ronald Montesano]

Sleepy Hollow is sooooo goooood, it made the list twice!


Surprised by the absence of National Golf Links of America, unless it does not fit the MF criteria.


I will ride the tails of JMEvensky's coat, and add that they were taken away from their original intent by someone/some body (architect, committee) then restored to more or less the original intent by a practiced architect.

[Mark_Fine]

JM has the correct answer!  And Ronald does too. And sorry Ronald, I love Sleepy Hollow so much I guess it came out twice  

I was just trying to come up with a quick list of some the most amazing golf courses that have been changed and altered or reworked or in a few cases attempted to be restored by someone other than who originally designed the course.

We could all add many many more courses to this list and I happy to prove my point if needed by doing so (to some a list like this might surprise them as they just assumed most of these courses never were changed because they were so highly regarded).  Not true.

If this many of what are clearly some of THE MOST HALLOWED GROUNDS in all of golf have gotten changed, what should we expect with lesser courses over time? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


Just for fun, since you are talking the best of best, why don't you try the exercise of removing 5 from that list?  Then, maybe removing another 5?  Your list is great as the best, but needs to be narrower, IMHO, to be the best of the best, no?


For me, the first five would be Portrush (even though I wore my sweater from there a lot the last few cold days...nothing warms like real wool), Merion (sorry, rough to long to be enjoyable, and a few bad holes, i.e. 10), and/or Oakmont/Winged Foot/Southern Hills/Oakland Hills/Olympic for being too difficult without loads of charm), Medinah (even if my first great course played at age 15.....), Inverness/Plainfield/Aronomink/Cal Club/Cherry Hills/Oak Hills/Balusrol/Scioto as very good, but also very similar to so many just below the top level clubs, even in their local area)


That gets my list down to about 30, and it gets harder to cut from there, as all 45 are excellent courses.  And, just as being outside the top 100 shouldn't really offend a membership, being outside my personal top 30 shouldn't either, and certainly no offense implied.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I wasn't trying to list anything in any order.  I was just going through my head about some truly great golf courses that have undergone a lot of change over the years.  It wasn't meant to state these specific courses the absolute best.  I do think that they are all up there somewhere in the top echelon and even courses as noted as these are not exempt from being altered. 

[Tim Gallant]

Mark,

On a quick glance, I'd argue very few of those courses you listed have been substantially improved post-WWII, unless they were restoring what was there before, or they weren’t that good to begin with.

From the list you provided, is there a course where you would say original work post WWII (ie - not restorative in nature) has substantially improved its merits? I can only see two that might fit the bill: Sleepy Hollow and Cal Club.

I suppose it goes back to the leave well alone argument.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
I would love to go through all those courses but that would take forever.  But I did put this thread out there so let's just look at one for example, Royal Portrush where The Open was just played.  Two new holes were just added/changed.  You may or may not think that is substantial but it is a simple example of "the course wasn't perfect when it was first designed" and some change took place.  I have played it since the changes and some aspects I like and some I don't but my point is that it was changed (for better or for worse).  The same can be said for almost every one of those courses - there has been some change and the ones that were "restored" apparently needed restoration because something had changed and it was felt that it should be changed back.  It is easy to say leave well enough alone but most live things that are left alone die. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tim,
I would love to go through all those courses but that would take forever.  But I did put this thread out there so let's just look at one for example, Royal Portrush where The Open was just played.  Two new holes were just added/changed.  You may or may not think that is substantial but it is a simple example of "the course wasn't perfect when it was first designed" and some change took place.  I have played it since the changes and some aspects I like and some I don't but my point is that it was changed (for better or for worse).  The same can be said for almost every one of those courses - there has been some change and the ones that were "restored" apparently needed restoration because something had changed and it was felt that it should be changed back.  It is easy to say leave well enough alone but most live things that are left alone die. 

You live in an alternative universe where changes to great golf courses are good things, even when you admit in your example that the work was (for better or worse).


Royal Portrush wasn't broken at all.  They changed it to make room for a tented village and to appease Peter Dawson so they could get a commitment to host an Open Championship.  To make the changes, they had to wreck two of the best holes on the course where members play a lot of their golf.  Yes, the club decided to go ahead, because most clubs lust after the fame and recognition of a big event . . . but they could have played The Open on the course as it was, too.


As one of my friends likes to say, "grifters gotta grift", but you are pretty loud and proud about it. 

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,
I would love to go through all those courses but that would take forever.  But I did put this thread out there so let's just look at one for example, Royal Portrush where The Open was just played.  Two new holes were just added/changed.  You may or may not think that is substantial but it is a simple example of "the course wasn't perfect when it was first designed" and some change took place.  I have played it since the changes and some aspects I like and some I don't but my point is that it was changed (for better or for worse).  The same can be said for almost every one of those courses - there has been some change and the ones that were "restored" apparently needed restoration because something had changed and it was felt that it should be changed back.  It is easy to say leave well enough alone but most live things that are left alone die. 

Mark,


To take your Portrush example, what I'm getting at is most (all?) courses can never be perfect in the way we think about the word, and in my mind, Portrush as a Colt course, was probably as good as it could ever be. In your specific example, I don't think the changes, while substantial, make the course substantially better. Others may argue differently, but has it fundamentally altered how we think about the course? I'd say not really. I'd even go a step further and say that I don't think Turnberry has been substantially improved, but that might get me cast off the website


Going a step further, I don't think there are any courses on your above list that could be, or have been, substantially improved (beyond the few reasons stated in my first post) to warrant work in the first place. Just like I don't think anyone can substantially improve Friars Head. I'm sure in 50 years, some architect will come along and say one of the holes can be improved, and he/she might be right if you take it out of the context of the wider course, but I've not seen an example where a great course has been much improved by renovation work (post WWII).


I'd also argue there's a big difference between tending to a living, breathing course, and making the changes that I think you're alluding to. Just look at PV.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,
I would love to go through all those courses but that would take forever.  But I did put this thread out there so let's just look at one for example, Royal Portrush where The Open was just played.  Two new holes were just added/changed.  You may or may not think that is substantial but it is a simple example of "the course wasn't perfect when it was first designed" and some change took place.  I have played it since the changes and some aspects I like and some I don't but my point is that it was changed (for better or for worse).  The same can be said for almost every one of those courses - there has been some change and the ones that were "restored" apparently needed restoration because something had changed and it was felt that it should be changed back.  It is easy to say leave well enough alone but most live things that are left alone die. 

You live in an alternative universe where changes to great golf courses are good things, even when you admit in your example that the work was (for better or worse).


Royal Portrush wasn't broken at all.  They changed it to make room for a tented village and to appease Peter Dawson so they could get a commitment to host an Open Championship.  To make the changes, they had to wreck two of the best holes on the course where members play a lot of their golf.  Yes, the club decided to go ahead, because most clubs lust after the fame and recognition of a big event . . . but they could have played The Open on the course as it was, too.


As one of my friends likes to say, "grifters gotta grift", but you are pretty loud and proud about it.

I swear we weren't talking telepathically across the Atlantic when our posts were written...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,[/size]To take your Portrush example, what I'm getting at is most (all?) courses can never be perfect in the way we think about the word, and in my mind, Portrush as a Colt course, was probably as good as it could ever be. [/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Many here would probably say a great course has to have at least one quirky flaw!  Sometimes those make one hole stand out in a good way.  (not always) Just saying doing the math analysis of quality features (and believe me, I am quite capable of doing it) is never the be all or end all of what I consider to be a great course.

[Mark_Fine]

Please note to all who think I feel every golf course is broken, I only listed courses on this thread that I said "were changed".  I didn't say anything about whether each one was made better or worse.  In the one example of Portrush, I used guarded comments but I didn't say I loved the changes or hated them.  My main point was to say there was change (for whatever reason).  The other point I was trying to make is these courses are mostly considered some of the greatest out there yet they all were touched (for better or for worse) in some way.  If we are for example rebuilding the old push up greens at such iconic courses or adding new holes or ... what example are we showing for lesser courses.  I wish I could post photos of Pine Valley but some of the differences from now and 90 years ago are amazing.  I am looking at a few right now.  Again I am not saying which is better or worse.  I am just saying that even a course most consider the best in the world has changed.  I am also praying for the U.S. right now as all this debate means nothing with the dire and unbelievable situation unfolding in our capital.   

[Garland Bayley]

...
Royal Portrush wasn't broken at all. 
...

It may not have been broken, but the 17th and 18th holes that I played were basically nothing. Even you can design par 5 holes better than that. 17 and 18 could have been replaced by almost anything, and the course would have been improved. Although, i haven't seen the new holes in person, they certainly appear to be a big improvement from afar.

Perhaps my failure is not having seen the Valley course before it was changed. When I saw it, I wondered what's the big deal. But, perhaps that is because I missed the big deal that was there before I played.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
I think you and most others would agree, NO artist EVER EVER wants to see their work changed or fixed or improved or tinkered with or whatever you want to call it.  They want it to be their lasting legacy forever regardless of how good or bad it is.  This is not rocket science, that is just the way it is. 


The point of this post was simply to point out that even the greatest works of art in GCA get changed whether intentionally or on purpose or for better or for worse.  Honestly it is mind boggling to me to meet with a committee of an old club and hear members state that their course has always been this way.  It is also mind blowing to them when you show old photos or old aerials or drawings so they can see how their course has evolved.  It is eye opening.  We on this site mostly understand all that so seeing a list of top courses that have changed in some way is no surprise.  I still remember being invited out to see an old golf course that the members were quite proud of because they thought is was original and then having to show and tell them that it was not.  The reactions are amazing. 


Few people research this stuff and as we all know that is not always easy to do.  I did work at the old nine hole course at Lawrenceville in NJ and as a fun exercise asked for research help on this site.  I had a whole group here involved and all contributed in some important way and I cited them in my plan for the course.  We all worked for months to learn the course's history and how it had evolved.  How many members do you think are doing stuff like that.  Not many. They just want to play golf. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()