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.


Mark_F

New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« on: September 29, 2004, 08:14:12 PM »
Many of the golden age great courses evolved over years, in some cases decades, a tweak here, something more substantial there, to become the famed courses of today.

Have the recent classics such as Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills and Friar's Head undergone any alterations since opening?  

Does the 'hindsight' of having great courses from past make today's more complete upon opening?  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2004, 08:32:02 PM »
Mark,

YES

NO
« Last Edit: September 29, 2004, 08:32:39 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2004, 08:33:57 PM »
I don't think so, Mark.

I know that new tees have been added at Sand Hills. And that some additions and changes are already being considered at Rod Whitman's Blackhawk, for example, which opened for play early summer 2003. Nothing major, but perhaps a few new tees (further back of course), and some fairway bunkers at a few holes.

I suspect, too, that Friar's Head is still in an evolutionary state of sorts.
jeffmingay.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2004, 10:59:13 PM »
Mark:

I think that the best of modern courses are produced in a much more finished form than the courses of yesteryear.  They won't evolve as much, simply because all of the modern accoutrements [irrigation, cart paths, etc.] are planned for in advance instead of added later.

This is not to say that modern architects are smarter, but I do think we've learned a lot from the dead guys.

We also get a lot more opportunities to do it right the first time with a budget to spare no detail.  A lot of Dr. MacKenzie's work was re-doing existing courses [Lahinch, Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath]; I've only done one project like that in my career.

Mark Brown

Re:New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2004, 02:20:27 AM »
to some degree Sand Hills is constantly changing, the force of the wind alters the size and shape of the bunkers

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2004, 06:51:35 AM »
Mark - you are quite right - wind is constantly changing Sand Hills.  This past spring I was having drinks with Dick Youngscap who told me an interesting maintenance fact regarding SH.  

They have to water the place on rare days in Jan and Feb when the temp is above freezing.  That part of Nebraska is actually rather arid and if the grass isn't watered, even in the winter, there will be nothing but sand remaining in the spring.

JC

Mark_F

Re:New Great Courses More 'Complete' Than Old Great Courses?
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2004, 02:12:20 AM »
Patrick Mucci:

Interesting difference in answers to 2nd part of equation between yourself and Tom Doak?

I would have thought what had gone before would clearly help lead the way fro those today.

Why hasn't it?

Tom Doak:

Does a 'spare no detail' budget actually make it harder?  If you only spent a little, wouldn't a client wonder why?  what's missing?