What courses pass "The test of time" ?

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci

So we disagree on what constitutes "substantive change".  I thought you only disagreed with Tom Paul and/or people who comment with authority on golf courses they've never played!

While green speed and length of rough are a lot EASIER (and less creative) changes to effectuate than green relocations, routing changes, etc., they effect playability just as much as the more interesting stuff that is the substance of how a course is rated.

Example #1: Pine Valley is easily 3-4 shots harder since the greens were made 50% faster and a couple of the holes now need to be played much differently - #3 being the best example IMO.

Example#2: East Hampton has a stated goal of 'stimping" their greens at a reasonable speed given the significant contours therein.

Example#3:  Is not Oakmont's well known green speed an integral part of the course's "architecture"?

Example #4:  All this talk about "mainteance meld" is inexorably tied to the design of green complexes.

I agree that green speed, rough depth, fairway height and (expecially!) trees are pretty "cheap" substitutes for green angles/construction, bunker location and routing.  But they are, for better or for worse, a legitimate aspect of golf course architecture and changes to them that effect a hole's playability are, IMO, eligible to be considered substantive and significant.

Also, lengthening a hole that brings hazards back into play and restores/increases the original shot values on the approach is, likewise, significant.  ESPECIALLY if the hole becomes MORE difficult than originally intended!

Deepening bunkers to restore their pre-sand wedge degree of difficulty qualifies as significant architectural alteration (restoration??) IMO.

But those are just my opinions (WHO SAYS THAT??).

BTW, I get the point you're trying to make - I just don't think that such a course exists because of the advances of technology, technique and ability.

Examples:  Myopia Hunt Club and Somerset Hills are 2 of the most wonderful "golf experiences" I've ever had the privilege to enjoy.  They probably fit my definition of "substantively unchanged" (particularly Myopia) as well as any full length courses in the country.  Both were bona fide championship courses in their day that are now no less enjoyable to play but not the test they used to be.  Have they withstood the test of time?  Not the way I see it.  Could they still be "great courses" if they'd been "updated"?  Myopia - unlikely.  Somerset - close but not totally.

GRAND FINALE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION WHICH IS AN OFFSHOOT OF YOUR ORIGINAL THREAD AND MAY BE ANOTHER WAY OF ASKING THE SAME THING (drum roll, please):

IF PINE VALLEY, NATIONAL, MERION, CYPRESS, SHINNECOCK, WINGED FOOT, ETC. WERE LEFT UNTOUCHED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL "GREAT" LAYOUT, WOULD THEY BE THE EQUAL OF SAND HILLS, PAC DUNES AND ANY OTHER TOP 20'S OF RECENT VINTAGE??

I don't think so.  They'd be terrific golf experiences and we'd still want to play them - but not quite as much.

[GeoffreyC]

Chip - WOW, there are a few really powerful statements in that last post.

First, I'd disagree that Pine Valley (1920's), Shinnecock (1931), WInged Foot (1920's), National when CB finished tweeking (I've not seen Merion so I can't comment) opening in 2002 couldn't compete with Sand Hills (I've not been to Pac Dunes yet- no comment). I might agree for National and Pine Valley that they wouldn't be considered necessarily for "championship play" but neither are the two modern courses you mentioned. I don't think most of the remaining Modern top 20 would be in the same league (ie - TPC Sawgrass, Muirfield Village, Spyglass etc).

The other point I found interesting is that former "championship courses" like Myopia Hunt and Somerset Hills are seen as not withstanding the test of time.  Perhaps as "championship venues" but they can certainly still be considered great courses because they can hold up to the vast majority of titanium swinging, ProV1 wacking amateurs including the scratch players. That's good enough for me and good reason NOT to ever consider altering them for the remaining 0.001% of golfers.

Finally, what does all of this say about our great old courses that DO want to hold major championships?  I think Winged Foot is still a place that can hold up today without changes and that's a testament to its architecture and why I mentioned it earlier in the discussion.  However, why mess with other classics?  That's why I don't understand your statement "Could they still be "great courses" if they'd been "updated"?" The implication is ominous.

[ChipOat]

Geoffrey:

This website is all about opinion, isn't it?

My definition of "great course that withstands the test of time" is different than yours, it seems.  Let's both drink to that.

Today's TPC Sawgrass not in the same league with 1923 Pine Valley??  I can't agree on that, at all.

We should have dinner and discuss this further.

[GeoffreyC]

Chip

Absolutely- I think that our difference in opinion might be from looking at the question a bit differently rather then a different taste in golf courses.

I really enjoyed Sawgrass as a golf course and respect what Pete Dye did.  In many respects it is the mental and physical equivalent for todays elite players of Pine Valley by placing pressure on each and every swing. Maybe its just my game but PV exceeded my high expectations and TPC did not.  I think (for my game) the same would be true if PV opened today.  Sand Hills on the other hand left the same type of impression as PV. I think your previous post led me to assume that a PV, Shinnecock etc if opened today would not give you that same special feeling that results in exceeding already high expectations.

I agree that its always better to discuss things like this over alcohol and food  

[brad_miller]

As to Chip's point, original yardages or at least the yardages from the mid-20's from Hunter's book, "The Links"

NGLA 6163
PV    6446
Myopia 6400
SFGC 6462
Oalmont 6707
GCGC 6417
Merion 6515

NGLA without the extra yardage would be fun (wind needed) but not what it is today. Most of the others are probably in the zip code of today's "members tees"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

Yes, we disagree, but not on principals, but by degrees.

I don't view lengthening of holes to offset High-tech advances a substantive change, especially when the angles of attack are not altered, and the features of the hole are returned/kept in play.

[Mike Hendren]

A recently published book contains this quote from a greens super who has been at the course for over twenty years:  "I would be willing to bet this course-for as old as it is-has had less changes than any course in America."  To my knowledge, the course has never been mentioned on GCA, is not included in The Confidential Guide and gets far less notoriety than another course in the state by the game Golden Age architect.  Anyone want to hazard a guess?

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci:

2 thoughts:

1) I played Shinnecock from the members' tees the other day - never been that far forward before.  On about half the holes, the difference between the "Open markers" and the members' tee boxes is 50-80 YARDS!!  Examples include #'s 2,3,4,5,6,9,12,15,16 and (especially)18.  Patrick, the different tee markers make for TOTALLY different holes in terms of playability.  Anyway, enough said about that.

2)  How's this for a thread that we both might agree on?  

Which HOLES have stood the test of time without being substantively changed?  Great holes then - great holes now.  Tested both Jones and Tiger from the same tee boxes.  Only modest length added, at most.

I can name a ton of those and, yes, Pine Valley has at least as many as any other course.  Here's some off the top of my head (my definition of "great", I admit)

PVGC #'s 5,8,13,15
Merion #'s 2,17,18
Shinnecock #'s 11,14
National #'s 3,4,7
Cypress #'s 16,17  15??
Pebble #'s 8,14,18 (except for stupid trees)
Riviera #10
Creek #6 (maybe the best strategic hole ever)
Augusta #12
TOC #17

Several common characteristics on my list:

- short par 4's (PV, Riv)
- par 5's w/tough 2nd shots (PV, Merion, Pebble)
- precision par 3's (Shinnecock, Cypress)
- longish par 4's where the 2nd shot is everything and the     driving distance is limited (PV #13, Pebble #8)

Over dinner and drinks, we could do 50 more.

Mike Hendren:

I can't guess.

[Tom Doak]

Mike H:  I'm curious, too.

I'm shocked that Oakmont was mentioned only in passing above.  Since I started watching golf thirty years ago, it's the one test that has held up the best and changed the least (tree planting and tree removal aside).  Those fallaway greens still make it tough to get the ball close, and they do know what firm and fast means.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Doak:

You still need to check out the new tees at Oakmont, especially #4 and #7.  Whether they represent passing the "test of time" is certainly open to interpretation.

[Mike Hendren]

Interest from Tom Doak demands an immediate answer since he is intimately familiar with this course's more famous neighbor in Knoxville.  The quote is from the recently released "The History of Tennessee Golf," which I highly recommend.  The course is Memphis Country Club.  James Foulis designed nine holes in 1905 and Tom Bendelow added nine in 1910.  Donald Ross re-worked the course that exists today.  

Quotes in the book from the super, Rod Lingle:

"I think about two thirds of our greens are the original 1910 greens. People can't believe that, but it's true.  They think you have to rebuild greens every fifteen to twenty years because they won't grow grass.  That's not true.  It depends on how those greens are maintained.  The greens that have been rebuilt are the second, the third, the eighth probably, the ninth probably, the tenth before the 1948 U.S. Amateur, and the eighteenth probably. "

As for the most significant changes:

"John LaFoy of Greenville, South Carolina, redid the bunkers in 1989.  'Our bunkers were in pretty bad shape," Lingle said.  'Over the years they had lost their shape.'  No bunkers were moved with the exception of a couple of fairway bunkers on the fourteenth hole that were extended to catch longer drives.  LaFoy rehaped them in the style of Ross.  In 1999, the course got rave reviews after converting to zoysia fairways and Champion Bermuda greens."

Also, "Despite close to a hundred years of top dressing, the greens at Memphis Country Club have retained the slight roll of Ross greens and the inverted saucer shape, where without a collar, or fringe, the balls roll off the greens.  The bunkering is tight to the greens too.  In the past twenty years Lingle had many conversations with Pat Abbott, Cary Middlecoff, and George Treadwell, all now deceased, who attested to the lack of changes to which Memphis Country Club was subjected."

Doc Middlecoff was in the grill the only time I played this course some 25 years ago.  I'm looking forward to a return visit next month.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

I'm going to disqualify most of your answers  

And the reason is, you can't compare a golf course that has hosted a recent US OPEN or PGA to a golf course that has not hosted those events recently.

The preparation of a golf course for a US OPEN or PGA takes that course out of one category, and places it in another category, incredibly distant and different from the others.

NGLA, PV and other courses have no TEES CREATED SOLELY FOR THE US OPEN.

If we view the lengthening of tees in the amateur context, and not the US OPEN context, I think one could say that the lengthening of the hole was not a substantive event, and was one that the architect had allowed for in his original design.

[Tom Doak]

Mike,

Did I understand you correctly, Memphis CC is in Knoxville??

[NinerDave]

Pasatiempo in Santa Cruz in mine way of think is a gem.  Alister MacKenzie did a great job building the course and Shawn Mactee has done a great job bring the course back to bthe original design standards.  I never get tired of playing the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

NinerDAve,

I never played Pasatiempo, has it remained unchanged since its opening day, or has the course been altered over time, compromising its original design

[Mike Hendren]

Sorry, Tom.  Neighbor is a relative term.  Memphis CC is indeed smack dab in the middle of Memphis.