[Peter Pallotta]

A recent "top 20" list posted here (comprising both classic and modern courses) brought this question to mind:

What factors (economic, sociological, aesthetic, practical, philosophical, technological etc) play into identifying the courses/shaping these lists?

From what I've read over the years, perennial 'best ofs' like Pine Valley, Shinneock, The National, Pebble Beach, Cypress, Oakmont, and Merion were identified as special/great pretty much as soon as they opened, and, with a few dips and lulls, have all maintained that reputation for decades. Similarly, modern courses like Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, and Friars Head were identified as special/great pretty much as soon as they opened too, and I expect them to be on such lists for decades to come.

Granted, all those courses manifest top-flight architecture, but is that all there is to it? Is greatness in gca -- despite what our hundreds of threads trying to understand and define it would suggest -- so easily and quickly understood and defined and identified?  

Or are there other factors too, i.e.  less concrete and more tantengial factors that are at work making those courses, past and present, somehow 'of their age' in ways that grab our attention? Is there a Spirt of the Age (economic, sociological, aesthetic etc) that these courses tap into and that bolstered (back then) and bolster (today) certain courses' chances of being identified as great?

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "spirit of the age," but I certainly think there have been times in history when a great new course was more likely to be accepted and celebrated, vs. other times when it was more likely to meet resistance.

And, though your list of courses includes a couple that are not quite accurate -- Pebble Beach required tinkering from Herbert Fowler and Dr. MacKenzie and Chandler Egan before it was a great course, and Shinnecock wasn't Shinnecock until 1931 -- thank you for noticing that some courses ARE great right out of the box, as opposed to needing the sort of tinkering that Patrick Mucci and others are always defending.

For me, the thing nobody talks about that separates the best of these courses is the stewardship of what they have.  The best courses have gotten better over time, through maturity and loving care, from their superintendents and owners and members and maybe their architect.  They recognized what they had, and didn't mess with it too much.  It is no coincidence that the courses you listed have had the help of people like Eb Steineger at Pine Valley [and all the other veterans who felt obliged to protect Crump's legacy], like C.B. Macdonald or Bill Fownes, like Richie Valentine at Merion and Claude Crockford at Royal Melbourne, or like Old Tom Morris at St. Andrews, to keep all the guys with the green ink at bay.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thanks. Not surprisingly, I didn't think of one of the key/practical factors, i.e. stewardship. (PS - you're right of course about PB and Shinnecock; I usually don't include them when I think of course that were deemed great right out of the box, but I was cutting and pasting from the recent top 20 list I mentioned and got lazy. I'm grateful you didn't green ink me for that!!)

What I'm trying to get at with the Spirit of the Age -- here's a poor example/suggestion: in an age of American growing economic might and self confidence, courses like NGLA (in one way) and Oakmont (in another) might've captured something of the emerging pride and strength of a nation that had come into its own and was starting to dominate the world scene; the "made-in-America" narrative that surrounded NGLA may have helped set the stage for its embrace by/excitment of the golfing cognoscenti.

Peter

 

[Jason Topp]

Almost each of the 20 evokes a very clear image or feeling, even for those I have only experienced through pictures or television.  For me, those reactions seem to have more to do with the particular place as opposed to the age in which it was created.

However, you could imagine the same course being built at a different time and guess how it would be received.  Would Pacific Dunes have been as exhalted had it opened around the time Robert Trent Jones tightened Oakland Hills for the 1951 US Open?  Maybe not.

[Andrew Buck]

Tom,

That makes a lot of sense.  Can you think of any courses with bones that are so great that you feel they may be recognized unanimously in the top 30 - 40 if not for the consequences of poor stewardship at some point?  

This is different from a course that has been overrated due to difficulty, but just something that was so great and slipped without proper restoration.  I understand you may not want to answer as any answer could come with implication.  

[Jim Nugent]

Where did Crystal Downs rank when it was built?  How about for the next several decades?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Crystal Downs was not ranked anywhere until the 1990's, because it was so far off the beaten path that almost nobody had seen it.


Andrew:

The first course that came to mind with your question was Yale, perhaps because it's been a thread topic recently.  And Lido, of course -- bankruptcy is not good stewardship.  LACC might be another, finally making it back after a long absence [I haven't seen the renovation work there to say whether I think it's definitely that good].  

I'm sure there are at least a couple of others, but probably best if I don't try to name all the names.  Others are invited to chime in.

[Jim Nugent]

 Can you think of any courses with bones that are so great that you feel they may be recognized unanimously in the top 30 - 40 if not for the consequences of poor stewardship at some point?  

IIRC, by the 1980s, NGLA had fallen way, way down in the rankings.  Then the rejuvenation programs restored the course to its former glory, and it regained its top ten status.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()