Generational Taste

[Edward Glidewell]

Doesn't the branding argument skew the rankings from both directions?


i.e., not only are the in vogue architects (C&C, Doak, Hanse, as well as ODGs like Raynor) getting the benefit of their reputation, but courses by certain other architects/firms (Nicklaus, Palmer, RTJ, Fazio) are downgraded just because it's become fashionable to dismiss their work as boring and uninspired. It sometimes seems as if praising a course designed by one of them puts you at risk of losing your respected status.


Personally, I do think C&C and Doak (not to mention people like Ross) tend to build more interesting courses on average than people like Nicklaus and Palmer. But I also think that there are courses out there by the latter that could be exactly the same and would get more praise if raters thought they were designed by one of the former, and vice versa.

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, I do think C&C and Doak (not to mention people like Ross) tend to build more interesting courses on average than people like Nicklaus and Palmer. But I also think that there are courses out there by the latter that could be exactly the same and would get more praise if raters thought they were designed by one of the former, and vice versa.

I think your first case is absolutely true ... if someone said I had designed the original course at Dismal River, instead of Jack, the reception for it would probably have been different.  [Starting with the fact that I might have gagged to death.]  It might not have gotten ranked higher - it might have even gotten ranked lower with people insisting I had gone crazy and too far, which they'll never say about Jack.  But the conversation would definitely have been different.


I'm not so sure about the flip side.  Arnold Palmer's company gets to take credit for which of my courses, and it slips in the rankings as a result?

[Edward Glidewell]

I have unfortunately never had the pleasure of playing one of your courses, so as far as your designs are concerned I'm only making judgments off photos and impressions. I'm hoping I'll get to Streamsong at some point, since it's the only one remotely near me (other than Heathland at Myrtle Beach, which is about an hour from a family beach house -- but I'm sure you wouldn't consider that course a shining example of your work). Regardless, it means I can't really use any of your courses in a comparison.


I could use Dormie Club as an example, though (although I don't think it's ranked in the top 100 in any magazines). I love that course, but I don't think it would be discussed nearly as much here or in general if it was a Palmer or Fazio design. There are people who would dismiss it out of hand just because of the name on the scorecard. I suppose that may only work on some of the lesser known designs, because I'm not sure a course like Pacific Dunes would drop significantly in the rankings if Nicklaus' name was on it.

[John Kirk]

John, I also agreed with most of what you said. However, just to touch on your Shoreacres comments, you suggested it was exquisite conditioning and fast greens. While I can't read into what you mean when you say exquisite conditions I would only and that what has really made Shoreacres great again and immensely increased the level of fun to be had there is the fact that Brian their SI together with TD's advice did several basic things to bring back the strategy and angles. This included increases in width by like 15 yds on either side of the fairways. 30 yds more width!!! On top of that they changed the lush conditions and firmed everything up. This brought back the ground game which really didn't exist there. They also greatly increased the amount of short grass and I believe reclaimed some of the greens back. Yes the club likes the greens rolling fast. Though that's not IMO what accounted for the improvements and return to Golden Age principles. I think the course would be awesome at 9 stimp. I just brought a group of 5 really good friends of mine, all Shoreacres members to Ireland on a trip and to a man these guys would also love the course rolling at 9 if all other things would be the same as now.

I'm sure there is a faction that want it running too fast...ie 12-13.

I thought the extremely fast playing conditions (especially early in the morning) were compelling.  The 2nd hole is a short par 4, with a burn-type creek immediately behind the green.  For me it was a unique design, and attempting to get my wedge approach close to a back pin was one of the most intriguing shots of the day.  Even putting to the back pin from the middle of the green was kind of scary.

Course conditioning was superb in all regards, with wide fairways and short rough that provided a variety of lies, but rarely if ever requiring an overly defensive play such as a pitchout.  Fairways were running hot, too.  Bunkering was distinctive and very strategic.


I'm not sure it deserves to be a top 30 or top 40 U.S. course.  Maybe; it was a wonderful day.  It's hard to judge with only one round.  In addition to a brand name architect, the course may also benefit from exclusivity bias.  For me it would rate either 8 or 9 on the Doak scale, but my preferences might favor Bandon Trails, a more beautiful nature walk with excellent variety.

Mostly I wanted to acknowledge and appreciate your response, David.  Thanks for the comments.  Nice to have 5 close friends who are members at this fine club.  While playing Shoreacres, one can hear recruits going through basic training at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station across the street.  My Dad went through boot camp at Great Lakes starting in either August or September, 1945, fortunate to graduate from high school in 1945 and enlist shortly after V-J Day.

A few more thoughts tomorrow.  It's a good thread for me.