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.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Mark Bourgeois

"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« on: March 04, 2007, 08:34:24 AM »
In his writeup on Westhampton, Ran mentions its reputation as a second club because of its relative lack of difficulty, primarily due to lack of length. (He then dispels the notion that it is easy or boring.)

I had never much thought of the second club as a distinct architectural style but rather either a "retreat" or a place where you could get on more easily. In other words, I understood the concept of the "second club" but hadn't thought about the second club course architecture!

I would like to discuss the architectural concept known as the second club *course*, or perhaps the second course at a 36 hole club, if that second 18 was commissioned specifically for fun and not length. (Please, not the concept of a second course at a 36 hole complex that was built according to a similar design brief as the first, perhaps just slightly "less challenging" than the other 18, such as at Winged Foot, Congressional, etc.)

Got it? Okay, a few questions:

1. What are other examples of second club courses built for fun or an explicit lack of difficulty? Or just whose architecture is specific to the notion of a second club and not what would be built if it were a first club? Would Roaring Gap and Everglades Club fit the bill, or has technology pushed them unintentionally into this classification?

2. Are such second club course architectures still being commissioned these days?

3. One of the implied criticisms with this architecture in the term "second" is that you would get bored if you had to play it every day. Well, would you? I am especially keen to hear from those who play regularly any course deemed too short for modern play, eg 6,300 / 6,400 yards and par 70 / 71.

Thanks,
Mark
Logged

D_Malley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2007, 08:40:03 AM »
The west course at Merion would seem to fit this description.  an easier more fun course than the east.  i have made an eagle on six different holes on the west. i have played it many times, of course.
Logged

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2007, 09:10:51 AM »
 8)
Executive courses?  

Something is better than nothing or just shooting at trees in school yards?

We have a 3rd, 4th, and 5th club..  everyone to their own!
 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2007, 09:12:43 AM by Steve Lang »
Logged
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

wsmorrison

Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2007, 10:38:04 AM »
Racetrack George,

The West Course at Merion was not intended to be an easier course than the East Course but it sure has worked out that way over time.  When the US Am was played at Merion in 1916, the USGA wasn't sure which course to use for match play until shortly before the event.  The West Course was considered just as difficult even though it was 400 yards shorter.  Par for the West was 70 versus 73 for the East.  It seems evident that the notion of par weighed heavily on the determination of difficulty.

The West is an excellent second course for the club and is popular among beginning golfers, juniors, seniors and ladies.  It is less formal, you can bop around and play cross country golf at times.  It has more topography than the East and the "Quirky Corner" (holes 6-8) is rare indeed.  I think the slope and rating for the course are too low given the demanding green complexes and tricky greens.
Logged

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2007, 01:49:43 PM »
I guess I take a different approach.  My "first" club is a regular Country Club with a good course but all the amenities of a County Club.  My "second" club is strictly gold and is an individual membership.  It does not compete with tennis, pool etc for money.  The course is outstanding.  

Years ago I belonged to aclub with three courses and there the second and third courses were "weaker" than the main course.
Logged
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2007, 01:53:38 PM »
I'm on the waiting list for a second club.  I chose it because it's very close to a beach that my wife likes to take the kids to and it has some of the most spectacular views of any golf course in the country (and probably the world). It's not an architectural gem, by any means and architecture had nothing to do with my choice, though it is a fun course and in any sort of wind a decent if quirky challenge.
Logged
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2007, 03:02:11 PM »
I believe an equally compelling argument can be made for a first club being an shorter, more fun, family course, and a second would be a individual membership only, more remote, championship layout.
Logged
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2007, 05:41:45 PM »
Brad:

Certainly, most of the "second" club courses we have ever discussed with clients were based on your model -- a fairly difficult course and a golf-only base, to contrast with the family country club.

However, in at least one instance, that proved wrong ... the course is in a "weekend home" destination, and I think it would have been easier to sell the memberships if the course (and to an even greater extent, the clubhouse) had been focused on the family aspect.
Logged

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2007, 05:49:56 PM »
Quote from: Wayne Morrison on March 04, 2007, 10:38:04 AM
I think the slope and rating for the course are too low given the demanding green complexes and tricky greens.


That seems like a euphemistic way of saying "the greens beat the crap out of me so I never shoot a good score out there..." Wayne...
Logged

wsmorrison

Re:"Second" Clubs, in an Architectural Sense
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2007, 06:41:55 PM »
Jim,

It could mean that--and does at times.  I don't know how to rate a golf course, but I just think a rating of 68.9 and a slope of 117 seems a bit low even at a par of 70 and a mere 5989 yards.  The greens are generally small with a lot of slope and contour.  The surrounds seem to me much more difficult than the average golf course.  Let's get out there early this spring before we play the other course.  See you for a beer soon!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up