Members Courses

« **on:** November 15, 2007, 07:10:59 AM »

This has been a topic in the past, but my take on it has only come to me recently in reading thoughts on this site of some courses. Firstly, here is the start of a list, limited to courses I have played:

"Members Courses"

Cypress Point
NGLA
Western Gailes
Pacific Dunes
Alwoodley
Littlestone
Elie
Lahinch
Woods Hole
Swinley Forest
Champions
Murcar
Rye

Rather than expose all of my ideas at the same time, I will say that three of the things which bind these (in many ways disparate) courses are:

--they nearly perfectly fit the playing needs and desires of their membership
--they have a personality of their own (in the Irish vernacular, they are "themselves")
--they are all flawed, each in their own ways

Rich

« **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2007, 07:44:55 AM »

Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell is meant by the expression "Members Clubs"? Isn't Aberdour a "Members' Club"? It certainly has members. So does The Northumberland. So do all the private clubs in the UK. Whenever I'd read the phrase in earlier posts I'd assumed it meant exclusive, non-visitor taking (in the UK sense of a visitor not invited as a guest of a member) club.

In the UK that would be Loch Lomond, Queenwood and Swinley, though I've played Swinley several times as a member or guest of a society. Most of the UK courses in your list are great clubs but Joe Public can easily gain access and be welcomed. How, in principle, is Elie or Alwoodley any different from hundreds of other UK clubs?

« **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:23:28 AM »

Like Mark I'm a bit confused. How can a public/resort course like Pacific Dunes be a "members course?"

« **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:31:46 AM »

I think "Member Club" is a category similar to Championship Course...nothing actually to do with its formal membership status, just an illustration of its usefullness.

Rich,

Any chance you can expand on your statement that they are all "flawed" in their own ways?

Also, not knowing the two courses I most associate with you...Aberdour and Dornoch...I thought it interesting that neither made your initial list... ?

« **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2007, 08:58:17 AM »

Bill and Mark

I changed the title to what I meant and headed the list in the text. I'm talking about "members courses" not clubs. Sorry. Vis a vis Pacific Dunes, even though there are not members, it is a members course for reasons I will probably explain later.

Jim

What I REALLY meant was "great" members courses. Aberdour is a members course, but not great. Dornoch is a great member's course but also a great championship course. All IMHO, of course.

Let's keep talking about this. Maybe some of us (including me) will finally figure out what we mean.

« **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2007, 09:05:27 AM »

Rich,

It's about the old MacKenzie line of the most pleasure for the most people or some such thing...wouldn't you agree?

My club has 27 holes that I think fits your description very well...for scratch guys like me, we can go to the back tees and try to make pars...for most guys they can go to the mens tees and shoot their handicap if they play well or a bit higher if not, but they can walk or ride with equal ease (no cart paths other than around most greens and short walks from green to tee) and almost never lose a ball...and the women have similar benefits. the competitive women have a good challenging course to play and the non-competitive women have an open path to the green most of the way around...

If the big tour came in they would want to lengthen this or tighten that, but when we host the state amateur championship, even par is a good bet to win...

p.s. and I do think it's "great" and have gotten verification of that based on Mayday's ranking thread of Philadelphia Flynn's with a resounding .25 point victory...

« **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2007, 09:39:01 AM »

Rich
this seems like a way to bridge some idea of the principles of great architecture (theory) with the effectiveness and enjoyability of that architecture in day to day play (practice).

If so, the three points of commonality you mention have parallels:

"They nearly perfectly fit the playing needs and desires of their membership" (practice) is something like the "greatest pleasure to the greatest number" quote from MacKenzie (theory)...though I'd like to see that quote in its whole context.

"They have a personality of their own" (practice, i.e. a place members can grow fond of) is something like "the course fits and is fitted to the land, and is site-natural" (theory).

"They are all flawed, each in their own ways" (a practical reality) would be something like "there's no such thing as perfect" (theory)...or maybe like "all living things are inherently flawed, though this does not preclude perfection but instead makes it beautiful" (personal theory).

Is this maybe what you're thinking about? (theory)

Peter

« **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2007, 10:08:06 AM »

Peter

I'm still thinking very simply, and in a binary manner, even though I'm sure there are truths to be found.

I think that there are some courses which when you play them tell you what sort of golf game you really have and others which give you pleasure, regardless of how your good golf game is and how you play on the day, but don't really tell you how skilled you are, over all the criteria which are part of that definition. There are a very few which fit both categories. The ones I listed on my initial posts were those of the latter category. From what Jim has said, maybe Huntingdon Valley is one of the few which fit both categories.

Now back to the grindstone....

Rich

« **Reply #8 on:** November 15, 2007, 10:15:29 AM »

Rich,

Not sure how it would tie in (maybe not at all...), but I'd say the average golfer doesn't know enough to even think realistically about "what sort of golf game you really have" and the true "GREAT MEMBER'S COURSE" still gives them the chance to fall in love with the game...how does it do that?

« **Reply #9 on:** November 15, 2007, 10:26:40 AM »

Quote from: Peter Pallotta on November 15, 2007, 09:39:01 AM

"They nearly perfectly fit the playing needs and desires of their membership" (practice) is something like the "greatest pleasure to the greatest number" quote from MacKenzie (theory)...though I'd like to see that quote in its whole context.

I don't know about whole context, but here's two uses of it--I like the second one much more than the first. The third quote might actually explain his thinking best of all.

Quote

"How often have we known committees, presumably consisting of men of intelligence, receiving the statement that golf is played for fun, with eyes and mouths wide open in astonishment? It is always difficult to persuade them that the chief consideration that should influence us in making any alterations to a golf course is to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. Any change to a course that does not do this is manifestly a failure." -- Alister Mackenzie

Quote

"There are few problems more difficult to solve than the problem of what actually constitutes an ideal links or an ideal hole, but it is comparatively safe to say that the ideal hole is one that affords the greatest pleasure to the greatest number, gives the fullest advantage for accurate play, stimulates players to improve their game, and which never becomes monotonous." -- Alister MacKenzie

Quote

Pleasurable Golf Courses, -- There are two schools of thought in golf: the penal school and the strategic school. The penal school in their well intentioned effort to eliminate luck, simply succeed in accentuating it, and in constructing golf courses so dull and uninteresting and devoid of suspense and thrills that no one wishes to play them. The strategic school, on the other hand, are the small minority of golfers who subscribe to the doctrine of Mr. John L. Low "that an error of judgement has always been perpetrated if a ball is trapped by a hazard." They consider that the indifferent player should be allowed enough rope to hang himself and that generally the punishment for a bad shot should not be an immediate one, but should be postponed so that the player is in a bad strategic position for attacking the green. In other words, there should be at least one, if not more, broad roads that lead to destruction, and a narrow and hazardous road that leads to salvation. -- Alister Mackenzie, 'Golf Illustrated', April 1926

« **Reply #10 on:** November 15, 2007, 10:46:37 AM »

Didn't Jack Nicklaus refer to Royal Melbourne as a "great members' course" and piss everybody off? What do you think he actually meant by that?

« **Reply #11 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:15:33 AM »

Ernie Els shot 60 at Royal Melbourne in competition...if Jack's comments pissed people off more than Ernie shooting 60 then, in this instance, words are speaking louder than actions...

« **Reply #12 on:** November 15, 2007, 11:58:37 AM »

Palmetto is a good add to your list. Quirky but always beloved by members. A tough little golf course to be sure.

« **Reply #13 on:** November 15, 2007, 12:22:28 PM »

I would add Mackenzie's Meadow Club in California.

My criteria is,
1) Has interesting architecture
2) Is fun to play
3) Close knit fun membership
4) Members have respect for the game and architecture
5) Limited guest play but treat guests well
6) Members don't care about big clubs holding major tournaments.

« **Reply #14 on:** November 15, 2007, 02:00:08 PM »

Joel,

I think #6 on your list is very good, and probably as important as anything else these days...Greens alone are enough to defend par against scratch level amateurs and trying to do more doesn't make sense for the vast majority of clubs...

« **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2007, 02:53:05 PM »

Quote from: Bill_McBride on November 15, 2007, 10:46:37 AM

Didn't Jack Nicklaus refer to Royal Melbourne as a "great members' course" and piss everybody off? What do you think he actually meant by that?

I am pretty sure he was referring to the fact that the whole gamut of a membership can play and enjoy the course - from the lucky 13 year-old junior, to the even luckier 50-year member in their twilight years.

RMs flaw is that it's fairways are so wide.

« **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:47:15 PM »

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on November 15, 2007, 02:53:05 PM

RMs flaw is that it's fairways are so wide.

Why is this a flaw? Where is it written that one must drive to a specific spot to make the golf experience worthy or meaningfull?

« **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:57:12 PM »

Quote from: Pete Lavallee on November 15, 2007, 03:47:15 PM

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on November 15, 2007, 02:53:05 PM
RMs flaw is that it's fairways are so wide.

Why is this a flaw? Where is it written that one must drive to a specific spot to make the golf experience worthy or meaningfull?

The first hole on The Old Course must be well over a hundred yards wide in places. I find no flaw in that.

Bob

« **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2007, 04:30:30 PM »

Rich G:

I'd have to wonder if the issue of "member" courses and those that are truly "championship" are really separated by the intensity and skill level one must have with the longer clubs -- most notably the driver.

A good local example in the greater NYC metro area would be Winged Foot / West and either Fenway or Quaker Ridge -- both of which are nearby to the historic layout in Mamaroneck. WF / West goes a full few steps beyond the other two I listed and candidly much of that is tied to the distance element and the intensity / dexterity you can show consistently with the longer clubs -- the driver especially.

When I hear the word "good members club" I think it's a PC way of saying golf lite. Now, I know certain people will take umbrage with such a statement but it would be very interesting if courses were rated by such categories. Clearly, some members would be upset that their course would be listed in the "members" category and not listed on the championship side (e.g. the Nicklaus / RM situation).

However, I'd have to say that there are very, very few courses that when set-up for everyday play can be rated highly in both categories. I think back to how Tom Doak described Shinnecock Hills in his comments in "Confidential Guide."

I don't see members course as "flawed" but in providing a certain range of enjoyment to a particular category of golfers.
Nothing wrong with that but in terms of overall greatness I'd have see how a respective course can hold its own when the best of the best do play it. That's just me -- others will likely say that such elasticity is not necessary for overall stardom.

So be it.

« **Reply #19 on:** November 15, 2007, 04:38:42 PM »

I wonder how many of the courses in Rich's original list were ballbusters when they first opened.

« **Reply #20 on:** November 15, 2007, 04:50:49 PM »

George:

Interesting choice of words -- "ball buster."

Such a tagline usually is applied by people who don't have sufficient firepower in order to tackle the courses like Winged Foot / West but fall in love with such places as Fenway and the like.

It would be the same for Western Pennsy types who fawn over The Field Club and Fox Chapel but get a bit weak in the knees when having to butt heads with Oakmont.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with people liking certain courses.

« **Reply #21 on:** November 15, 2007, 04:53:18 PM »

I don't think rich is looking for a list of championship courses...I think he is wondering which courses actually serve their memberships / regular patrons to the highest degree...

Has a course other than HVCC and Royal Melbourne been added to his initial list?

« **Reply #22 on:** November 15, 2007, 05:38:09 PM »

Actually, my question goes back to something Sully noted a few weeks (months?) ago, when people were discussing an older course, and there was an implication that it actually played significantly harder when it opened (wish I could remember the specifics).

My point is that those courses were probably more like the "championship courses" of their day, and the fact that they're considered "member courses" now is more reflective of advancements in the technology of the game, as opposed to conscious design.

Not that any of that may even be relevant....

« **Reply #23 on:** November 15, 2007, 05:41:27 PM »

That have not (yet) bent to the goal of protecting par in case Tiger shows up...

« **Reply #24 on:** November 15, 2007, 06:39:38 PM »

Pete/Bob,

I don't find the width of the fairways to be a flaw.

I was merely pointing out that, for many people, the width at RM is a weakness of the course.

Matt:

Doesn't Winged Foot have very many low handicap members? More so than the "average" club?

In which case, it too, is a good members course.

News:

Rich Goodale

Mark Pearce

Bill_McBride

JESII

Rich Goodale

JESII

Peter Pallotta

Rich Goodale

JESII

Ken Moum

Bill_McBride

JESII

John Shimp

Joel_Stewart

JESII

Mark_F

Pete Lavallee

Bob_Huntley

Matt_Ward

George Pazin

Matt_Ward

JESII

George Pazin

JESII

Mark_F