If Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Seminole, Bethpage, Pinehurst and other classic courses had not added any length since the day they originally opened, how would they be viewed today, and where would they be ranked today ?

Is the ability to add length a necessary requirement for enduring designs, and a fundamental component of many architect's original plans ?

The origin of our current rankings was an attempt to identify America's toughest courses. Although the rankings now search for the "greatest", elements of the toughest still remain. Courses that host major championships are automaticly elevated. So based on the reality of the rankings today...yes adding length is important.

Under my own critieria...no its not important in the case you cited. All those courses in the 1930's had plently of length to be considered great designs today. Banff and Jasper Park never had the length (in high altitude) to host a major championship....I'd like to know who would rate Firestone or Medinah above them.

Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course printed the original lengths of many of these courses, along with length at post time (I don't have my copy handy).  Given that NGLA, Pac Dunes and others rank highly without being torture tracks, it is hard to say where these classics would be with their original length.  WFW might be the one to fall the furthest, since "toughness" and length may be more important to its ranking than to Seminole or Pinehurst's (the US Open is what made Bethpage jump so high, so if it did not have the length to hold the tourney, it might be far lower as well).

Jeff Goldman

Tommy W,

How familiar are you with the play of Winged Foot in the late 50's, pre 1959 and the 60's ?

It's far from the same course today.

How would the other courses remain great tests at their original length, against todays golfers ?

Pushovers  I don't think so either, but great tests

He did not, however destroy the integrity of the course as he did at Oakland Hills and Baltusrol Lower.

Wrong about Baltusrol Lower...what do you base your stupidity on...

Pat:

You need to also add the fact that when some of the courses you mentioned originally opened (e.g. Pinehurst, Winged Foot / West, BB, to name just three) they were already long in regards to the type of equipment available at THAT TIME.

They have added length over the years to stay current to how golf is being played TODAY and ins ome cases remain as viable candidates for major championships. Just look at what has been to the Lower Course at Baltusrol since the '93 Open.

If they did absolutely nothing it's likely all of them would be rated -- the question of where they would fit into that rankings is subject to debate. On the Shinnecock side I don't believe the course has to be "super-sized" to handle this year's Open -- they can simply play the course as close as what is during normal play.

Jeff Goldman:

FYI -- The ignorance of many people (raters especially) concerning Bethpage Black is what held back the course for tooooooooooo long. People routinely came to the NY metro area and would rarely venture out to play the Black -- the quick trips were to the usual suspects on the east end. The US Open in '02 was the crowning act but the element of greatness have always been there -- even Tom Doak mentioned this in "Confidential Guide" with a 7 on his scale. This despte the fact that the course had received little of the detailing it would get in the years to follow.

The Black is not simply about length -- that is a major misnomer. The details are there for all to see and if one plays the appropriate tees the thrill in playing the course is no less apparent from any tee box IMHO.

Matt,

Your point is well-taken, because it WAS the Open that caused raters to take another look, wasn't it?  In any event, what about Pat's question whether at 6500 or whatever yards it started at, it would be as highly rated?  Ran wrote that from [70] yards in, Lawsonia is better, so if you remove the driving and long iron test, it may fall more than WFW (because of its greensites).  

Jeff Goldman

JakaB,
I have to say that hyperbole is my best thing.  Good Call.

Jeff:

Bethpage Black was great period. The ignorance of raters came across loud and clear to me whenever I would travel the country and mention to them the greatness of the course.

Many of these "informed" people would not have known Bethpage Black as a golf course or a crayon color! Even if no US Open came to the doors of BB -- the golf course should have been rated for what was there. Unfortunately, too many of these raters were trapped to play only the private side of the ledger. Great homework right?

Regarding the length issue -- the inherent design qualities of the Black are there for all to see. Clearly, the aspect of difficulty becomes more of the focus because of what a US Open attempts to identify.

I have played Lawsonia Links and believe the opinion of Ran on the better of the two from 50 yards and in might be true. However, on the flip side the nature of the driving game and the requirement on approach play from 150+ yards is something the Black has in a major way. I agree that Lawsonia Links is liklely one of the more underappreciated courses and I have recommended anyone going to this yera's PGA to stop by Green Lake, WI and see it for themselves.

Just remember Jeff -- when people say let's look at a course from one perspective they are creating the scenario to prove their isolated point. The greatness of Bethpage shines in many ways -- I will even say that no less than six of the greens at the course are simply vintage stuff.

John
If I remember correctly Baltusrol came up in the context of a post I made about Rees leaving his 'mark'...it was listed among a list of ten or dozen golf courses.

Someone on GCA (who shall go nameless) made the bold statement that I was wrong about Baltusrol, Rees never touched the greens....at which time I presented a direct quote from Rees in which explained a number of the changes he made (including to the greens). Your memory appears to be shot...if you would like I will retrieve the thread.

Of course, I have admit, I am not expert on Baltusrol and its evolution like yourself...you've done the research. Please share with us your knowledge. I'm all ears.

Pat
You don't consider adding new green surface and altering the configuration of greens leaving a mark? Do you consider adding new bunkers leaving a mark?

Pat
You focused only upon the greens, for some reason ignoring his bunker work (his quote commented mostly on bunker work).

Perhaps you don't think Rees's bunkering is distinctive...if so, we disagree...as would most astute observers IMO. Anyway...I thought you liked Rees distinctive style...what gives?

Tommy W,

Would they go from great tests to hidden gems ?

Tom MacWood,

You were the one who indicated that Rees left his "distinctive marks" on the greens at Baltusrol, not me.

Would you please define Rees's "distinctive marks" as they apply to Baltusrol, and tell us where they appear.

Since you coined the phrase, Rees's "distinctive marks", could you define Rees's "distinctive marks" ?

And then identify for us, where they appear on the golf course at Baltusrol.

This will make for a great field trip on February 28th.

Have you ever been to Baltusrol ?
Have you ever played the golf course pre and post Rees ?
Have you ever walked the golf course pre and post Rees ?

If you feel that you you made a false claim and would like to retract it, that would be acceptable.

Or, you can continue to put forth an absurd contention, absent any substantive evidence.

If this is an example of the due diligence you exercise in order to validate your research, one has to question the legitimacy of your efforts and conclusions.