Quote from: John Kavanaugh on October 31, 2007, 09:43:37 PM

Quote from: Cory Lewis on October 31, 2007, 08:23:51 PM

I don't think the modern list will ever surpass the classic list because people continue to "discover" classic courses because of a new restoration or because the course is finally getting publicity.  I can think of several examples of both on the current list.  

Discover...How many courses that you discover a need to play are new compared to old?  I think everyone will agree that eventually courses built after 1960 will surpass those built before.

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. I THINK YOU SAY THESE THINGS TO GET A RISE OUT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS HERE. I FIND THIS STATEMENT AMAZING WHEN YOU HEAR SO MANY ARCHITECTS GO TO THE "WELL THEY HAD BETTER LAND AVAILABLE BACK THEN. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL RED TAPE WE HAVE TO CUT THROUGH." ETC, ETC, ETC. IF ALL THIS WAS TRUE, HOW CAN THEY EVER SURPASS THE OLD?  OR IS THIS STATEMENT AN EASY EXCUSE? WE HAVE SOME AMAZING ARCH'S TODAY PRODUCING SOME VERY GOOD STUFF, BUT SURPASS? MAYBE EQUAL, BUT NOT SURPASS.



  It is just a matter of when, 10 years, 20, 30 or 50.  I'm just a touch ahead of the curve at 5 years.

I'D SAY TOUCHED IN THE HEAD, NOT A TOUCH AHEAD.


I THINK THE ONUS FALLS ON YOU, JK, TO EXPLAIN WHY HAVEN'T POST 1960'S DESIGNS SURPASSED PRE 1960? AND HOW DO YOU THINK MODERN ARCH'S WILL GO ABOUT SURPASSING THE GA'S?

David,

The only reason that post 1960 courses have not surpassed pre 1960 is that they have not had enough time.  I don't think there is any question that by 2060 the "modern" list in total will surpass the classic.  You have to take into account the market forces that will require greatness and the ability to build courses in remote locations...Both of which have accelerated since the building of Sand Hills.  I am confident that every year the best new course built is better than the 100th best classic course..The math will simply eventually win out.

Is it likely that the division line for classic vs. modern will remain 1960 in 50 years?

Cheers,
Brad

"To be fair to Golfweek, I think they implemented that at least with the blessing of ASGCA, whose members wanted more recognition for their work when older courses dominated the listings."

You mean, to be fair to ASGCA, right?

"I agree with John K that as time goes on, modern courses wll continue to get the same perception benefit that older ones have now.  Oak Tree will be the new Southern Hills, for example."

Is it a compliment to be considered the new Southern Hills (sorry Chris)?  Though I've never been there, I don't see the greatness in that course routing or design.  Yet being a Maxwell, I'm sure the greens are outstanding.  There is something missing there that keeps it from being a compelling must see.  It benefits from being an early Oklahoma course like Cherry Hills benefits from being an early Colorado course.  I don't think either one in their current form belong on a top 100 list.

I agree with you and John that there are some less than top 100 quality courses on the list.  While not stinkers, there are quite a few solid but unspectacular courses on the list.  Like Chris, I believe there are a number of classic courses that could/should bump them from this list but they get little or no fanfare.  

Frankly, though some moderns are great, I think many of the ones considered so by others do not appeal to me at all and I fail to see a good deal of them as all-around great designs.  Sure they may be outstanding in one or two regards, but very few have overall greatness.  The modern mentality can be exemplified in a baseball analogy.  Many of the celebrated ballplayers of today really only have one or two excellent phases of the game and even fewer know how to play the game (my gosh, it is 100 times worse in basketball).  Who are the 5-tool ballplayers of today?  There aren't any like Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aarons and the like.  There are weak pitchers that would never be in the majors a few decades ago.  The modern players feast on these just like there aren't enough good quarterbacks, hockey goaltenders and centers in their respective sports.  

There is a sea of mediocrity in many phases of modern life just like there was in the classic era and golf course architecture is not immune.  Not all of the classics were great, a number plain stunk.  There is an artifact of emotional investment and mystique that only comes over many decades.  Many of the classics benefit from that and from national competitions.  It remains true today that things are labeled great when they really only are in terms of the modern output.  That isn't to say that there aren't great courses being built and ones that can displace some time tested classics.  However, I think the numbers are far fewer than others do.

Brad,

That's why I said "at least with the blessing of ASGCA". I wasn't sure of the connection, having only recalled that we pushed a top modern list (I think) with US Today some years ago.  Maybe all my blood loss is affecting my detailed memory.....

I view some of the split line factors you mention, other than Arnie as more of a continum with perhaps WWII being logical, but I won't argue that much.  The split has to come somewhere if you are going to do two lists and I agree that as the number of courses grow, the spots on the list (or the number of lists) should grow as well.

BTW, do you have any philosophical problems with "blurring" between eras?

Wayne,

As we age, don't we tend to get nostalgic for the good old days?  We will never settle the argument of which era's All Star team would beat the other.  I agree with you that at least in golf, the numbers of the truly great from the old days isn't as high as others percieve.  I think they stend to be thinking about the top twenty golden age courses and projecting that quality out to ALL the rest of them by extension.  But again, most courses of the Golden Age are solid to good, as are modern courses.  And many of the lesser old courses are NLE!

As to SH, it was just an example (and actually a near quote from Larry Nelson last time the PGA was at Oak Tree.  I could have used others, but I always remembered that line.  If you took a "scientific system" of dogleg balance, etc. I think OT would beat SH on points, but just my opinion.  For that matter, I think the Dye portfolio would beat the Maxwell portfolio, but again, JMO.

"Wayne, How many modern's have you played in the last five years?"

Adam,

I've studied/played many of the ones I've wanted to.  But I'm not a course rater and I don't have a mandate or desire to see many of them.  I confess that I don't have as open a mind as others; I overwhelmingly prefer to play classic courses.  Is that because I am predisposed to do so or because moderns in general don't appeal to me?  I think a bit of both.  From site visits, photos and descriptions of many modern courses, I'm not interested in very many moderns.  

I thought Tobacco Road was OK.  I wasn't fond of Bull's Bay.  I didn't like Frederica.  I found great and not so great at Sebonack.  For different reasons, I highly regard Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Sand Hills, Beechtree, Glen Mills, White Manor and Lederach.  Maybe this perspective helps you to understand my decision making.


"Wayne,
I have admittedly lived in parts of the country that lend themselves to playing many more modern courses than classic ones, but I think you'd be missing out if you limited yourself too heavily to either list."

Andy,

I think you bring up a great point.  I live in an area with a lot of classic golf courses, some of the country's best.  I have a fondness for the classics and don't get to sample many moderns.  I have to travel some distance to do so.  I'd rather travel to see other classics.  My research and study is in the classics and I have so much more to see for a necessary perspective.  I try and get out to moderns, but not often.  However, I haven't been often compelled to do so either.

Wayne,

Thinking more about lists in general (and why, I don't know, really.....) we have to get over the inconsistencies.  (of course what is inconsistent to me might make perfect sense to you)

As we all know, various lists have favored difficulty, tradition and other things at various points of times as the editors tweak the point system.  For whatever reasons, right now, the lists are favoring some old time quirk and charm (NGLA being the prime example that wasn't on lists thirty years ago)

At the same time, I presume (and I am only a Dallas Morning News panelist) that if I voted for a course on old criteria, just because I now favor quirk, I would feel a little silly taking a course I voted in the past off the list. I might drop it slowly.  I doubt any of the mags would want more than a 10% turnover in a year, because wild swings would strike several as having less credibility.  And, I think the points systems used tend to reinforce that idea.

Since I really don't know the ins and outs of any of the panel systems, I could be way off base.  But, I do think some courses are on the list for different reasons, as it should be, since golf architecture is so varied.

Tom,

I agree completely with you - we did it to compete with the magazines and for business reasons. Luckily, we had good rationale on our side and the divide between Classic and Modern made sense in its own right.

By the way, I can attest to Jeff Brauer's commitment to Northland. We went there together on a Saturday morning after seeing and playing his own three favorite northern Minnesota modern layouts up at Wilderness at Fortune Bay and Giant's Ridge. I still can't forgive him for the dinner of ten White Tower sliders he served in the car on the way up. The grease didn't stain his red Ross tartan ASGCA jacket as much as it nearly ruined my green Golfweek coat.

It's seems a bit early in the life span of these modern courses to make any 50 year statements.


For those of you selecting the Modern list as preferred from here on out...would it change your vote if the Bandon Resort were shut down?

Quote from: Jim Franklin on November 01, 2007, 08:52:07 AM

I just looked at the list again, and while I agree with Barney that there are quite a few on the Classic list that I am in no hurry to play, I, quite frankly, like the two lists. If it wasn't for this list, I never would have driven to Duluth, Minnesota and played Northland CC. What a terrific course, and JB, if that's one of your 29, you need to play it next summer. It is terrific.

Jim,  you probably meant JK instead of JB. I have played Northland on a few occaisions, having spent much of the last ten years building three courses nearby.  That said, its a good course, but one that I would put in the quality country club course.  Certainly worth playing if you are in the area.

For reasons I am sure you will understand, I pass it by most days and go play three modern courses a bit further north......

I can fully understand your need to go further north and, to be perfectly honest, would prefer to play your Quarry course as well. I have not seen your other gems. But Northland is quite a treat as well.

As for the JB thing, that is what I call Barney. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm a big fan of the Classic/Modern bifurcation, for the undeniably appealing reason that it allows an extra one hundred golf courses to get some sort of national profile.  It surely dampens the significance of some of the numerical ratings, but the exposure of many of the last fifty on each list is a good thing, IMHO.  If this means that there is "mediocrity" on the list, I might parse the word, but I'll take the presence of lesser courses that are still great fun to play.  Somebody once said to me the only problem with Top 100 lists is that there are only 100 places on the list.  Golfweek gives us 200 and that's a good thing.

I'll take Ross alone over all the moderns.  Mackenzie, too.  Probably Flynn as well if I get a decent sampling next summer when I'm in Philly.  I'm guessing Seth and Tillie too.  

In my opinion, the current renaisance is indeed a silver age of golf design and I appreciate fellows like you and Barney elevating the great courses being built today.  They're just not golden in my book - yet.  

Great thread.

Mike

I like this thread, too.

I'm overstating my preference for the modern courses a bit.  I'm starting to get around, and as of today maybe 13-14 of my personal top 20 are classics.  But here are a few reasons why I like a new course:

1.  Modern grasses, which are better playing surfaces.
2.  Greens designed for modern green speeds.
3.  The land is generally pristine.  Less houses, no planted trees, a more interesting look at nature.
4.  The courses are designed for the modern ball and club.

I agree with John that the concentration of wealth is behind much of the premium golf club growth.  We'll see how long this lasts.

I also agree with John that after about 50 courses on the Classic list, the rest of the list is a bit nondescript, or distinctive, or arbitrary.  For me, the typical great classic courses start to look all the same.  Parkland setting with planted trees on rolling land with houses nearby.  The natural character of the land is lost.  Furthermore, with very few exceptions, every classic course is a poa annua course.    Poa is a less interesting playing surface, in my opinion.  Architectural features lose their power if the ground is too soft.  Poa also yields less interesting lies in the rough.

Interesting how the Golfweek classic list closely reflects which courses we GolfClubAtlas members covet.

Hey Wayne,

Would love to have the modern vs. classic ballplayer debate sometime.

I am banking on future courses being built not changes of opinion being formed.