The Old Course

[harley_kruse]

As the original model and the very  place where the game we know as golf began:

1) Is the Old Course the model by which all other courses should be judged?

2) Should it be included in golf course rankings or, as some suggest, be left out in respect of the fact that essentially all courses today are copies of the basic elements of this original blue print?

[Tim_Weiman]

Harley:

I haven't played many courses that felt like "copies" of The Old Course.

Have you?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Harley, You are bringing a tear to my eye with this post!

The Old Course is the measure, the mark and the bar. It is everything. Why question the plans of paradise?

Yes, there is Dornoch, but it was emulated form the great one in some regard, hence it would not be in its form if it wasn't for the Old Course.

The Old Course is alive. It has strength and character, no matter what equipment is used on it simply because it is beyond all of that human nonsense.

Just like the Wailing Wall in Isreal, I will cry my eyes out on my next visit to the promised land. (And I'm a God-fearing man.)

The Old Course is beyond rating panels and the likes of individuals like Rich Goodale. It is without fail--PERFECT.

Thanks Harley, this discussion group needed a shot in the arm today.

[Paul_Daley]

Harley:

In my opinion, The Old Course should be "above" the politics of golf course rankings. It seems "tacky" to even contemplate the task.

[Paul_Daley]

TOC does, however, serve as the perfect model to judge others against; not in exact look and feel, but by solid time-honoured design principles.  

[Josh_Taylor]

Harley,

I posted the exact same question over a year ago and the thread died a sudden death.  Why?  I have no idea, but this is the thread that should be 100+ in responses.  From memory Tommy cried that time also.

How can a course that is listed as "designed by nature" and date "unknown" be ranked behind other courses?

How can a course that has been studied and critiqued, marvelled at in disbelief and awe and had its design/evolution analysed by every great architect that ever lived not be placed on a pedestal over and above ever other course?

[Dan King]

It is unlikely that the golf was first played on the ground where the Old Course now sits. Even if it was, the current course has no resemblence to the land where golf was first played near St. Andrews.

Regarding including it in rankings, I don't believe in them. For those of you that do believe, what purpose do they serve? Once you decide what you are trying to accomplish with rankings, you'll probably have an easier time decding if the Old Course should be included.

The Old Course would be included in the Michelin Rankings and would get three stars (IMHO.)  My feeling regarding the Michelin Rankings is that they are designed for travelers and therefore the Old Course should be included.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"The mystique of Muirfield lingers on. So does the memory of Carnoustie's foreboding. So does the scenic wonder of Turnberry, and the haunting incredibility of Prestwick, and the pleasant deception of Troon. But put them all together and St. Andrews can play their low ball for atmosphere."
 --Dan Jenkins

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dan, You are my dear friend and trusted scholar, but I need you to prove that ascertation to me.

I have been down this road with you before about the Links Of Pilmour (The Old Course) Don't make me prove it again!

Yes, the course has evolved from 1 to 2 to 12 to 22 to 18 holes of the finest land God has had to offer.

I suggest we do not slap the hand of God with such accusations!

[John_McMillan]

Tim -

If you've played ANY golf course, you've played features which were copies of TOC.  Sand Ridge (and every other golf course in the US) has 18 holes primarily because that is the number of holes on TOC.  There are some features of TOC which have been so ingrained into golf architecure, that one is no longer aware of their origin.  

[Tim_Weiman]

John:

I agree that one could identify features from TOC, but not many venues produce a similiar feeling.....at least not for me.

[harley_kruse]

Tim

It was never suggested that there are copies of the old course but rather TOC with her basic elements of 18 holes, tees, fairways,hazards,and greens is the original model/blueprint by which all have since followed.

Dan I also have problems with the rankings, as any defining/compartmentalisation  of the subjective is somewhat futile, particularly  when many would consider golf courses as pieces of art. We dont have Picasso's Guerra ranked against van Gogh's Sunflowers do we?  I seriously dislike the  Old Course being compared and ranked with Augusta National for example. I would say that I'm not a big fan of the rankings at all, and think that at least respect TOC and leave her off the any rankings... please.

This obviously wont  appeal to those  who need to be fed by rankings in order to have a sense of perspective.

Tommy, I thought discussion on TOC would stir your keyboard fingers  and like Josh and Paul my opinion is that TOC is really the ultimate reference point for the principles. Perhaps (and others may well agree)  this is a too simplistic a view?

[aclayman]

While wholey unworthy of contributing on this subject I can relate a situation that transpired between Sheryl and I while I was playing the TOC on links 2000, today. After Sheryl's four aces last night at Camelot Park I was eager to show her some of my replays having an exceptional day with the flat stick. After trying to point out the undulations I inadvertantly made the statement that everything else is "cheesecake".

Would that be an accurate assessment of the challenge that awaits the TOC golfer on every stroke?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Adam,
Such is the deft hand of the sculpter.

Harley,
You can talk about the Old Course anytime!

I think that from a principles point of view, there is no better template then The Old Course. Of course you could be l,ike Jeremy Glenn and come away uninspired and ill-impressed, because they are building much better courses nowadays!

(That should get a rise out of him!)

Sorry guys, I have to get a tissue. I'm crying again!

[Dan King]

The world famous Tommy Naccarato wrote:
Dan, You are my dear friend and trusted scholar, but I need you to prove that ascertation to me.

It can’t be proven.  Like I said, it is only unlikely.  This is because there are other areas that can make just as strong of a claim. Doesn’t mean golf wasn’t first played at St. Andrews, just that there is no proof that it was.

If one is to believe that golf developed from the game of kolven, then chances are the place were golf was first played was somewhere with active trade with the Netherlands. St. Andrews was a major city in Scotland in the 15th century, with a major port. But Edinburgh, North Berwick and Aberdeen had stronger ties to the Netherlands than St. Andrews.

In the excellent book, Golf: Scotland’s Game by David Hamilton he makes a strong case for golf being two different games. A noble game played out on the links and a commoner game played on city streets, more like street hockey.  This would better support the St. Andrews claim, since the University town did bring nobles to it during the winter months. But it also strengthens the claim of Edinburgh (and Leith) because nobles hung out in Scotland’s central city during the winter months.  

We will never know where golf first started, so the claim that St. Andres is where golf began cannot be proven or disproved. My point was only that it is unlikely, since it is only one of many claimants.

I have been down this road with you before about the Links Of Pilmour (The Old Course) Don't make me prove it again!

The Links of Pilmour map was done in 1836, (Tom Jarrett's St Andrewes Golf Links: The First 600 Years) so golf had been played around St. Andrews for at least 300 years prior to that map. Even on that map, the first and 18th hole was very narrow, with the sea hard up against the first fairway. It took man (not God) to reclaim land from the sea before the course could be widened.

There wasn’t a record of the 22-hole course until 1754 when the Society of St. Andrews golfers were first formed and played that configuration. Did that configuration exist prior to the clubs forming, or did they create that configuration for their first competition? What was golf like at St, Andrews in the 200+ years prior to 1754?

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote: Sir Guy Campbell's classic account of the formation of the links, beginning with Genesis and moving step by step to the thrilling arrival of 'tilth' on the fingers of coastal land, suggests that such notable features of our planet as dinosaurs, the prairies, the Himalayas, the seagull, the female of the species herself, were accidental by-products of the Almighty's preoccupation with the creation of the Old Course at St. Andrews.
--Alister Cooke (Forward to The World Atlas of Golf)

[John_McMillan]

I'm not familiar with Picasso's painting "Guerra."  Was this done before, or after, his painting of the German bombing of Guernica?

[Oat]

For a course that was "designed by Mother Nature", TOC seems to have gotten a lot of revision by Old Tom Morris after he returned to St. Andrews from Prestwick (unless my reading of golf history is incorrect).  No golf course that good could be the result of such a random force as MN.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dan, I think you should let everyone know, that is reading this post, your fauxpaux (sp) about Pilmour Links to being with.

Regardless if a game similar to golf was played in the streets by the commoner or a sheephearder while bored in the fields, it is a given to let The Old Course aAND Mother Nature recieve its due.

For anyone to claim that it actually isn't very natural is borderline hilarious.

Yes, Old Tom ripped out gorse and widened fairways. But you are forgetting an even bigger factor in all of this--Alan Robertson, who in all likelyhood should be credited with today's exisiting routing.

Dan, I have a funny feeling that this is going to be one of those posts that is life and death for you to get your point across--as it should, but I also think that there are a lot of glaring errors in a lot of these books that offer any signifcant proof.

Even you yourself fail to provide proof. Only speculation. And while I pride myself as being this discussion groups great speculators, I do know when to admit when I am wrong. I hope you to can find yourself in the same state of grace as I have been!