[Jim Engh]

"I think the best courses that have ever been built are being built now."

Links magazine: December, 2001.

[Peter Galea]

Time will tell.

[Rick Shefchik]

That seems hard to believe. Without doubt, most of the best sites are gone (at least in the U.S. and U.K.)

Of those that do manage to draw comparisons with the classic courses -- Pacific Dunes, Whistling Straits and Sand Hills come to mind -- I doubt that many players would rank them ahead of the time-tested greats like Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Royal County Down, Ballybunion, etc.

This is not a slam at modern courses or architects, but I don't think the evidence is there -- or will be -- to call them the best ever.

[Dan Kelly]

Rick --

You write: "Without doubt, most of the best sites are gone (at least in the U.S. and U.K.)."

I don't know about the UK, but I seriously doubt that that's true of the US.

What I would guess is true is: Most of the best sites in highly populated areas are gone. But there must be a million great sites between the Mississippi and the Pacific.

If we build 'em, will they come?

I'd rank Sand Hills (as an experience) ahead of every other course I've ever played. Unfortunately, all of those other courses include just one of those you list: Pebble Beach.

Not even close, for my money.

[your old buddy redanman]

Jim

Define "best".  

[Ran Morrissett]

If that quote was true, why do most critics agree that only about 2 of the world top 50 courses have been built in the past five years?

[ForkaB]

Is it not true that "critics" are often wrong and rarely visionary?  How many of the established art critics would have include any Impressionist paintings in their "Top 50?"

[Craig_Rokke]

It would be interesting to hear what Jim meant by "best courses." Did he mean the
frequency of top-100 calibre courses is
is higher? Did he mean the the "average course" being built now is better than the "average course" of other eras? Did he mean that the talented younger generation of architects, such as himself, will ultimately have a body of work regarded as the best? In fairness to his remark, while I'm not fully convinced he's right, it'll be easier to judge many years down the road.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Nice analogy, I'm not sure its historically accurate -- many of the Impressionists were quite popular among the critics and the public. Ruskin was not a fan, but he had gone mad. Doesn't it illustrate the opposite arguement, have we had an art movement to rival the Impressionists?

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich,

What are your comments as to the original post? Do you agree or disagree with it?

As you have noted on this site, you have not seen most of the world's great courses. However, like many who post here, you have strong opinions. Of your perception of the world's top courses (however you define it - I arbitarily broke it off at 50), what percentage would you imagine have been  built in the past six years (i.e. I am including Sand Hills)?

My answer is in the 4-6 % range, which is clearly at odds with the quote in Links Magazine.

Cheers,

[ForkaB]

Ran

My answer to the question is the same as Pete's--"Time will tell."  My guess is that those of us who live to see the year 2050 will find a "Top 50" list which will be significantly different to whatever list might be complied today.  I base this not on any analysis of what absolute characteristics and values constitute "good" or "bad" architecture, but on my observation that technologies and tastes do change, and on my belief that they will continue to change as we move into the future.

I, for one, see no reason to try to speculate whether or not, for example, Merion will be thought of as favorably as Applebrook in 2050, but I am willing to state that there is a non-trivial possibility that it may not.  Who knows if the golfers of 2050 will find Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes to be as enduring as most of those who have played them seem to want to believe.  We should never forget the names of Wild Dunes, Ballybunion (New) and Nantucket when we declare that one course or another will stand the test of time.  Nor should we forget that Crystal Downs and Fisher's Island were under most radar screens until relatively recently.  Who is to say that 20-30 years from now currently unkown charms of Strantz or even Fazio will be discovered by our successors?  In the 17th century, Reni ("The Divine Guido") was honored over all other artists, including his contemporary, Caravaggio, whose work was too radical for his day.  Who is to say that the divine CB might not suffer the same fate as Reni some day?  Not me.  I know enough about looking at the future to know that all that is certain is uncertainty.

Cheers

Rich

PS--Your statement about my experience is technically right, under your definition, but whilst my golfing gourmanderie might pale before others on this site, I have in fact played "most" of Golf magazine's world top 30 (17) and nearly most of their top 50 (22).  Most of those 22 I have played at least 3 times, and my total number of rounds on "Top 50" courses is probably 4-500 (skewed, of course by 300+ rounds on one of them ).  So, whatever I do say on this site is not completly unfounded in relevant experience.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think that time has already shown us what constitutes the best courses. What has been built in this day and age that will have the lasting significance of TOC ? What "new" hole rivals the Road Hole, where is there a better par 3 than the Redan at Prestwick?
I have no crystal ball but I would guess that the staying power of what has been defined as great will have no problem keeping up for another century or two.  

[T_MacWood]

Why do some courses remain continualy popular, while others come and go? Is there a certain quality found with these courses (Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Royal Melbourne, Dornoch, County Down, Banff) that is historically pleasing?

[Ran Morrissett]

Rich/Tom,

A common factor with many of the most enduring courses is that people spent mountains of time in designing/building tinkering with them, courses like Oakmont, Walton Heath, Pine Valley, Merion, Seminole, Myopia Hunt, Garden City GC, Chicago GC.

Unless a similiar commitment of time is spent by today's architects, as is the case now at Friars Head for instance, then the rush jobs have little chance of mounting an assault on the world's elite courses.

Getting the most from a site takes time, and the biggest 'name' architects are unlikely to deliver that product as long as they have so many courses on the go at the same time.

Cheers,

[Ran Morrissett]

PS The point of the big name architects is that as long as they get the vast majority of the best sites, and aren't maximixing them, then today's output of courses won't ever be confused as a Golden Age.

[THuckaby2]

Seems patently obvious to me that "time will tell" is the ONLY answer here.  Pete's right on and Rich sure has precedence and example on his side in spades... How can we know now what will be held in vogue 50 years from now?  Hell for all we know real grass might become as antique as featheries, and all the "best" courses then will be made of some sort of synthetic turf with hologram hazards, where you are assisted by your personal Tiger Woods robot caddie.

Links Mag may be right, who knows.  But it sure is easier to argue that they're wrong...

In any case, you tell 'em Rich re your experience.  I'd venture to say your 300 rounds at Dornoch are enough to make you qualified in any golf discussion.  You sure as hell know Scotland more than anyone I've ever met (although your lack of Cruden Bay experience is galling - fix that, will ya?)... and while I do disagree with your assessments all the time, hell that's nearly always my ignorance and/or exuberance talking.

You're wrong about Shinnecock being better than NGLA no matter what though!

As for me, I stand at 29 played out of Golf Mag's world 100, with a 30th to be knocked off in a couple weeks thanks to another very cool GCA stalwart.  Not bad for a public course yokel!

The funny thing is though, as Mark Fine sorta predicted for me, the more I see, the more I realize the less I know.  Horrible syntax but I hope that makes sense...

TH

[Peter Galea]

Holographic hadards! Now that's looking into the crystal ball. When I saw my first hologram in 1971 by Bruce Nauman, I was mesmerized. Might slow up play though.

[Peter Galea]

"hazards" Doh!

[THuckaby2]

Well you know Pete, here in 2001 we're supposed to all be wearing space suits, all cars fly, and we each have personal jetpacks to get around.  Where's all my stuff?

It's a silly thought, I know... but I mentioned it as a less literate example of what Rich said about The Divine Guido.  Who knows what each era will consider "great" and "classic"?

TH

[Ran Morrissett]

"Time will tell" is the answer to a lot of questions, though not a particularly helpful or insightful one in regards to examining if things could/should be done different/better today.

[T_MacWood]

Tom H.
What does history tell us? We have 100 years of history to look back upon. Trends come and go, but certain types of courses seem to endure.

[THuckaby2]

Ran:  rebuke received.

But seriously, what else can be said here that is more insightful?  Some people think the best courses are being built now, they have their arguments... Some people think it's impossible to tell, they have their arguments...

Who can know?  What insight can be shed?  Because courses like Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills are being built along "classic" or "minimalist" lines, that means they are going to be seen as the best ever built?  We love them now but who can say?  A strong argument could be made that this will completely turn around and wholly-manufactured courses like PGA West-Stadium will be seen someday as "best showcasing architectural ability" and Sand Hills will be seen as ordinary, with people saying "anyone could have found those holes".

I am not saying that's correct, but how can we say that absolutely WON'T be the thinking in the future?

No amount of insight is going to solve this question.  It's like me saying that in the year 2050, Barry Bonds' 2001 season will be seen as the best single-season hitting achievement ever.  I might be right, but who knows?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tom MacWood:  well said - I was indeed a history major in college so that hits home to me.

BUT... Rich's cite of The Divine Guido refutes this argument.  What's in vogue today is not necessarily in vouge tomorrow.  Looking at golf courses, there are MANY that were seen as great at one time that fall off the lists quickly thereafter.

Believe me, I am NOT saying this is the case with Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes or other greats today.. I hope they do "hold up."

My point is more that right now, we just cannot know.

History tells us many things, but among them is that we cannot predict artistic appreciation.

TH

[BarnyF]

Art and Architecture have never been constants in the history of man.  The only constant is hate or the fear of hate sometimes known as love. As long as we are free to choose where we stick our dicks and store our sticks we can only enjoy the moment we live in and piss on the past.

[THuckaby2]

I'm scared.

I believe I said the same thing as BarnyF, in so many words.

Is St. Thomas Auqinas gonna appear to me in the form of my goldfish?

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()