[Jeff_Brauer]

That the Illini were the better team?  Sorry, couldn't resist.....

The REAL topic here, after reading small part of the 12 page "Golf Digest Rankings Are Out" thread, is whether its so hard to believe that modern courses can surpass Golden Age Courses in shot values, resistance to scoring and in many cases aesthetics and that without the tradition crutch, those older courses would naturally fall in the rankings?

Start with the fact that they are designed from the start for the way the game is played today, including

Hazards/doglegs at more appropriate distances off the tees,

Wider fairways (not yet narrowed by time and overplanting)

Realistic Green Contours for Modern Speeds, etc.

Specifically, with shot values doubled in the point system how could most modern courses on average sites not outscore older courses on average sites?  And, generally, gca's have 50 more years of knowledge about how to design courses for challenge today's players/voters want (granting that the artistic priniciples have changed little)

Jaka B's thread asks the same question, but specifically of Ross. Of course, its not all black and white. Ross' best courses (with appropriate restoration/updating combo redos) are still on top.  Ross' average courses lose the appeal of the nameplate in favor of other nameplates, like Fazio, etc.  How his 14 courses will fare over time is subject to debate, but I ask again -

Is it so hard to believe that on a point system ranking (whether GD or other, whether you agree with the weight of the points or not) that the best modern courses can compete all but the greatest Golden Age courses?

Discuss among yourselves!

 

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff --

I thought you were going to ask:

"Is it so hard to believe ... that an entire NHL season could be canceled, with no noticeable damage to Western culture?"

My answer to both questions is: No.

"Tradition" seems a very odd criterion, in judging what's there on the ground -- if that's what those who believe in rankings are judging.

[JakaB]

Jeff,

I don't expect you to blow your own horn but don't leave out the fact that the achitcects living today are just that much better and more talented than the guys of days gone by..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

The earth has wobbled a bit on its axis hasn't it?

But, yes, tradition is an odd thing to try to quantify when ranking a golf course on its own merits.  However, the same courses with tradition points would do well in ambiance anyway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

I think the best of every era are very good.  The average architect today is better than ever.  And all of us benefit from usually being able to make more site visits, make use of 3D technology (in that order, btw) and from modern construction efficiencies, not to mention that extra 50 years of knowledge, and a 100X increase in the dissemination (sp) of knowlege now......We should be better overall, shouldn't we?

[John Kirk]

Jeff,

Makes sense to me.  I agree.

It may be more difficult for the modern architect to find an ideal piece of property to build a course.  Most of the choice locations are gone.

Not only do I think the modern architect should be better, I'm counting on it!  

[Mike_Sweeney]

Jeff,

The problem here in the North east is that architects are typically getting 2nd tier sites to work with and often have many more environmental restrictions to deal with. Friars Head, Sebonack, The Bridge, Laurel Links, LI National and Easthampton all had varying degrees of environmental issues that CB, Seth and Bill Flynn did not have to worry about.

Now throw in the economic difference that in most sites the houses come first for the developer over the golf, and you guys are at a disadvantage, IMHO. Yes there are exceptions like Bandon and Sand Hills, but they are the exceptions for sure.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Then why is it that the vast majority of what's being produced today is mindless, over-engineered, over-produced, and favors style over substance?

Popular music and musicians should be better, too, shouldn't they, using your arguments.

Have you listened to the radio lately?  

[George Pazin]

Is it hard to believe today's best courses can compete with the older courses? Not at all.

Is it hard to believe that the courses identified by GD are today's best? Yep.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Then why is it that the vast majority of what's being produced today is mindless, over-engineered, over-produced, and favors style over substance?

Popular music and musicians should be better, too, shouldn't they, using your arguments.

Have you played the radio lately?

Mike,

Not your best thought out post ever, IMHO!  I say that because I am giving some substantial (but arguable) reasons in my post, vs. some generalized, knee jerk, the past is better reactions that I sense in yours......

We collectively have discussed whether things are overengineered. I happen to think not, just as I think todays cars aren't overengineered, but that a Model T was underengineered.......as were most golf courses of the golden age, which have had to add drainage ad infinitum to get where they are today.  (some of it not their fault - back then, a country club setting couldn't have been necessarily predicted to someday be surrounded by wall to wall urbanization, increasing drainage needs - Now it is a given)

I have turned on a radio (or my kids have)  While we all fight getting stuck in our ways, and my CD collection has mostly greatest hits collections of my fave artists of my youth, I have to say that my "best of every era is good" comment holds with music, too.  Hard to generalize that today's music is bad with thousands of CD releases each year, isn't it?

Ditto with golf course style - there is so much variety today, I hate to generalize, other than to say some is great, most is good, and some practitioners need to take a look at what they are doing.

Mike S,

I understand your points, and grant that the east is the most crowded area, limiting sites somewhat, but there are enough core courses in the modern era that are on sites equal to many of the golden age CC's.  How many courses have been built on LI in the last 15 years that are basically core courses on similar sites to NGLA?

The environmental restrictions in many ways take courses back to not disturbing hard to build areas, as much as anything, which seems reflective of the golden age.  Lido was the exception that couldn't be built today on LI.

George,

GD has their point system, which IHMO is better than a "I know good courses when I see them" approach.  They happen to mathmatically favor shot values in their system. To take any bias against certain courses on any list, do you think that modern courses w(c)ould rank higher on shot values and resistance to scoring ONLY as I describe above.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

You're correct, it isn't well thought out, or very eloquent.  Unfortunately, I don't have time for more, but thought I'd give you my honest assessment to your question anyway.

It's a gut-level, knee-jerk reaction and it's really based on what I see as a very formulaic, machine-driven approach that obliterates character and natural features employed by most of the practicioners of the art working today.  

There are a handful of leaders and visionaries and many more followers.

I'll stack Mackenzie & Ross (or Tillie, Flynn, et.al.) against the two leading architects of today (Fazio & Rees Jones) and give you 3 of their courses for everyone one of mine.

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I don't believe most raters, for any of the major ratings boards, can effectively evaluate shot values, no matter what the formula is. I also do not believe most can effectively evaluate resistance to scoring or conditioning.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Let me give you an example that we're both familiar with..

Of the 100+ courses in Myrtle Beach, virtually all of them were built in the modern era (1960 onward).  

About how many of those courses would you recommend to a discerning golfer, or someone frequenting this board?  10?  15?

And even then we'd be in dangerous, debate-able territory with the "Kings North", "Heather Glen", and "Tigers Eye" ilk, wouldn't we?

So, let's take those 100+ courses and then randomly select any 100 courses in the country built before 1930.

Which would you rather play?

[A_Clay_Man]

We collectively have discussed whether things are overengineered. I happen to think not, just as I think todays cars aren't overengineered, but that a Model T was underengineered.......as were most golf courses of the golden age, which have had to add drainage ad infinitum to get where they are today.  (some of it not their fault - back then, a country club setting couldn't have been necessarily predicted to someday be surrounded by wall to wall urbanization, increasing drainage needs - Now it is a given)

Jeff-
Specifically I can site a couple of recent examples were I thought "over-engineered".

Black Diamond Quarry course. I noticed a few of the greens had a certain hollow sound to them when struck with certain shots. Then, This weekend,  Dimarco's ball actually changed position on one of the par threes, after Tiger's ball struck the green.

Now I know ANGC is the test tube for all of this over-engineering, but in this case, where the construction methods combined with the speed of the greens, are just too too much?? If it were too windy for the balls at rest to hold the greens, they'd stop play, wouldn't they?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I do believe the best of the modern courses has the potential to compete against the best of classic golf but Mike C's point is well taken. Too much of what is designed as golf is simply pro-forma type stuff with little detail and built for other reasons.

When I see courses like The Kingsley Club, Pacific Dunes, Black Mesa, Glenwild, Wild Horse, etc, etc. it is possible for courses to compete and be thought of in the same high elite level.

However, I agree with Mke S -- it generally takes a unique site for that to happen. Much of the top land is now difficult to secure in the Northeast and the price one has to pay isn't modest by any means.

Given the right developer and the hiring of the right detailed architect the possibilities are there but the probability that it will happen is usually remote for a slew of reasons.

[Dan Kelly]

I'm not enough of a historian to answer my own questions, but I'm enough of one to ask them:

If we accept (and I think we all do) the proposition that much of what is being done today (in music, art, movies, TV, golf-course architecture, you name it) is CRAP:

Was much of what was built in the so-called Golden Age also (and, perhaps, equally) CRAP? Is it possible that what endures, long-term (in music, art, movies, TV, golf-course architecture, you name it), is the non-CRAP -- making the era in which that non-CRAP was produced seem, in retrospect, a Golden Age?

Another way of asking what I'm asking: Does anyone ever think he's living IN a Golden Age -- an age in which dross has been eliminated? Or does it never seem that way till afterward, when the winnowing of time has begun?

Discuss among yourselves!

[T_MacWood]

These ratings are cyclical. Thirty years ago Golf Digest had eleven Ross courses rated in the top 100; RTJ had sixteen and Dick Wilson ten.

Today there are four RTJ and only one Wilson. Ross's number appears to be pretty steady, I suspect thirty years from now there will still be between 10 to 14 Ross courses rated. The more difficult question is how many Fazio courses will be rated in thirty years. In the past his courses really haven't shown much staying power--see Vintage, Wild Dunes, Barton Creek, Lake Nona, Caves Valley and Pablo Creek. There was a time when Black Diamond was considered among the top 25 in the country and Wild Dunes top 40.

The better question for 2035, will there be more RTJ or TF courses?

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff,

Let me give you an example that we're both familiar with..

Of the 100+ courses in Myrtle Beach, virtually all of them were built in the modern era (1960 onward).  

About how many of those courses would you recommend to a discerning golfer, or someone frequenting this board?  10?  15?

And even then we'd be in dangerous, debate-able territory with the "Kings North", "Heather Glen", and "Tigers Eye" ilk, wouldn't we?

So, let's take those 100+ courses and then randomly select any 100 courses in the country built before 1930.

Which would you rather play?

Isn't that a bit of a misleading question?  What percentage of golf courses built before 1930 are still surviving today?  Do you think it is more likely that the best examples managed to survive?  For every Lido that is NLE, there are probably 20 nothing courses that were so bad they would induce Tom Doak to add negative numbers to his rating scale!

[Mike_Young]

I think that there is definitely a higher percentage of courses built today are good in relation to overall courses built as compared to the percentage of Golden Age courses that are considered good in relation to the golden age courses built..
I think that in most cases the modern architect is much more capable than the Golden Age dead guy.
I think that the modern architect is charged by the client and government with having to work in conditions and restraints that most of the dead guys could not handle.
So, Jeff, no, I don't think it is hard to believe.
But I do think golf architecture  is a fad much like house styles, furniture or automobiles.  Today Stickley furniture is much more in style than 15 years ago and for my parents, it was probably Queen Anne or something.  Doesn't mean either was worse than the other.  Not all are going to like the same thing but most are influenced and will go with the flow at that time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

My points almost exactly.  In the Golden Age, you would set your top 5 gca types, the kind who got the plum projects of the day as McKenzie, Ross, Raynor/Mac, Thomas/Bell, and Tillie, in no particular order.  Their projects would compare to Dye, Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones, and perhaps Morrish/Wieskoph.  That would be an interesting computer simulation to see who would win, like they do matching old teams vs. new.

Maxwell or Flynn would compare to the next level of gca's today, and those would also be a great match.

most of us could rightly be compared to American Park Builders and Tom Bendelow, and with all due respect to Mr. B, most of us beat the snot out of him and his contemporaries.

But, I digress.

MIke Cirba,

Yes we are both familiar with MB.  The difference between those courses and golden age ones is that they were designed for drunken golfers, whereas the golden age courses were designed BY drunken golfers.  See the dif?

That is another ingenious way of making the golden age courses look great by comparison - limit the modern choices to one geographic area known for average golf (but improving) so why not use Hilton Head or an area known for better gold, and while at it, limit the geography of the golden age courses so the battle isn't so skewed?

Take NY or Long Island.  Compare the last five courses built there with the first five.....while you may prefer NGLA, Shinny, Westchester, etc to Friars Head, Atlantic, Hudson National and whatever, its not such  bad battle.

The other contention you and others make about formula strikes me as, frankly ridiculous.  As we have discussed, you can go to the Tufts archives and find the same Ross green plan on over 70 courses......You can read CB Mac and others "prescribe" the perfect sequence and types of holes in their books, and in the case of Mac/Raynor, see 100 examples of that forumula carried out.  Ditto Ross on his formulas of finishing 5-3-4, etc.

I suspect if you overlayed every book on GCA from that era, the examples of great holes, with the zig zag fairways and staggered fairway hazards, almost always requiring a carry for best position, as if that is the only or best type of challenge, would align almost perfectly!  

[T_MacWood]

"Isn't that a bit of a misleading question?  What percentage of golf courses built before 1930 are still surviving today?  Do you think it is more likely that the best examples managed to survive?  For every Lido that is NLE, there are probably 20 nothing courses that were so bad they would induce Tom Doak to add negative numbers to his rating scale!"

Doug
Are you serious? For every Lido there would be twenty courses that would be so bad they would induce a negative number...where do you come up with that? Who were the most prolific architects at the time of Lido? Ross, Tillinghast, Park, Raynor, and Colt?

If you consider WWII the demarcation between the old and modern, a simple look at GOLF magazine's world 100 will give you a good idea of the relative strengths of each era--75 courses pre-WWII and 25 after. Fifty years of golf design in each period give or take...and the older era was interupted by two world wars and worldwide depression. Mike is correct the overall quality was much better in the good old days.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom,

Are you telling me that only the greats from the golden age were designing courses back then?  Weren't there plenty of courses "designed" by some guy who had some extra land, using a Farmall tractor and few bags of grass seed?  I can still see a few of those within an hour from my home, and believe me, you would visit one and not spend long trying to figure out if it bore the signature of Ross, Tillie, Park, Raynor or Colt.  I know of a couple of defunct courses that were around here from pre-1930, I can only imagine they are at best comparable in quality to the survivors.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

My answer has always been an instinctive "no, it's not at all hard to believe"

While I do think there is a lot of mediocre stuff out there (isn't that the definition of "mediocre" anyway...  Something of which there is alot of?), there is also some REALLY good stuff too.  Stuff which, if looked upon with the same "loving eye" as the ones we use to look at older courses, would probably been seen with much higher regard.

Put another way, would Augusta National be even a blip on the radar screen if it was built in 1994, was a public course in North Dakota, and only hosted the "ladies midget mid-amateur" in 1999?

I don't think so.

But I've never thought for a second that ratings actually judge the ARCHITECTURE.  They judge the course, or they judge the "experience".  Those are probably the things that count for the people playing.  They want to play Pebble Beach.  Not because it is "great architecture", but because it's a great setting, well maintained, historical and also simply because it is what it is: Pebble Beach.  It's an EXPERIENCE.

Basically, I think that the "Top 100 Courses in the World" should be renamed "Top 100 Golf Experiences in the World".  That's more what it is.

And I think Dan Kelly has a great point.  Many of the Golden Age courses we see today are still around are the better ones.  The crap courses (and I'm sure there were just as many crap courses built then as there are today) were bulldozed over long ago.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike is correct the overall quality was much better in the good old days.

Poppycock!  I would argue exactly the opposite.  TMac, many of the courses from "the good old days" I've played are little more than converted cornfields with pushed-up tees and greens, a few ill-positioned hazards, and little differentiation.

The best classic courses might be arguably of a higher quality.  Many are certainly much more exclusive and historic, and we all know how much we convet things we can't have.   As others have noted, environmental regulation and economics today prevent the development of such courses as Cypress Point or Pebble Beach.  While I've yet to find a course I would rather play than CPC, both Spyglass and The Preserve are superior substitutes for PBGL in my book.

Jeff Brauer is a wise man.  Unfortunately, sometimes he seems conflicted with the era he is designing in, particularly with his heavily contoured greens maintained at modern speeds.  

[John Kirk]

Jeff,

...

I'll stack Mackenzie & Ross (or Tillie, Flynn, et.al.) against the two leading architects of today (Fazio & Rees Jones) and give you 3 of their courses for every one of mine.

Isn't it common knowledge (here at GCA.com) that the leading architects of today are Coore/Crenshaw and Tom Doak?  Fazio and Jones may be the most popular architects, but I certainly don't consider them the leaders.

50 years from now, C&C and Doak will be remembered with the same reverence as the stars of the Golden Age.  Msrs. Brauer, George, Hanse, and others will leave a memorable legacy as well.

This IS the second Golden Age of architecture, coinciding with another period of great prosperity in America.  The Great Depression essentially ended the first Golden Age.  I believe an extended recession will end this second wave of great creativity in architecture.

Mike,

I love the music analogy, for I too believe most modern music, especially the stuff on radio, is crap.  The marketing geniuses are somewhat responsible for the crap.  I also believe pop music has limitations, and most of the territory had been covered by the early 70s.

Sample SAT question (tough)

Tom Fazio is to Bill Coore as...
Celine Dion is to ______________

A.  Tori Amos
B.  Lucinda Williams
C.  Britney Spears
D.  Sheryl Crow

The answer is B.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()