News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Rowlinson

How good is the UK
« on: June 29, 2005, 05:24:57 PM »
In a response to another post on GCA I, off the top of my head, said, 'We only have, let's say, 250 [courses] worthy of comparison with the top 5,000 in the USA'.  Was I right?

Bill_McBride

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2005, 05:25:54 PM »
Possibly true, but much more fun in the UK as a rule.

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2005, 05:56:35 PM »
Let's put it this way.  We know that our best courses are up there with the best in the world.  There's a level below this in which the likes of Royal Troon and Rye fight it out on their very different terms with Cascades and Hazeltine.  But we have places such as Sandiway, Beau Desert and Brancepeth Castle that few of you will ever experience - why should you when, on a week or fortnight's visit there are so many 1st division courses to be played?  How do we compare these with similar [what do I man by similar?] courses in the States and where are they ranked in that amorphous mess beyond 100 or 200?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 05:57:18 PM by Mark_Rowlinson »

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2005, 07:15:23 PM »
Sean, I value your opinion as someone who knows the scene on both sides of the pond.  I'm interested in your (off the cuff, I'm sure) list of courses - they are in your area, and that's where your visitors should go.  Little Aston is at the top end of visitors' green fees, Kington (I suspect) at the other.  Do visitors in the States - and Michigan in particular -  have similar experiences available to them at roughly comparable prices?

By the way, I know you play at Droitwich.  I was at school at Rashwood between 1954 and 1958.  The school no longer exists (when last seen it was a KFC or Burger King) but my father occasionally drove me down the country roads past the Droitwich course (then 9 holes, I presume) when we had a spare five minutes in the morning.  He was then works engineer at the salt works at Stoke Works, alongside the railway from Droitwich to Birmingham.  He longed to play golf in those days but it was beyond his means and social class (even at Droitwich).  It was onlt two career moves later (when he ended up as Personnel Manager for a factory in Wolverhampton) that he was able to join a (relatively humble) club in the Shropshire countryside (Lilleshall Hall).  

TEPaul

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2005, 07:47:09 PM »
Mark:

Although I really don't know European architecture very well I'd have to think from an architectural standpoint you have over there a lot more interesting courses than the number you cited. I'm talking interesting architecture only here. Obviously some of it may even be odd because it's old and of another era entirely but to many of us that's very cool.

The thing that may draw down interest in some of that cool and odd old architecture over there is it just isn't maintained in a condition that its interest is truly highlighted.

You posted another thread on green speed and such. Although many may not agree, to me some pretty good green speed with trueness and other areas of consistently firm conditions basically just has a way of making most courses really sing, far more than most realize that they can.

My experiences on Ireland's little Mallow course in the warm hot summer of 1999 is testimony to that fact in spades. If little Mallow can do it there are way more than a couple of hundred courses over there that can too.  ;)

Do they stack up well against about 5,000 American courses? In the final analysis, who really cares about that? The deal is what you have over there is just so different from what we have over here and that fact alone make golf courses on both sides even better than if they all had more or certain similariities and samenesses.

To me the real deal is in the difference. The theory is called "The Big World". In the end that alone probably makes the game and the courses it's played on all over the world as special as it all is or can be.

ForkaB

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2005, 03:41:20 AM »
Mark

I agree with Sean that you are grossly underestimating the relative quality of UK courses.  At the very least it is proprotionate to population, which would mean that the top 1000 UK courses are roughly equvalent to the top 5000 in the US, or to put it the other way, the top 250 in the UK are equivalent to the top 1250 in the US.

The real difference, IMO, once you get away from the "ratable" courses (i.e. top 100 or so in the world) is that the UK courses will get smaller (~6000 yards) and quirkier (e.g. Brora) whilst the US courses will be longer (~7,000 yards) and more contrived (e.g. Spanish Bay).  Which of these stereotypes is "better" is down to individual preference.  Interestingly, US golfers tend to like the UK model when they are in the UK, and UK golfers like the US model when they are in the US (or Spain).

Vive la difference!

Jonathan Davison

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2005, 09:09:53 AM »
Mark
A interesting thread, but what worries me most is what has happened to British golf course architecture during the last 50 years or so. I know we have some very talented architects in the UK - but what stands out?
What course during this period has made an impact on golf course architecture.
Even today every good site tends to be given to an overseas architect.
Think of the courses which have made an impact - Kingsbarn
The Grove - Loch Lomond.
Other good sites Loch Lomond both The Carrick & new Nicklaus.
Previous sites - St Andrews Bay, Crail and Gleneagles?
I am sure a British architect could have produced something a bit more interesting.
Is it a matter of marketing or are the overseas guys just better architects?

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2005, 10:09:07 AM »
Jonny,

It's a ticklish issue.  I like to think that Donald Steel or Martin Hawtree could have designed and built Kingsbarns or Loch Lomond.  But the roots of the situation lie in the First World War.  At the end of it the UK was exhausted, an enormous number of its men were killed, the country was bankrupt.  There had been an explosion of new (and mostly very good) golf courses built from the 1890s until the outbreak of war.  There were enough courses (some of which had to be restored) to satisfy the needs of the professional classes who played golf.  In Scotland the game was played by a wide spread of social and economic classes, but in England it was largely the doctors, lawyers and the like.  That class did not expand between 1918 and 1939 and it was quite happy with the status quo.  There was little need for new courses. Professional golfers (until Henry Cotton) were not emancipated - unlike their American contemporaries who had been liberated by Walter Hagen.  Our Ryder Cup players spent most of their working week mending clubs, occasionally teaching, probably acting as greenkeeper or even barman and were not given time off to play in tournaments except very occasionally.  Almost none of them would have known what developments had taken place in the USA in course design and maintenance and would have had no influence over the tunnel-visioned committees who ran most of the clubs.  

Of course there were exceptions, but there were not many.  Alison tended to work overseas, Hotchkin worked in South Africa (Woodhall Spa was an exceptional course which came of age in the 30s, but it was largely unknown outside a small circle of golfers), Mackenzie had emigrated to the States, and British architects did work occasionally in Italy, but there was almost no course building in France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Denmark etc during this period.  (An exception was Halmstad - designed by a Swede who had worked with Colt at Wentworth).

After the Second World War, the situation was not dissimilar to that pertaining in 1918.  Again it was a period of trying to re-establish golf.  The best players could now play rather more and, with air travel, it was possible to widen horizons and experiences somewhat.  None the less Peter Alliss, one of the most successful of our players of the 50s and 60s, still worked as a club pro (Parkstone and Moor Allerton) while he was playing his best golf.  Braid, Colt, Mackenzie, Fowler, Simpson were all dead or retired.  Henry Cotton had not yet started in the design business and few British club golfers had any clue who had designed their course and had little eye for design - witness the many disfigurings of famous courses by well-meaning but ignorant committees of the time.

The Hawtree family, Guy Campbell, Charles Lawrie, Frank Pennink, Hamilton Stutt were the main designers in Britain, (and to an extent overseas) but I doubt that more than a handful of club golfers could have told you who they were.  Courses such as those at Woburn or Vilamoura show that these men could design beautifully, but British golf was dying on its feet until Arnold Palmer resurrected it.  That coincided with the TV age and suddenly the UK realised what the Americans had that we hadn't - Trent Jones courses.

That was also the beginning of the Iberian golf boom and RTJ was in there fast along with other Americans.  Those Brits who landed Iberian design contracts had to give their paymasters America-style courses.  Donald Steel has several very successful designs to his name in Iberia and so, too, Dave Thomas.  Thomas perhaps is a good example of how a Brit has learned to design in the American style.  After all, his contract for the Belfry was for a flagship course to be the home of British golf, spearheaded by four Ryder Cups.  You can say what you like about its design, but he gave De Vere Hotels and the PGA a course which brought great public awareness of it.  Not surprisingly, Thomas also landed other De Vere projects such as Slaley Hall and Mottram Hall.  But Thomas (2nd, once, in the Open), Steel (fine amateur player and wonderful writer, but no Nicklaus-beater) and Hawtree (no significant record as a player) have no pull with the golfing nouveau riche.  That is why they get Nicklaus, Palmer, Weiskopf and co to put their names to projects in Europe, as well as all members of the Jones family and more than one Nicklaus offspring.  These are the ones that will catch the golfers’ eye.  As yet none of our big names (Jacklin, Faldo, Lyle, Woosnam, Monty) has made a big impact on the British public with design (though I am pleased that others on this site think that Faldo’s team have some interesting designs to their credit, and Monty certainly made some new friends out of Carton House.)  

Despite the impact on the public of courses such as St Melion, Hanbury Manor, the K-Club and the Oxfordshire someone had the wisdom to get Kyle Phillips (who in the UK had ever heard of him?) for Kingsbarns and I think it has begun to open eyes here into just what is possible.  With Tom Doak landing such a high-profile course as Pacific Dunes (high profile in the sense that many in the UK have heard of it where they certainly haven‘t heard of Sand Hills) perhaps it will not be long before he lands a contract to build a course near London, should they get the Olympic bid!!!  But Steel is now retiring, Martin Hawtree is approaching 60, Dave Thomas is past 70, and there doesn’t seem to be new generation of British architects taking up where they are leaving off – at least not in  their own name.

That’s not the case in Ireland where Des Smyth and Christie O’Connor Jnr seem to have landed a good number of decent projects.  France seems to have developed some of its own, same in Holland, even Italy.  I don’t know how good these people are or how good their work is, but at least their employers retain a patriotic sense.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2005, 02:47:52 PM by Mark_Rowlinson »

Jonathan Davison

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2005, 11:28:58 AM »
Mark
I did not mean to insult the last 50 years of British golf architecture, but a lot just lacked passion and creative flair.
Although I feel the next generation could be a lot different.
David Kidd's work at Queenwood was a breath of fresh air, bold with lots of creative flair.
Tom Mackenzie - a gentleman and a very talented architect.
Andy Haggar - Faldo golf design.
Also a bunch of students from the golf architecture program at Edinburgh.
Brian Philips - James Edwards - Stuart Hallet to name a few.

Bob_Huntley

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2005, 01:21:06 PM »
Mark,

I think your post #9, is the most concise precis of golf in England from 1918 through the fifties.

Not many from the working class played or could afford to play the game. Some clubs with a sense of noblesse oblige did set up Artisan Sections, for which they should be praised.

Bob

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2005, 01:45:59 PM »
Johnny,  Not in any way were you insulting British golf design.  It's something I've thought about a lot since failing to answer that very question in Ran's interview on here a year or two ago.  I'd go so far as to say that there probably was no opportunity for these men to display their flair, if they had it.  But you've set me thinking about one or two earlier British architects who demonstrated flair on their first essay - Colt (Rye 1894), Fowler (Walton Heath 1904) and Mackenzie (Alwoodley 1907).  And what about the man who designed Royal Ashdown Forest?  Wasn't he an Archdeacon Scott?  Certainly West Cornwall (much recommended) was designed by a clergyman, Rev F.F. Tyack.  There's flair in Spades at both those.

Bob, You are correct to mention the artisan sections.  Many of the really top clubs had them.  Certainly there was one at Flackwell Heath, a much lesser establishment, and I noticed the artisans' shed at Sandy Lodge when I was there the other day.

Mark.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 01:46:40 PM by Mark_Rowlinson »

Philip Gawith

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2005, 02:24:58 PM »
Mark, Amen to what Bob H said re your post 9. What a wonderfully succinct and interesting account of the evolution of post 1918 golf in the UK, with reference to the development, or not, of British architects.

I learned a lot. :)

Kirk Gill

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2005, 03:35:03 PM »
One thing that Mr. Rowlinson said rings true with me - in my few trips to the UK I've tended towards the top line "destination" courses, and missed the chance to play some of the lesser-known nuggets that might be out there to play. But with that said, it's still a tough numbers game to compare the number of US courses vs. those in Britain, as the US is so much larger in land area. Colorado is larger than England, Scotland, and Wales combined. The only equalizer is the amount of coastline. Mainland UK and Ireland together have 14,500 or so miles of coastline, and the US over 12,000, of which around 5,500 are in Alaska.

The number of great seaside courses in Alaska is a subject for another thread.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Ken_Cotner

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2005, 03:53:14 PM »
Did my eyes and mind deceive me, or did TEPaul and Killer Goodale just agree with each other in their last posts?

Maybe they're going soft and sentimental on us...

Ken

ForkaB

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2005, 04:54:45 PM »
Ken

You must know by now that TE Paul's thoughts are completely random.  It is only the laws of statistical probability that lead him to the right answer from time to time.

Yours faithfully

Rich

Ken_Cotner

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2005, 05:01:48 PM »
Ken

You must know by now that TE Paul's thoughts are completely random.  It is only the laws of statistical probability that lead him to the right answer from time to time.

Yours faithfully

Rich


And the earth returns to its proper orbit...   ;)

Ken, serial posting

Mike_Clayton

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2005, 07:26:26 PM »
Mark
It's an interesting question. I have not seen enough of America but it's hard to imagine the ratio is anything like your initial suggestion.

I wonder where it leaves Australia where your 70th best course would be in the top 15 here.
With a few exceptions our newer courses have been as disapponting as yours and few have matched the quality of the old ones - which too have been tampered with to their detriment.
 There are lots of parallels which is probably not surprising for two countries so similar.

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2005, 05:01:45 AM »
Mike,  My initial guess was made without long deliberation, because I genuinely have no idea.  Why do you think the newer Australian courses are a disappointment similar to many in the UK?  Is it simply that the people who have the money to develop these things haven't the 'breeding'?

Mike_Clayton

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2005, 06:58:16 PM »
Mark

The problem is most are built to make a profit. They are simply ways to sell houses - or to drain housing estates.

Our best courses were built by MacKenzie,Russell,Apperley,Morcom in an era when they were simply building great golf for people wanting more than the rudimentary stuff we started with before 1920.
I suspect the golfers who commissioned the early courses - Royal Melbourne,Kingston Heath,Metropolitan,Wodlands,The Australian,The Lakes,Royal Adelaide - had a finer eye for quality architecture and what made for great golf - and that was all they were after.
I think with the huge numbers who play now that has been lost.
Having said that,we do have a few very good new courses - Kennedy Bay in Perth,The Moonah Course at The National and Barnbougle Dunes - but all three were on outstanding land.
 Two of these courses were done by architects not in the 'real-estate' business - Michael Coate and Roger MacKay (KB),Tom Doak and  I (BD) although Bob Harrison who does all Greg Norman's work is in the 'real estate' business - although he wouldn't be if he was on his own!

In Britain it always astounded me to play Sunningdale one week and go to a place like the Oxfordshire the next - or worse,Collingtree Park.
That can only be a developer playing safe with a name architect and not exploring - even for a second - who else might be around, desperate to do a great job.

Stuart Donald

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2005, 03:49:37 AM »
Mike

Are you implying that only the big name architects produce poor design? I am sure you are not and say that tongue in cheek, but it must be noted that there are plenty of average designers with great self marketing and very little golf knowledge, whose time would be better spent landscaping...

cheers

Stu

Mike_Clayton

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2005, 07:43:34 AM »
Stu

Everyone does good and not so good work.
It is impossible to generalize but I think you are exactly right with the last bit.
Perhaps the problem with big names is they overstretch themselves - which makes it hard to do it well and guarantee something more than a formula - which is why there are so many new 'American' courses in Britain that are indistinguishable from each other.

Stuart Donald

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2005, 08:06:25 AM »
Mike

Agreed. A developers understanding of the long term implications of their actions is the key for me. Doesn't matter who you are or what you doing, you must know why you do it ;D...

Willie_Dow

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2005, 11:27:54 AM »
Mark

We need you to come over here, to the USA, and with Tom Paul once again update the World Atlas of Golf.  He will have finished up with his work on Wm Flynn with Wayne, and they can both work over that section of the book which really needs the effort.
I have just found your revised edition by hamlyn, and browsing through I see that the sixth hole on Merion West is now a par four.  As it is the only hole where I've scored a hole in one, & I'm amazed at my effort.

Willie

Tom_Doak

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2005, 03:49:33 PM »
Mark:  I think you're crazy!  :)

The average course in the UK is vastly superior in terms of character and sport than the average course anywhere else in the world.

The standard of conditioning is not as high, of course, because you are trying to keep the game affordable for your members, and because it would seem silly to spend $1 million per year maintaining a course which Old Tom Morris built for ten shillings.

Sure, by sheer numbers, there have been as many courses built in the USA in the past ten years, as there are in all of the UK.  Most of these are built to a pretty high standard, but few show the variety of terrain and interest that a typical UK course does.


Tiger_Bernhardt

Re:How good is the UK
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2005, 05:07:24 PM »
Mark, I would agree with all that Tom said but the Mark your crazy part. lol However, I would say the golf experience is different as well. There is generally a functionality to the UK club houses that I like. Even the most pretentious of UK clubs do not seem to go to the excesses many of the US clubs do. I like the access and general friendlyness of the Membership to guests as well. On the other hand practice and associated facilities do not seem to have gained much if any ground on the US counterparts. I wish nonresident memberships were more in line with the regular membership. A golfer who comes over  each year or more can be put off by the guest fees and price structure of the non resident memberships. I am not bringing that up to open that discussion again. I find my golfing experiences in the UK to be many of my best anywhere excluding special rounds with friends.

Tags: