[mark chalfant]

It's my impression that a notable difference between Old Sandwich and PVGC is, that Coore and Crenshaw's design has three exemplary par fives that are both engaging and playable (for 10-22 hcp golfers ) and Pine Valley has only one such three shot hole (#15). Would they prefer Pine Valley's seventh green to the putting surfaces on 6,10, or 13 at OSC ?..... I prefer those beautys by Jim Craig  in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

by the way. this thread is about playabilty for the masses.
try to think about your aging dad, or your athletic daughter or son who are relatively new to the game

[Tom Huckaby]

Mark - this is a very interesting question, and I don't mean to be a prick, but... how large do you think the universe is of people who have played both of these courses?

If it's in triple digits I'd be shocked.

But then again, odds are 90% of them participate here.

So never mind.

 

[Wayne Freeman]

Tom-  I'd be surprised if more than about 5 GCAers have played both.  OS only has about 50 or so members I think and is super exclusive, and we all know about Pine Valley.  I played OS last fall and can't remember those holes let alone discuss the greens.  I did love the course however and all the greens are great.  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Mark,
Bill Coore shaped all of those greens himself, really an amazing thing when you think about it. I thought Old Sandwich was one of the best courses I saw last year.

The obvious advantage it has over Pine Valley are the wide corridors with lack of encroachment and sublime conditioning.

I thought of a few of PV holes while playing OS, so I guess that the comparison is not far off.

[Tom_Doak]

I've played both, and to compare the two is pretty silly, really.  Pine Valley is widely hailed as the best course in the USA.  Old Sandwich is a very good modern course, but I wouldn't put it in Bill Coore's top three.

The one hole at Old Sandwich which reminded me of Pine Valley was the short four with the "island" green in the sand, very reminiscent of Pine Valley #8 although its green was thankfully a bit bigger.

[Jim Franklin]

I am another that has played both and while I loved Old Sandwich (I would put it #3 of the C&C I have played), Pine Valley is in another world. #15 at PV is one of the greatest par 5s on the planet. While 6, 10, and 13 are very good holes at OS, they are not among the top 10 par 5s in the world. With that said, I could play OS everyday and not get tired of it.

[Mark_Fine]

I've seen both as well and like Tom, would not put OS in C&C's top 3 or even top five but it is still a fine golf course.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Wayne - if I can assume you played Pine Valley, well... Mark's post gets us up to five who've played both!

I'm sticking with my statement.  Less than 100 have played both, 90% of them are participants here.

 

[Alex_Wyatt]

Count me in Tom, and I would say OS is probably #3 on the C & C hit parade. I think OS would probably be enjoyable for a broader cross section of golfers, so even if it isn't "better" than PV, who cares?

[Jason Mandel]

I haven't played either. But even if it is #3 on C&C's list thats still not a bad place to be, behind Sand Hill and Friars Head, and ahead of courses like Hidden Creek, Bandon Trails, Kapalua, Cuscowilla...

I've heard greats things about Old Sandwich and Boston Golf Club.  Now, my here's a question, Old Sandwich or Boston Golf Club?

Jason

[Jason Blasberg]

While I have no shame is saying I've not played PV, I've played OS and the only thing I think they have in common are pine trees.  

OS a #3 C&C design?  I saw the same bunker or bunker idea at OS at least three times (the bunker cut into a hillside behind the green that's out of play for all but one pin placement and when in play actually makes the hole play easier than harder because of the spin a player can get from the sand when being on a pine tree strewn sandy hillside with a down hill lie woud be death).  The best bunker on the golf course was on # 3 and was hardly in play  not because it was short of the green some 60 yards but b/c it was hardly, if not at all, in the line of play.  

If you compared two strikingly different pieces of property (OS and BGC) and before a hole was routed asked me what would yield a better course I'd have said OS, no question.  

BGC is, however, a far superior golf course and is a fine example of a truly great course coming from less than ideal land on paper when risks are taken in design.  To me, OS is an example of a very good course from seemingly ideal land when little risks are taken in design.

While there's no accounting for taste in these matters (and I do believe much of GCA appreciation is similar to art appreciation) how anyone could say OS is a better golf course than Cuscowilla or the Plantation Course baffles me.

Don't misunderstand, I find OS to be a very good golf course but it's not great and to be a top 3 C&C design a course has got to be better than great.  

 

[TEPaul]

"....by the way. this thread is about playabilty for the masses.
try to think about your aging dad, or your athletic daughter or son who are relatively new to the game."

This question of 'playablity by the masses' has come up on here a number of times regarding PVGC. Most of the time the question is couched in the sentiment that PVGC can never be considered "ideal", and apparently therefore not as great as some believe it is because it is not and never has been playable by the masses.

Personally, I have no time at all for that kind of question or comparison regarding PVGC. Maybe I would if George Crump had attempted to build a golf course that was "playable by the masses" and then gone ahead and built what he did build. But the fact is Crump very decidedly and dedicatedly set out to build a golf course that was NOT supposed to be playable by the masses.

That fact alone may even be a good deal of the enduring allure of PVGC.  

[Brent Hutto]

Tom,

I agree completely and not just w.r.t. Pine Valley (about which I know very little). It's fine to judge a golf course as being great, good, indifferent or whatever adjective you like. But the criterion has to be the type of course that it was intended to be. If a course can be outstanding at its intended purpose and also serve well for others that's even better but you can't say that a course is less-than-great because it isn't all things to all people.

A small-town country club course with long forced carries, water hazards on more than a dozen holes and cavernous greenside bunkers from which a powerful shot is necessary to even reach the green would be poorly done for its intended purpose. If a 70-year-old ten handicapper physically can't make it around the course in a medal round it isn't much of a member's course. The fact that it is suitably punishing for a competition among the best players in the state doesn't make it any "better" in the context of what it is.

Likewise for a spectacular, herioc, difficult man-sized course like Pine Valley. The fact that a 70-year-old ten handicapper who can't hit the ball more than 175 yards in the air wouldn't have as much fun there as a stronger player detracts from it not one bit.

[Tom_Doak]

Brent:  By the same token, I've always maintained that you can't claim a golf course is number one in the world if it clearly doesn't serve half of the golfers in the world at all.  Pine Valley is great architecture, it's just the "number one" thing I have trouble with, because there are a lot of courses that are more "ideal" in the playability department.

However, to make this thread about that is silly.  Old Sandwich is much more playable for the 20 handicap than Pine Valley, but so are most of the other golf courses in the world.  

[Steve_Roths]

Tom,

You can't just tease us like that.  What is the number course in the World in your opinion?

If I was a betting man I would have to say it's either the Old Course or Royal Melbourne.  

Don't leave us hanging......

[Brent Hutto]

Tom D,

You're right, that's one of the reasons I don't like to deal is rankings. You can probably do a good ranking by insisting the very best courses in the world should "have it all" and be great for some purposes and at least very good for all golfers.

But once you get down to, say, the 90th best course in the world you would have to start trading off and asking questions like just how far down do you knock Pine Valley for not being 20-handicap-old-guy friendly. Maybe you'd rank Cypress Point above Pine Valley in part due to its all-around fun factor. So how about Pinehurst #2, playable by one and all yet US Open ready. Is it therefore better than Pine Valley?

At some point you reach a line where Pine Valley truly "better" than let's say East Lake even though the latter does an admirable job of appealing to the broadest range of golfers. Or something like that, I've never really figured out the ranking thing...

[Brent Hutto]

Steve,

The Old Course has to be some sort of Platonic Ideal of a course that can be all things to all people. You can have a picnic or walk your dog there on Sunday morning and Tiger Woods will dominate if you want to use it to find the best player in the world at a major championship. Plus I'd love to play it and I can't hit the ball out of my own shadow. Hard to imagine topping that for Most Flexible Course in the World at the very least.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I agree completely and not just w.r.t. Pine Valley (about which I know very little). It's fine to judge a golf course as being great, good, indifferent or whatever adjective you like. But the criterion has to be the type of course that it was intended to be. If a course can be outstanding at its intended purpose and also serve well for others that's even better but you can't say that a course is less-than-great because it isn't all things to all people."

Brent:

I guess you and I are on the same page on this subject that to be truly great, or say the #1 in the world, a golf course has to be "ideal" in that it has to accomodate well all golfers. I see TomD subscribes to that idea, as apparently did Macdonald and some other of the great golf architects.

That is just not a notion I subscribe to and I doubt I ever will.

To me PVGC probably is #1 in the world and the world's greatest golf course architecture. As far as it accomodating all golfers well, it asks of them that if they want to be accomodated well on that golf course what they need to do is just get better or good enough to play it.

To some that may seem elitist or even arrogant or undemocratic on Crump's part but I believe what he came up with in that vein was actually one of the noblest efforts in the entire history of golf course architecture----eg create a golf course that really can inspire golfers to always want to become better golfers. I can certainly say when I played well at PVGC or Merion I felt a certain sense of satisfaction quite a lot greater than I ever felt playing well on any other golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Brent:  I would always put Pine Valley in my top ten, and I would question the sanity of anyone who didn't.  I just couldn't put it number one for the reason I stated.

I never have rated a #1 course.  If forced to, it would come from the group of St. Andrews, Royal Melbourne, and the National Golf Links of America.  But I can't be forced to choose among them.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

My ranking would be pretty close to your own, the main difference being that I would have Cuscowilla with Kapalua and Bandon Trails at 3-4-5, and Old Sandwich no higher than #6 -- with the caveat that I played it in very early days and I'm sure it will look better as it matures.

I have not seen or played Hidden Creek so I can't speculate where it fits.

[Steve Curry]

I am not as worldly as many but have played both OS and PVGC and put both in the top 5 courses I've seen and or played.  I am particularly fond of the rumpled fairway contours.  I haven’t been to St. Andrews but from what I've seen and heard I would liken OS to hybrid cross between the Old Course and PVGC.

Steve

[mark chalfant]

Bill S,  Jim F,  Jason, Tom Paul, et al  thanks for your thoughtful ideas on this thread
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()