[Jeff_Brauer]

Got this idea from a post on the Ask JN thread.....

Seriously, would you build the TOC in true spirit AND look, including the double fw?  Once more, I think gca's of all generations revere the TOC, but none (including MacKenzie who named his book after it) actually built anything that looked like it, had the shared greens, etc.


Would you build it again?  How about NGLA?

[Dan Kelly]

The tort lawyers wouldn't let you build it in America -- would they?

[Brent Hutto]

Not to get too deep in the pseudo-philosophical doodoo here but perhaps The Old Course is so great that the world only needs one of it. It reminds me of yet another Wendell Berry poem titled To the Unseeable Animal. The poet quotes his daughter:

"I hope there's an animal
Somewhere that nobody has ever seen.
And I hope nobody ever sees it."

I'd paraphrase that to say that I hope there's not another course like The Old Course and I hope nobody ever builds it.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

One project I'd like to build someday is a reversible course with double fairways, starting from flat ground.  I wouldn't copy The Old Course, but I would certainly use a fair number of her features.

I think it's a great solution for a Phoenix site with limited acreage of turf.  I've just got to find a developer who sees the light.

[Rick Shefchik]

Are we tolerant enough of our fellow golfers -- or sufficiently capable of ignoring them -- to handle double greens in the 21st century?

I haven't played TOC since 1984, and I don't recall that sharing a huge green with another group was a problem then, but I'm having trouble trying to imagine it in practice on a U.S. course now. Golf carts screeching to a stop or gunning off to the next hole while your group is trying to putt out, or off-target shots rolling close to, or into, your group, sounds like a recipe for some hard feelings.

I know many will tell me it just isn't the case at St. Andrews, but then, they've had 500 years to get used to shared greens and fairways. We've gone the other way in the U.S. We seem to prefer isolation, and a me-first mentality.

Let me put it this way: etiquette had better make a strong comeback if this is going to work.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Frankly, as much as we all love the Old Course, I think Jeff's proposition would be risky.

I remember walking the Old Course with Tim Liddy and half-jokingly asking him what contemporary golfers would think about hitting something like the first three of four or five tee shots at a new course over gorse-covered contours that hide the fairway from view.

I think we agreed it probably wouldn't go over well... at least out of the gate  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

There is the real mystery of the old course - how is it that repeat players "see" the hazards, even though they can't be seen?  I recall hearing (and calling BS on) that theory, until I experienced that phenomenon on my second playing.......

BTW, its not my proposition. Its my question. I think I am in the "not til we kill all the lawyers" camp.

But, even taking away the safety factor - say Tom Doak's course was for Indian lands where the courts are harder to recover from, let me rephrase the question to how close would we build a course to TOC features?  

I guess I got to wondering that, since all gca's have paid homage to it, but few courses look like it, why just ask on the JN thread?  

What modern course embraces the Spirit of St. Andrews the most?

How did CBM arrive at his look of NGLA?  

How does ANGC replicate the "Spirit of St. Andrews" in its original form?  

It actually seems to me that the ODG from the GA really meant to craft a new paradigm, no?  If not, enlighten me.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am quite suprised that no one has created a TOC copy, with todays mapping (I assume one does exist at 0.25 VI) it could be reasonably achieved.
Something in principle as suggested is probably more likely in order to avoid the litigation minefield. I suppose blind tee shots into shared areas is just a no no, I think shared greens is probably not a problem, as I remember nothing is blind other than the 6th/12th share on the 6th side.
TD- I have looked at a reversable as well and at one stage I had the piece of land which was flat landfill site about 1600 x 800, sort of enough for 4 runs of 4 holes with a short hole pair at the end. I must dig the design out, I did not use shared fairways though. Alas they never went the golf course route.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
TOC seems to me to be the Monument Valley of its genre.

[Bill Brightly]

If you built the road hole again (assuming there had never been one before) everyone would think you were crazy and they would KILL the hole on this site!

[JC Jones]

Jeff:

One project I'd like to build someday is a reversible course with double fairways, starting from flat ground.  I wouldn't copy The Old Course, but I would certainly use a fair number of her features.

I think it's a great solution for a Phoenix site with limited acreage of turf.  I've just got to find a developer who sees the light.

Tom D

Would it be named Old.... Tom Morris??

[Gary Slatter]

Takes too long to mature.

[Tom_Doak]

The one thing I wouldn't copy would be the double greens.  For me, they are too limiting of a factor in the design.

As for the Road Hole, there have been innumberable copies in the USA already.  We just don't make the tee shot blind ... because that is NOT the feature that makes the hole so good.

[cary lichtenstein]

I posted this question about a year ago.

I think no one has built one because they think that it would not make any money, perhaps it could be the 5th course at Bandon.

[Peter Pallotta]

"I think it's a great solution for a Phoenix site with limited acreage of turf.  I've just got to find a developer who sees the light."

Tom
If by a Phoenix site you mean a piece of "re-claimed" land of limited acreage, I really do hope you find that developer. I think it would be one of the best things that could possibly happen to the future of golf and golf course architecture, on several fronts.  (It might still be that even if another architect(s) got the chance instead of you; but I think it would send a louder and clearer message to the golfing world if the messenger was well-known and well-regarded.)

I think one of the most important reasons for -- and benefits of -- discussing TOC, or multiple tees, or early iterations of Augusta National, or modern courses, or Max Behr and Joshua Crane, or maintenance practices etc, etc is that in some way these discussions just might coalesce and filter out and start shaping the “conversation” that developers are having about what's possible and feasible/profitable; and I can't help but think that this will produce in the long run more golf courses, better golf courses, healthier golf courses, and (if the supply meets demand) less expensive golf courses/green fees.

All that together should mean the continued vitality of the game at the very broadest “amateur” level; and you don’t need to think “growing the game” all that important to think this a good thing.

Gee, I sure hope “phoenix site” doesn’t mean something else completely.

Peter  

[Bill Brightly]

Tom D:

What I mean is if you actually used a real road behind the green, and had people hit over a building...they would call you crazy, wouldn't they?

[JMorgan]

I think one of the most important reasons for -- and benefits of -- discussing TOC, or multiple tees, or early iterations of Augusta National, or modern courses, or Max Behr and Joshua Crane, or maintenance practices etc, etc is that in some way these discussions just might coalesce and filter out and start shaping the “conversation” that developers are having about what's possible and feasible/profitable; and I can't help but think that this will produce in the long run more golf courses, better golf courses, healthier golf courses, and (if the supply meets demand) less expensive golf courses/green fees.

All that together should mean the continued vitality of the game at the very broadest “amateur” level; and you don’t need to think “growing the game” all that important to think this a good thing.

Very nicely put, Peter.  I don't know of too many developers who are willing to take the time -- barring a few exceptional outliers.  

[Dan Kelly]

The one thing I wouldn't copy would be the double greens.  For me, they are too limiting of a factor in the design.

As for the Road Hole, there have been innumberable copies in the USA already.  We just don't make the tee shot blind ... because that is NOT the feature that makes the hole so good.

Does ANY of TOC's blind tee shots help make the course so good?

[Bill_McBride]

I guess you guys are forgetting that Mr. Nicklaus has already built a pretty decent emulation at Grand Cypress in Orlando, "The New Course."   I thought it was a lot of fun to play, several large double greens, reasonably fast.

Of course since that time I've played "The OLD Course" half a dozen times, once in reverse, and there is just a passing resemblance!  

[Brock Peyer]

Probably not, most hotels are too big to hit over.

[BCrosby]

I think one of the most important reasons for -- and benefits of -- discussing TOC, or multiple tees, or early iterations of Augusta National, or modern courses, or Max Behr and Joshua Crane, or maintenance practices etc, etc is that in some way these discussions just might coalesce and filter out and start shaping the “conversation” that developers are having about what's possible and feasible/profitable; and I can't help but think that this will produce in the long run more golf courses, better golf courses, healthier golf courses, and (if the supply meets demand) less expensive golf courses/green fees.

All that together should mean the continued vitality of the game at the very broadest “amateur” level; and you don’t need to think “growing the game” all that important to think this a good thing.

Peter -

To echo JMorgan, well said.

I share your hope that a better understanding of those old issues and battles will ultimately have a salutory effect on modern gca. I'm not sure it will, btw.  But it certainly seems worth a try.

Bob

[tlavin]

The tort lawyers wouldn't let you build it in America -- would they?

The journalists would piss all over themselves trying to play it for free, wouldn't they?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom D:

What I mean is if you actually used a real road behind the green, and had people hit over a building...they would call you crazy, wouldn't they?

FWIW, this is how my game typically "interfaces" w development courses.

[Tony Ristola]

Yes, but with the Joshua Crane opener  

The reversible course... that's something I've had an idea about but for a climate where golfers can play all year, and the greens usually take a beating in the winter. The idea would be to play from an area near the "summer" greens to the free form, undulating, expansive tees.

[Dan Kelly]

The tort lawyers wouldn't let you build it in America -- would they?

The journalists would piss all over themselves trying to play it for free, wouldn't they?

Some of them, I suppose, would -- but I don't associate with any of them, so I couldn't say for sure.

Can anyone answer my question?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()