The REAL Golden Age?

[Peter Wagner]

I've been wondering about the Golden Age and what that means.  I guess it would mean a time long ago when great designs became reality and clients were plentiful and the game was mainstream.  But when you stop and think about it... isn't that right now?  If golf has been around since before Old Tom and 33% of all course have been created in the last 20 years wouldn't this be the golden time?  20 years is the blink of an eye.  How many truly wonderful courses have been created in that time? 500? 1000?

Putting the over-supply issue aside for a second, hasn't increasing the number of courses contributed to the popularity and availability of the sport?  Looking into the future can any of us imagine a time when we will again add 5,000 courses in a 20 year span (that's just the U.S.!)

I remember reading a quote from Tommy Jefferson where he wistfully longs for the golden age of politics as he reads about Europe in the mid-1600's.  He was quoted on this just days after writing the Declaration of Independence.

I clearly remember my computer science teachers arguing that the golden age of computers had ended when the IBM PC went on sale.

It's my humble opinion that when today's history is written many years from now that it is this time that will be revered.  I believe that this the REAL Golden Age?

Best,
Peter

[John Moore II]

I can see where you are coming from, however, let me steer you back on course, lad. While many great courses have been built in the past 20 years, how many of those upper level clubs can compete with the upper level clubs of the 1920's and 30's? Very few, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills and Victoria National come to mind. However, to look at the upper end of the work and base the judgement there, there is no question finer golf courses were built in the 1920's and 30's.

[Kyle Harris]

I despise the term. To me it implies that golf's best days are behind it.

J. Ken,

How many courses from your golden age survived to the present day? I'd imagine there is a preponderance of great courses from that era because only the great ones survived to today.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

I agree, and I agree on all levels.

As to the high rankings of the GA courses, no doubt the top ones earn based on design quality, but some of it is nostalgia, some is history and tradition, and some is perspectivre.

As to perspective, I will offer this - many romantically look back at the 1950's as a great time. Yeah, if you were a white male!  For a lot of others, it wasn't so great yet we revere it as a country, glossing over so many things.  If nothing else, the current era has brought the public venue up to the level of the country clubs, democtratising golf. For that, its a great age, but in addition, our top courses match the top courses of the Golden Age as well.  Moreover, given the length issues and changes in the way the game is played, in the not too distant future we will look up and see most tournaments played on modern courses, too.  (Not all, but more and more) because they are better suited for tournament golf, too.  Think Torrey, CB, EH, WS, etc.

None of this is meant to take away from the greatest of Golden Age courses. Its just a genralized opinion.  Like Kyle, I believe that in virtually every field of endeavor, those who think we can never equal the past much less improve it, have been proven wrong. And, if we can't, then why don't we all just jump off a bridge, anyway?

[John Moore II]

Kyle--I dislike the term golden age as well. But either way, the surviving courses are generally far better than the courses being produced today, even on the top end of the spectrum. As far as courses surviving, I can think of some GA courses that I would consider good, but not great. Not all of them left over are great, I can even think of some that I would say are poor.

[Jeff Doerr]

Peter,

Count me in the agreement camp. This last 10-15 years is so competitive, with such great tools, knowledge and talent. Yes, some of the best property may be gone, but the advent of transportation and media advancement is taking the craft to new best places. In the 20s, a place like Sandhills would never have even made it to the dream stage.

In addition, we have the restoration move for many of the golden age courses that are getting them to a place that they've never been. My guess is Pasatiempo is better today than it has ever been. By the images, I know it is better than when I used to play it in the early 90s.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

The Real Golden Age has come and gone. You can’t equate quantity with quality.

IMHO the Real Golden Age belongs to the earlier Designers who developed the game pre 1900, not the period in the early/mid 20th Century and certainly not over the last 20-30 years.

I expect you know my stance on carts and their paths, so I can’t agree with you. Having said that I am not criticising the designers, as clearly there have been some wonderful course opened during this period (500? – 1,000? No certainly not). Although there are many, many average course out there as well.

You mentioned
hasn't increasing the number of courses contributed to the popularity and availability of the sport?’
No, I don’t think that statement is correct – for that we need look to the Media & TV coverage over the same time period - which I believe will more answer your question. 

An age when Designers have had all the latest information to hand, from soil through to aerial/satellite images with access to large budgets and land.  Yet, will all the new courses stay the distance, will they take the test of time - that has still to be proved.

So certainly not a Golden Age, or Classical Age, and when the history is written it will just be classified as an Age of Change.

[Doug Ralston]

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33390.0.html

Who said what?

Doug

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

You raise, but perhaps don't fully explore some interesting points in your post.

Its true that the current courses don't stand the test of time - yet.  So, if that is your criteria, then only the Golden Age will suffice for you.  But it doesn't mean that they won't.  And it tends to exclude the fact that the Golden Age courses that didn't stand the test of time are either unrecognizeable and little discussed munis, or shopping centers by now.

That point reinforces for me that many manage to compare the very best of the Golden Age with the average course of today.  Cypress Point vs. the new upscale public?  No contest.  The real test would be something like the Shinny/NGLA vs. Sebonac/Atlantic etc.  In the Midwest you might compare LM Wakonda in Des Moines, vs. Fazio's Glen Oak country club.

I doubt that there is any question that having interesting courses available at mid price levels has fueled interest in golf.  In the golden age it was great club or bad muni, hardly an inspring choice for the 90% plus  of golfers who can't afford a club.

Lastly, because we all tend to lump the past together, its easy to overlook the fact that golf and golf design have always undergone continuous and slow change.  Look at the change of designs from 1980 until today - about 25 years and you can see its a lot different.  Look at the pioneer era you rightly point out as a golden age. It was a big change era just to adapt a seaside game to varying US climates from 1895-1920.  The next ten years built on those fundamentals (probably starting closer to 1910, so the eras overlapped) to focus more on design quality rather than the basic technical aspects.
A deep analysis would probably reveal that change has been constant.

[TEPaul]

I believe the so-called "Golden Age of Golf Architecture" which probably had its beginnings around 1900 and then really began to evolve into the teens and particularly the 1920s was not a matter of the amount of golf courses being built but was really a matter of an era of exciting evolving thought and fascinating ideas and adventurousness into what golf architecture (and golf) should ultimately be. A good deal of this was about the nature of the game itself but one of the real hallmarks of the best of the Golden Age was the idea of the look of naturalism assigned to golf architecture.

In the last 15 to 20 years there has been a new age in golf architecture but in my opinion most of the best of it is something of a renaissance of that original Golden Age style.

[wsmorrison]

While not a fan of ranking golf courses, here are the top 50 classic and modern courses for 2008 by Golfweek.   Compare the classic to modern to see which category has the most winners in a match play by position.   I haven't been to all these courses, far from it.  But it seems to me, of the top 50, Classics would win by a landslide.  The edge would be greater at the top and decrease as the list gets longer.  I doubt modern would come out on top regardless of the sample size.  Of course there are a number of courses on the modern list that are better than some of the courses on the classic list.  But very few if considered in order.

1.  Cypress Point   vs.  Sand Hills
2.  Pine Valley  vs.  Pacific Dunes
3.  Shinnecock Hills  vs.  Whistling Straits
4.  Pebble Beach  vs.  Friar's Head
5.  Merion East  vs.  Pete Dye GC
6.  Oakmont  vs.  Bandon Dunes
7.  NGLA  vs.  Kinloch
8.  Crystal Downs  vs.  The Golf Club
9.  Prairie Dunes  vs.  Shadow Creek
10.  Augusta National  vs.  Muirfield Village
11.  Pinehurst 2  vs.  Honors
12.  Fishers Island  vs.  TPC Sawgrass
13.  San Francisco GC  vs.  Ballyneal
14.  Seminole  vs.  Sebonack
15.  Chicago GC  vs.  Old Sandwich
16.  Oakland Hills  vs.  Spyglass Hill
17.  Winged Foot West  vs.  Chambers Bay
18.  LA CC North  vs.  Kingsley Club
19.  Garden City  vs.  Wade Hampton
20.  Olympic Club Lake  vs.  Ocean Course at Kiawah
21.  TCC, Brookline  vs.  Bandon Trails
22.  Bethpage Black  vs.  Calusa Pines
23.  Southern Hills  vs.  Dallas National
24.  Riviera  vs.  Wolf Run
25.  Camargo  vs.  Wild Horse
26.  Wannamoisett  vs.  Desert Forest
27.  Shoreacres  vs.  Castle Pines
28.  Plainfield  vs.  Blackwolf Run
29.  Somerset Hills  vs.  Dunes Club
30.  Oak Hill East  vs.  World Woods
31.  Pasatiempo  vs.  Montery Peninsula Shore
32.  Myopia Hunt  vs.  Bayonne
33.  Winged Foot East  vs.  Harbour Town
34.  Peachtree  vs.  Galloway National
35.  Quaker Ridge  vs.  Mayacama
36.  Inverness  vs.  Briggs Ranch
37.  Maidstone  vs.  Double Eagle
38.  Baltimore CC East  vs.  Arcadia Bluffs
39.  Baltusrol Lower  vs.  Cuscowilla
40.  Yeamans Hall  vs.  Black Diamond Ranch
41.  Valley Club of Montecito  vs.  Sutton Bay
42.  Olympia Fields North  vs.  Karsten Creek
43.  Salem CC  vs.  Paa-Ko Ridge
44.  Yale  vs.  Pronghorn Fazio
45.  Cascades  vs.  Concession
46.  White Bear YC  vs.  Long Cove
47.  Newport CC  vs.  Quail Hollow
48.  East Lake  vs.  Boston GC
49.  Scioto  vs.  Forest Highlands
50.  Cherry Hills  vs.  The Rim

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

Fascinating. If you went to a Michelin star system and decided that only the top 50 courses get five stars, I would guess that no more than 10 or 12 of the moderns would bump the same number of classics.

That suggests that the GA really occurred in the time frames that are normally assigned to it.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

The question is whether or not your opinion of which is better is based on history, etc. I have little doubt that based on pure architectural merits, for instance that 36  Inverness  vs.  Briggs Ranch would be a wash if viewed just for the architecture, if not having BR winning handily. But those major tourneys at Inverness might tip the scale towards wanting to play Inverness, no? 

Some interesting matchups there, BTW. For that matter, on pure architecture I think Friars Head is way up on PB.  For almost any Dye course, I would think the test of golf would actually be more exciting than the course he faces off against, and probably more difficult.  In that case, a preference might enter in - you might want the Dye course for a once a year outing and a Ross course for everyday play because its not so hard.  As mentioned elsewhere, the newer courses tend more often to be resort courses in greater proportions.

There are very few courses on either the modern or classic lists that I wouldn't want to play. 

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

Perhaps you need to re-read my post, noting the following points

‘as clearly there have been some wonderful course opened during this period (500? – 1,000? No certainly not). Although there are many, many average course out there as well’.

‘Yet, will all the new courses stay the distance, will they take the test of time - that has still to be proved’

I am not an Architect or a Designer, but I am wondering if the current North American method of course construction will be sustained with the oncoming problems relating to environmental problems i.e. fairway/green construction/choice of soil/green grass, carbon footprints and of course what may become the big issue - water consumption. This may well affect how history is recorded.

We may even see course construction reverting to using the early methods (pre-1900's) to combat the environmental issues. Know that would be interesting!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I got that point! But in truth, there were no more than 500-1000 great courses built in the Golden Age either and probably much less, like 100-250 or so.   And, while more courses have been built in the years since, less were built with the specific idea of being great country clubs, no?

Look at old line cities like Chi, Philly or NY.  They might each have 100 country clubs, most built in the 1920's with a smattering of newer ones built each decade as demand grew via population gains and opening up new suburbia (ie most people want to play closer to home rather than at a greater course 50 miles away for time reasons)  Most of the new courses built since WWII are publics, by about a 2:1 ratio.

[wsmorrison]

Jeff,

I agree that there is little doubt anyone would enjoy playing any of the 100 courses I listed.  How would the highest ranked Pete Dye courses fair against the classics opposite them, Shinnecock Hills and Merion East?  OK, so maybe the 36th courses on the lists would not favor the classic list, I have no idea.  I know that it wouldn't be unanimous, but come on, how close is it?  My guess is not very. 

Of the top 10, I would take Friar's Head over Pebble Beach by a fairly significant margin.  That's it for the moderns over the classics in that grouping, though their are some fascinating and close matchups.
 
Bob,

This is an interesting analysis, isn't it?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B:

Did you really just call Briggs Ranch and Inverness even on architectural quality?

[Sean_A]

While not a fan of ranking golf courses, here are the top 50 classic and modern courses for 2008 by Golfweek.   Compare the classic to modern to see which category has the most winners in a match play by position.   I haven't been to all these courses, far from it.  But it seems to me, of the top 50, Classics would win by a landslide.  The edge would be greater at the top and decrease as the list gets longer.  I doubt modern would come out on top regardless of the sample size.  Of course there are a number of courses on the modern list that are better than some of the courses on the classic list.  But very few if considered in order.

1.  Cypress Point   vs.  Sand Hills
2.  Pine Valley  vs.  Pacific Dunes
3.  Shinnecock Hills  vs.  Whistling Straits
4.  Pebble Beach  vs.  Friar's Head
5.  Merion East  vs.  Pete Dye GC
6.  Oakmont  vs.  Bandon Dunes
7.  NGLA  vs.  Kinloch
8.  Crystal Downs  vs.  The Golf Club
9.  Prairie Dunes  vs.  Shadow Creek
10.  Augusta National  vs.  Muirfield Village
11.  Pinehurst 2  vs.  Honors
12.  Fishers Island  vs.  TPC Sawgrass
13.  San Francisco GC  vs.  Ballyneal
14.  Seminole  vs.  Sebonack
15.  Chicago GC  vs.  Old Sandwich
16.  Oakland Hills  vs.  Spyglass Hill
17.  Winged Foot West  vs.  Chambers Bay
18.  LA CC North  vs.  Kingsley Club
19.  Garden City  vs.  Wade Hampton
20.  Olympic Club Lake  vs.  Ocean Course at Kiawah
21.  TCC, Brookline  vs.  Bandon Trails
22.  Bethpage Black  vs.  Calusa Pines
23.  Southern Hills  vs.  Dallas National
24.  Riviera  vs.  Wolf Run
25.  Camargo  vs.  Wild Horse
26.  Wannamoisett  vs.  Desert Forest
27.  Shoreacres  vs.  Castle Pines
28.  Plainfield  vs.  Blackwolf Run
29.  Somerset Hills  vs.  Dunes Club
30.  Oak Hill East  vs.  World Woods
31.  Pasatiempo  vs.  Montery Peninsula Shore
32.  Myopia Hunt  vs.  Bayonne
33.  Winged Foot East  vs.  Harbour Town
34.  Peachtree  vs.  Galloway National
35.  Quaker Ridge  vs.  Mayacama
36.  Inverness  vs.  Briggs Ranch
37.  Maidstone  vs.  Double Eagle
38.  Baltimore CC East  vs.  Arcadia Bluffs
39.  Baltusrol Lower  vs.  Cuscowilla
40.  Yeamans Hall  vs.  Black Diamond Ranch
41.  Valley Club of Montecito  vs.  Sutton Bay
42.  Olympia Fields North  vs.  Karsten Creek
43.  Salem CC  vs.  Paa-Ko Ridge
44.  Yale  vs.  Pronghorn Fazio
45.  Cascades  vs.  Concession
46.  White Bear YC  vs.  Long Cove
47.  Newport CC  vs.  Quail Hollow
48.  East Lake  vs.  Boston GC
49.  Scioto  vs.  Forest Highlands
50.  Cherry Hills  vs.  The Rim

Wayne

There are some very interesting matchups.  Other than the first two which I could see folks debating endlessly about (in other words I bet there isn't a given best), the Seminole VS Sebanock would be a very intriguing contrast/comparison.

Ciao

[Jeff Doerr]

In the classic vs. modern distinction, GW sets the date at 1960 and puts the golden age from 1919 to 1939. When would we start the current age for a 20 year span or so?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff B:

Did you really just call Briggs Ranch and Inverness even on architectural quality?

Tom D,

Yeah....got a problem with that?   Nice site, spectacular Fazio course, no history. Kind of illustrates my point perfectly.  Inverness is fairly flat, back and forth, not a hell of a lot of variety, except for the great 5th (now 7th) and the Fazio holes don't fit all that well.  (although time seems to have melded them in a lot better than the stark new holes they were for the 1980 tourney)

Don't get me wrong, as Inverness is a nice course that I enjoy.  But, I tend to think the history and tradition sways us in a way that would allow knowledgealbe people to believe they could just roll their eyes and sigh, and every one here would know exactly what they were talking about. 

However, that is not real architectural analysis is it?  Briggs Ranch is a great members course, many solid holes, some memorable ones, etc. as Inverness was intended to be, before Toledo city fathers decided a major tournament would enhance a lackluster industrial town, which it did (several times)

I believe BR has equal merit to INV as a course, history aside, yes I do.  Each has their charms to be sure, and each is different.

[Jeff_Brauer]

POST DELETED FOR INACCURACIES.

[tlavin]

Wayne,

Thanks for your post.  It was an interesting exercise to go through the matchups.  My rough conclusion is that the Top 25 battles were tough to call in many instances, but that the Classics pounded the Moderns thereafter.  In some respects, the Classics had some unbeatable advantages (availability of land, principally) but the Moderns have technological advantages (knowledge of the Classics and technical stuff like earthmoving and drainage), but it is interesting indeed that the Classic courses ultimately feel far superior to my untrained eye in this sort of matchup.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak,

Have you played Inverness AND Briggs Ranch?  Or is this insinuation another of your "Confidential Guide" drive-by reviews? 

Briggs Ranch is a wonderful course from start to finish, and yeah, I think architecturally it is superior to Inverness.


Wayne Morrison,

Thanks for posting the side-by-side Golfweek lists.  An interesting exercise, but given that you and many others don't believe in the validity of the rankings, does comparing two sets of invalid data not make it doubly invalid or next to useless?

I've thought about this long and hard back when I was playing a lot of new (to me) courses.  It seemed to me that the best among the Classics were more enjoyable than the best of the Moderns.  However, I also developed the opinion that the average course being built today was far better than the average course built in the past.
 
Jeff Brauer,

George Will recently made an observation regarding a well-known sportscaster: "whose commitment to fact was episodic".  I missed the casualties memo from TRWCC (The Right-Wing Conspiracy Council).  Does your E-Mail provide the source for the data?

Terry Lavin,

By definition, the Classics are at least 50 years old.  Do you think that age (maturation, design changes, tournament history, exposure, and even simple sentimentality) might have anything to do with it?  Might the Moderns begin to catch up as a result of the same maturation process?

 

 

[Joe Perches]

For those of us lamenting the casulties and deaths in the current war, take a look at the military death stats going back 25 years through war and non war

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

Thanks for the support on Briggs Ranch. I would be interested to know if TD has played it too.

As to the email, this is the link. I went there during lunch and found that the email reports some innacuracies, and twisted some facts as the full email proposed that left wing media would do.  According to another source, total deaths in the Iraq War starting in 2003 are over 25K, so my bad.  This was the link.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/08/081005.html#1


Thus, I guess the only gca lesson learned is that we can, if we wish, twist almost any stat to prove anything we want and perhaps jump too quickly to do so.