Is it possible to build the best course in the world?

[Alex Lagowitz]

Is this possible?

What are the restraints?
Land?
Architect?
Client?

Is there a bias towards classical architecture in determining the greatest course in the world?

In the last 50-60 years, no course has even challenged the top 10 in the world (except for Sand Hills which is still not even close to the top 3).

[Tom_Doak]

Alex:

It's possible, though unlikely.

My guess is that to do it, both architect and developer [if not one and the same] will have to take a lot of risks, and probably build a course that DOESN'T work for everybody.  In other words, it is more likely to be a modern-day Pine Valley than a modern-day St. Andrews.

It would be difficult for an established architect to do it, because most have established a style and it would be imperative to do something DIFFERENT from that style in order for the course to be recognized as distinct and superior to all his other work.  Difficult, but not impossible.

On the other hand, it would be difficult for a non-established architect to do it, because he's unlikely to get such a plum assignment or to be 100% capable of handling it.

[TEPaul]

"Is it possible to build the best course in the world?"


Alex:

The best course in the world according to whom?

[Mac Plumart]

Yes.  And it will be built in China.

You heard it here first.

[Tom_Doak]

Yes.  And it will be built in China.

You heard it here first.

Actually, I'm already on record on that count.

[Adam_Messix]

Tom Doak--

Great answer, there's a lot of truth to what you said.

Alex, Tom Paul, et al--

I think it is possible to build something better than the courses that are considered best today, although I think many of Tom Doak's points make it very difficult.  It would have to be something totally different than what we see today, something like Pine Valley when it came along although it would have to be different in it's own unique way.  I think for it to happen in the USA, the property would have to be pretty extraordinary because of all the environmental regulations that you have to deal with.  That's why it would be far more likely to happen in a place like China.  In some respects, you'd think it'd be easier to pull off simply because you could potentially create things that the guys back in early 20th century couldn't. 

Also, my guess is that the course would most likely not be considered the best until the guy who built it was long dead because I'm sure his unique design is likely to not agree with the vies of some of the people on the various panels.  It takes time for things that require subjectivity like great golf course and great wine to be loved.

[Mac Plumart]

Yes.  And it will be built in China.

You heard it here first.

Actually, I'm already on record on that count.

You heard it here second.

 

[Scott Weersing]

Alex:

It's possible, though unlikely.

My guess is that to do it, both architect and developer [if not one and the same] will have to take a lot of risks, and probably build a course that DOESN'T work for everybody.  In other words, it is more likely to be a modern-day Pine Valley than a modern-day St. Andrews.

It would be difficult for an established architect to do it, because most have established a style and it would be imperative to do something DIFFERENT from that style in order for the course to be recognized as distinct and superior to all his other work.  Difficult, but not impossible.

On the other hand, it would be difficult for a non-established architect to do it, because he's unlikely to get such a plum assignment or to be 100% capable of handling it.

When Tom wrote, "probably build a course that DOESN'T work for everybody" I thought of Old Macdonald. But it is a modern-day St. Andrews rather than a modern-day Pine Valley. Will there be another course like Old Macdonald built in the next 20 years? Probably not because people are not willing to take a risk on such a different course.

So it is possible to build the best course in the world? I believe it would have to be inland, and have a sand base. There are not many places left in the US for this "best course in the world" so it might be in China, or some other locale. It would be a risk in that people would have to travel to this new far away place to discover this "best course in the world". It could be in a modern country with lots of rules because I don't think it will have lots of wetlands, coastline or water. Those types of courses have already been built (Whistling Straits, PGA Sawgrass). So I am thinking a place like Sand Hills but with trees. So I would try to find a place with sand dunes covered in pine trees where you could create a course.

So who knows. It would take a visionary developer and then next up and coming architect. Who is the next Tom Doak or Mike Stantz?

[Steve D]

I thought Donald Trump had already done it.   

[Sam Morrow]

Will the best course in the world really be in China or will developers want to build lots of course that look like American resort golf? I could see a place like Shadow Creek being manufactured for the Chinese.

[Alex Miller]

Will the best course in the world really be in China or will developers want to build lots of course that look like American resort golf? I could see a place like Shadow Creek being manufactured for the Chinese.

Why not both?

Shadow Creek is in the same country as CPC, ANGC, SH, PV, etc...

[Sam Morrow]

Will the best course in the world really be in China or will developers want to build lots of course that look like American resort golf? I could see a place like Shadow Creek being manufactured for the Chinese.

Why not both?

Shadow Creek is in the same country as CPC, ANGC, SH, PV, etc...

Fair point.

[Bob_Huntley]

There was an opportunty to do so when RTJ, Tom Watson and Sandy Tatum collaborated on Spanish Bay in the Del Monte Forest. There was a spent sand pit on one the most glorious sites in Christendom, we got not another Cypress Point but a very good course that was watered down to please the California Coastal Commision. The stuff about sensitive native plants is quite remarkable, hundreds of plants were imported and placed in positions ill suited to golf.

There was another caveat to it becoming a great course, the CCC required that any competion held there could have no more than five thousand spectators.

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

As a definition of terms, I don't think it is possible to 'build' the best course in the world anymore, so much as it may be possible to lay one out upon perfect land.  If it happens, I think it will be a collaboration of a very wealthy and eccentric owner/developer, and a great GCA.  Or, one of our great GCAs will become that wealthy eccentric person and make the goal to 'create' the best course in the world.  And, it probably won't happen in the U.S.A.   I think if it happens, it will be somewhere in South America or Australia/NZ.  But, the more it is 'built' the less likely it will be a contender for best in world. 

[Jim Nugent]

Yes.  And it will be built in China.

You heard it here first.

Actually, I'm already on record on that count.

You heard it here second.

 

I'll take the contrarian position, and predict it does not happen in China. 

[Mac Plumart]

To be frank, I really think the answer might not lie with the golf course at all.  Rather the raters.

I believe the way Golf Magazine does it, doesn't lend itself to turnover at the top.  Turnover at the top, per their process, only occurs when people change their mind.  I can make a logical case, based on known patterns of human behavior, that this will not happen until a new process is adopted and/or a new crop of raters is brought in.

[Tom_Doak]

To be frank, I really think the answer might not lie with the golf course at all.  Rather the raters.

I believe the way Golf Magazine does it, doesn't lend itself to turnover at the top.  Turnover at the top, per their process, only occurs when people change their mind.  I can make a logical case, based on known patterns of human behavior, that this will not happen until a new process is adopted and/or a new crop of raters is brought in.

Mac:

That's a very important point and it's lost on a lot of people -- no matter how good a course you build, it's ultimately a subjective matter and having it ranked among the top 50 or top 10 in the world ultimately depends on the psychology of the people on the rating panel.  You say it's more true for the GOLF Magazine panel, but it's true for them all, whether they are submitting number grades or letter grades or whatever, it's just human nature that many people will hold onto their own personal favorite no matter what. 

The #1 spot on the GOLFWEEK Modern and Classic lists hasn't changed too much over the years, either; and GOLF DIGEST's only varies because they keep fudging around with how they compute the numbers.

[Matt MacIver]

Having never been to PV, I'll ask: is the secret ingrediant that makes it the (near) consensus #1 the length of time taken to design and build it?  Or the collaboration between so many great archies?  Or because Crump was the main decision maker AND spend so much time on-site? 

I can't see all of these ingrediants coming together again. 

What if Coore & Crenshaw lived at Sand Hills for a decade?  And owned the property?  And sought out other's opinions in full force?  Would SH then have been able to crack the top 5 and/or vie for #1? 

[Rick Shefchik]

When the rich folk of Minneapolis created Woodhill Country Club near Lake Minnetonka in 1915, they hired Donald Ross with the express purpose of having him design the best golf course in America -- specifically, he was instructed to top Pine Valley, and Ross intended to do so.

Woodhill is built on a beautifully hilly site, but the former farmland was rocky and clay-based. The result was a very fine golf course, but not the best in America -- and the consensus opinion is that it's not the best course in Minnesota.

Intent is not enough. Given the Woodhill example, I think the land has to be near perfect for golf. Then you can shoot for the stars.

[Stephen Davis]

To be frank, I really think the answer might not lie with the golf course at all.  Rather the raters.

I believe the way Golf Magazine does it, doesn't lend itself to turnover at the top.  Turnover at the top, per their process, only occurs when people change their mind.  I can make a logical case, based on known patterns of human behavior, that this will not happen until a new process is adopted and/or a new crop of raters is brought in.

Mac:

That's a very important point and it's lost on a lot of people -- no matter how good a course you build, it's ultimately a subjective matter and having it ranked among the top 50 or top 10 in the world ultimately depends on the psychology of the people on the rating panel.  You say it's more true for the GOLF Magazine panel, but it's true for them all, whether they are submitting number grades or letter grades or whatever, it's just human nature that many people will hold onto their own personal favorite no matter what. 

The #1 spot on the GOLFWEEK Modern and Classic lists hasn't changed too much over the years, either; and GOLF DIGEST's only varies because they keep fudging around with how they compute the numbers.

Tom,

So here is the question. How does one become a rater? It seems to me that we are all frustrated by the raters, but is this going to change with the current raters? The more effective way of creating change within the system would be not to change to process but change the individuals. This would be a slow process, but it seems to me that many of the raters have been doing this for so long that there has begun to be a sort of group think among them. New blood is what they need, but how to get the new blood in?

[Jud_T]

Here's an analogy:  Jack White, formerly of the White Stripes, is currently touring in support of his new album.  He is touring with two different bands, one all female, one all male.  They accompany him on alternating evenings I believe.  They aren't allowed to listen to one other.  Why you ask?  So they won't be influenced by one another and each group can develop it's own independent artistic identity playing a similar set list.  Raters play with each other, know each other and know the consensus view of all the old stalwarts.  It's virtually impossible to get a truly independent view, particularly when you take a large sample size and round off the rough edges, regardless of how good or knowledgeable the individuals are.    Time for Son of Confidential Guide....

[Tom_Doak]

Having never been to PV, I'll ask: is the secret ingrediant that makes it the (near) consensus #1 the length of time taken to design and build it?  Or the collaboration between so many great archies?  Or because Crump was the main decision maker AND spend so much time on-site? 

I can't see all of these ingrediants coming together again. 

What if Coore & Crenshaw lived at Sand Hills for a decade?  And owned the property?  And sought out other's opinions in full force?  Would SH then have been able to crack the top 5 and/or vie for #1? 

Matt:

Ask any writer or advertising person and they will tell you -- people fall for a good story.

Pine Valley has a great backstory, as we all know.  So do Augusta National, and Oakmont, and Cypress Point, and Oakland Hills.  And certainly St. Andrews, too.

Sand Hills has its own story [about the 120 holes, and about how little earth was moved], which has served it quite well, too.  Bandon Dunes resort has a story -- even a book.  Barnbougle Dunes has its narrative, about how a self-professed spud farmer who knew nothing about golf could wind up developing a great course.  Even Streamsong already has its own narrative, about how Bill Coore and I worked together to route the two courses.

Do not be fooled for a minute that these stories aren't important to the rankings successes of these various projects.  I'm certainly not saying that they aren't great courses -- I'm already on record about how much I respect each of them.  But, I'm saying that a great new course will likely need its own great narrative.  And, in regard to your example, the same narrative as Pine Valley's is probably not going to be enough.

[Jason Thurman]

So it is possible to build the best course in the world? I believe it would have to be inland, and have a sand base. There are not many places left in the US for this "best course in the world" so it might be in China, or some other locale. It would be a risk in that people would have to travel to this new far away place to discover this "best course in the world". It could be in a modern country with lots of rules because I don't think it will have lots of wetlands, coastline or water. Those types of courses have already been built (Whistling Straits, PGA Sawgrass). So I am thinking a place like Sand Hills but with trees. So I would try to find a place with sand dunes covered in pine trees where you could create a course.

I played Prairie Club this weekend, and the land used for the Pines course fits a lot of your requirements above. It's certainly not the best course in the world, but very good nonetheless and aided greatly by its fantastic setting and property. If the land had the same movement of the land used for the Dunes course, it could've been astonishing.

Regardless, it will take years for any course to get "best in the world" credit. Legacy and history are powerful forces. It's why even the best Coldplay song will never get held in the same esteem as "Imagine."


If Pacific Dunes had been built in 1920 and Cypress Point built around 2000, which would we consider the better course?

[Steve Howe]

Is it possible that the best course in the world HAS been built in the last 20 or so years and all it needs is time to build it's own folklore and legend (which I think plays a huge part in our perceptions).

People obviously love going to places like Pacific Dunes, Sandhills and Barnbougle and feel it to be an almost transcendental experience.
In a hundred years or so (considering Pine Valley is nearly 100 years old) could one of these course be the universal choice as 'best in the world'?

EDIT While I was typing others seem to be making a similar point and asking the same question. I wonder for those that have been lucky enough to have played both the great classic courses like PV, CPC and the great modern courses; Is there any way you could see the rankings being reversed ie; modern going up/ classic going down?

[Jud_T]

Legacy and history are powerful forces. It's why even the best Coldplay song will never get held in the same esteem as "Imagine."

Perhaps not the best example to illustrate your point....