Classic vs. Modern

[Nigel Islam]

Here is the game:

Time for one round. Two average to above average, unrated courses. One built prior to 1960 and one after 1960.
Which one do you play and why?

[Matt Bielawa]

I think I'd say the course built prior to 1960.  More likely to be built to walk rather than cart paths weaving around a housing development.

[Mark McKeever]

I would play the older one.  More likely to be quirky.

Mark

[Josh Tarble]

I would happily play either 

But to answer your question, if I was basing my decision on when it was built, I would actually say whichever one was furthest from the 1960s.  I've found most very modern courses are pretty good.  And there are many courses built in that 1960s - 1950s time frame that are quite boring.  In this case I would say 2006 > 1959  and 1935 > 1981

[Thomas Dai]

Pre-1930 for choice! Pre-1960's most likely. Post-1960 would have to be a bit special. Old generally being probably more interesting.
atb

[Jud_T]

Forget the rating, if I've never heard of the GCA I'll only play pre-1930 courses.  It was harder to f*^% things up too badly back then, due to money and construction constraints.  Otherwise I'd rather play poker.  Can't even tell you the last time I played a course designed between 1940-1990 or what it was.  Maybe a buddy's club in Phoenix 5 years ago.  Although I am keen to see Desert Forest...

[Nigel Islam]

Forget the rating, if I've never heard of the GCA I'll only play pre-1930 courses.  It was harder to f*^% things up too badly back then, due to money and construction constraints.  Otherwise I'd rather play poker.  Can't even tell you the last time I played a course designed between 1940-1990 or what it was.  Maybe a buddy's club in Phoenix 5 years ago.  Although I am keen to see Desert Forest...

Great post Jud

[Josh Tarble]

Jud,
I disagree with that statement to a point.  Sure it may have been harder for the GCA to screw up the course, but it's so much easier for time to have taken it's toll on the course.   To me, an uninteresting hole or two is no worse than an old course choked by trees, bunkers to be grassed over, and fairways and greens to be shrunken to half the size.


In all seriousness, there are so many variables to different courses.  If all things were the same, I'd make sure I could play both courses.  If it was a one-time play I'd go with which architect I liked more.  If the architects were both unknown or similar, I'd flip a coin.

[Matthew Essig]

If you were to put every course into two hats (pre/post 1960) and were told to pick randomly, I would probably choose one from the Modern courses hat.

I feel as though it would be a safer risk. While many pre-1960 courses are great, there are many boring/dull/or as Josh said: kind of lost its character ones, too.

[BCowan]

 ''old course choked by trees, bunkers to be grassed over, and fairways and greens to be shrunken to half the size.''

Fairways shrunken due to the ball flying straighter than in the 30's.  Greens shrunken do survive WW2 and the great depression, those courses wouldn't have survived if most modern day folks on here would have been running them.  

[Jud_T]

Josh,

The pre-1930 course is more likely to have a yardage that suits my bunt and chip game and is less likely to set me back $100.

[Josh Tarble]

''old course choked by trees, bunkers to be grassed over, and fairways and greens to be shrunken to half the size.''

Fairways shrunken due to the ball flying straighter than in the 30's.  Greens shrunken do survive WW2 and the great depression, those courses wouldn't have survived if most modern day folks on here would have been running them.  

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.  Just giving two sides of the coin.

And as Nigel stated...all things are equal with the courses so price shouldn't play into your judgement.  The yardage is a valid point, but I've yet to  play a modern course that didn't have tees down to less than 6000 yards.

[Jason Thurman]

Do we know who designed either of the two courses?

Do we know what region of the country they’re in? Pre 1960 in my home state gives roughly a 2 in 499 chance of finding something either really good or really historic, and about a 1 in 5 chance of landing on a Buck Blankenship course staked out in an old pasture. Nothing against Buck, but I’d take my chances with the post 1960 option.

I guess I’d lean to the post-1960 course. I like good courses, and I also morbidly like train wrecks. The modern course has a good chance of being one of the two, while the classic has a higher risk of being mundane.

[Josh Tarble]

Actually, Nigel and Jud,
 
An interesting real life example that may prove my point and I'm pretty sure both of you have played both courses...would you rather play Harrison Hills or Trophy Club?

[BCowan]

''all things are equal with the courses so price shouldn't play into your judgement.''

  Your not getting what I am saying.  The greens were shrunken to save money and keep them going during the war and depression, those courses are at a slight disadvantage, but as Jud said the fact they had less equipment to move dirt is to their advantage.  Restoring a course to it's original design costs millions, doing a course the right way in the 90's is an advantage.  The 90's courses had to pay for land so that is their disadvantage and the 30's course is paid off.  

   I'd have to go with pre 1960 due to more courses being designed for what i call Golf.  I echo Matt's sediments.    

[Josh Tarble]

No, I get what you're saying.  What you are saying doesn't change the fact that those things may have happened to the old course.  Thus, I may not want to play the older course.

The older course may be cheaper, but it may be shittier because of the things it has had to do to stay afloat.

[Gary Slatter]

I would not care which course, to me it is more important who I'm going to be playing with.
And we would play the closest one.

I have not ruled out any era or any designer.  Every time I think that way, I have found a reason to reopen my eyes.  Sure easy to enjoy my golf!

[Terry Lavin]

 I echo Matt's sediments.    

Classic.

[BCowan]

''The older course may be cheaper, but it may be shittier because of the things it has had to do to stay afloat.''

Course A 1930 vs Course B post 1960 have the same dues and everything.  You said price was the same and not a consideration.  Yes, it maybe shitter but it is open vs closed.  

    I just had coffee yest with a guy who is club prez of his course that did a big renovation.  He said the old guard fought it tooth and nail, and other board members encourage him to get on the board for he could bring more to the side of renovation.  The bunker depths and amount of bunkers had been restored closer to original design.  It went from being dumbed down to challenging.  They did all this renovation without going into debt (which is overlooked by many).  Not every Golden age course has the means to be restored to original intent.  

   I'm not implying that one should join or play an older course with tree, green, and other problems, they should understand why it got that way.  

Terry,

    I play at a post 60's course, and it is classic imo

[Terry Lavin]

BC,

More classic.

[Josh Tarble]

Ben,
I hear what you are saying.  But that isn't the question, your comments do not matter to me. It is not a matter of open or close and I understand why a course may be in rough shape. But that doesn't change the fact that it may CURRENTLY be in rough shape.

The question at hand is a matter of old vs. new.  Both open, both opportunity to play.  I stated, based off Jud's comments, that you can't judge an old course merely by the fact that an architect had less of chance to fuck it up.  Time has had a chance to screw up the old course and in my opinion, that should not be overlooked  

Please do not respond with anything about a renovation or World War II or the Depression.  That is not what I want to talk about.  

If you would like to respond as to why you'd rather play an old course, with shrunken greens and fairways vs. a new course with some weird holes, please do so.  But please do not mention another renovation.

[BCowan]

Josh

So are you saying that pre Oakmont tree removal you wouldn't want to play it over any top post 60's course?  I love playing UofM pre tree removal and pre restoration of shrunken greens.  Is it getting better, heck yeah, was it good before heck yeah.  un-reclaimed greens is rough shape? 

[Tim Martin]

 I echo Matt's sediments.    

Classic.

Judge-Remember Norm Crosby?

[Nigel Islam]

Actually, Nigel and Jud,
 
An interesting real life example that may prove my point and I'm pretty sure both of you have played both courses...would you rather play Harrison Hills or Trophy Club?

Those courses are very close in a lot of ways so that is an excellent example. I think HH just has a feel and vibe that I like, and I think the course suits my game better as most older courses do. (And yes I know that 10 of the holes were built pretty recently) Trophee Club is great too though.

[Terry Lavin]

 I echo Matt's sediments.    

Classic.

Judge-Remember Norm Crosby?

I do. What are the odds that "auto-correct" will be blamed?  This might be one of the funniest malapropisms ever for this site.