Why is The Old considered so much better than The New (or The Eden)

[Peter Pallotta]

If those in the know knew back then what made The Old Course so great, why don't other St Andrews courses like The New and The Eden (created circa 1900) manifest the same degree/quality of unstructured, golfer-driven 'design' that The Old Course does?

If the essential ethos of The Old Course was so evident to everyone from Dr Mackenzie then to the Confidential Guide now, why is not more of that essential ethos evident in those later courses?

If men like Tom Morris (who obviously knew the Old Course better than anyone, and whose hands were among those that tweaked the course) and HS Colt worked on the New and the Eden, why weren't they more inspired by the architectural qualities of the Old than they (apparently) seemed to be?

There's a "10" and then a couple of "5s-6s". Sure, the land/site itself has a lot to do with how any course turns out; but the sites for all those courses are not too dissimilar, and presumably the other sites had the hillocks and humps and blow-outs/hazards that could have been 'used for' (or at least 'allowed to serve') the same kind of seemingly un-proscribed architecture apparent on The Old Course.

I've read often around here that today no architect in their right mind would try to re-create The Old Course. Apparently, though, no architect back then tried all that hard either. 

(Indeed, all of the great golden age architects working from 1900-1930s had hundreds of opportunities on the courses they built to try to capture some of the Old Course's essential approach/ethos, but they don't seem to have tried too hard either.)

What do you think?

Peter

[Alex Miller]

Peter,

Just curious, have you played them?



I've played all 3 just once, but I think the general consensus of the Old being much better than the New and Eden is warranted. I think I know and can articulate why but want to hear if you think they're similar. FWIW I thought TOC was a 10 experience, the Eden a 6, and the New a 5. But to each their own! 

[Peter Pallotta]

Alex - no, I haven't played any of them, and so I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

Please note: I'm not questioning the relative 'rating/rankings' -- if you and a lot of others think it breaks down as a 10, a 6 and a 5, I believe you and defer to those opinions. Instead, I'm wondering why the latter two courses don't seem to capture the same ethos as the original, when the original was so highly valued at the time for that very ethos.

Peter

[Chris DeToro]

I've played all three numerous times having lived in St Andrews for several months when I was in college, but definitely more on the New course more so than the other two (mostly because the course was typically pretty empty especially during the winter). 

Looking back, the Old Course is that much better than the other two.  Several years removed, I remember more from individual rounds, shots hit, features of the course including the greens, bunkers, etc. from the Old Course than either of the other two despite having played 50+ rounds on the other two. 

I wonder if, perhaps, because they're on the same site, the courses were designed intentionally to not be as good as the Old Course so as not to take away from the thunder of TOC. 

[Ken Moum]

The New was opened in 1895 and the Jubilee a year later.

Was the Old Course as revered then as it is now?

[Phil Lipper]

If you take your  theory that since we understand why the Old Course is great and the others should be also be great because we understand its greatness to the next step, all modern golf courses today would also be great. We have a greater understanding today of the design history of these courses and much better construction techniques but magic is difficult to recreate. To me its no different than art, Jackson Pollock merely dripped paint on canvases and they sell for millions. I can watch videos of him doing it and I can't recreate the magic. To a large extent the land is the canvas and the architecht the artist and its not paint by numbers.

[JMEvensky]

I'd be curious to hear Melvyn Morrow's 2 cents (pence).

[Gary Slatter]

While I lived in SA. We played all three regularly.  The Old has everything, including history and location.  The New is at least a stroke tougher and also very good although the turf is not as cared for as the Old.  The Eden is fun but has been chopped up over the years.  Many holes on the Eden are not on sand based fairways.
In 1895 I imagine they wanted the New to be as good as the Old and built a fine lasting course.  Compared to the Jubilee the New is better.
The Old evolved, the others were built.

[Brad Tufts]

I think even in those times, 1890-1910, TOC was looked at similar to today...great layout, the home of the game, very interesting...but old fashioned.  I imagine the architects of the day would have said the same thing architects do today..."we can't build that today and succeed."

The New and Eden were courses built with the traditional values of golf (as all courses are on some level) but with new features and ideas over similar ground as TOC next door...and with more willingness to contruct features or modify those on the ground.

Personally, I really like the New.  The Eden was fun to experience finally, but it doesn't come close to the New for me.  You can't give the Eden points for holes that no longer exist, regardless of the history.

I have played TOC 3 times, the New 4 times, Jubilee 3 times, and the Eden once.  I would say that the Eden is a tick more interesting than the Jubilee for me...the Jubilee seemed like a severe version of the New without the whins and gorse pushed back enough.

[Thomas Dai]

I'd like to see (& play) a composite 18-hole course made up of the Old, the New, the Eden and the Jubillee.

Start at TOC 1st, include TOC 11th, finish on TOC 16th-17th-18th and for rest use the better holes from the remainder of the other three courses all within some appropriate routing.

atb

[Matthew Essig]

Here is how I rank them (Doak scale)...

Old: 10
Jubilee: 8
New: 7
Eden: 6

Is it weird that I think the Jubilee is the second best course there? I feel as though I am easily in the minority.

As an 8 says, "....Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent layout." There are a couple holes that are lacking on the Jubilee, but if someone would put a little time and care into sprucing it up a bit, I think the problems on those holes could be easily fixed.

In fact, I might go as far as saying with a little work, I would play the Jubilee everyday for the rest of my life.

-----

Why I think the Old course is a 10...

-the history: it is the home of golf
-the start and finish in town
-every hole is distinguishable and unique from one another
-quirky
-challenging, yet oddly playable/fair
-architects/courses try to emulate some of its features
-average golfer knows the name
-you see it on TV a lot

the list could go on and on.

Referring to the last two, I don't think the average golfer would ever know about ANGC without the Masters.

[Ian Andrew]

I think the front nine at the Eden offers as many excellent lessons (albeit different) as the front nine on the Old Course.
Missing the Eden's front nine is missing something important.

... but the problem is essentially it all changes after 10

On the Eden we begin to learn more about what not to do.

The Old gets "ridiculously" better as it goes and possesses a stretch that architecturally could arguable be the best the game has to offer.


The New does nothing for me outside of a few of the middle holes

[Peter Pallotta]

I'd be curious to hear Melvyn Morrow's 2 cents (pence).

Thanks, gents.

Jeff - Melvyn did indeed write me (thank you, Melvyn) and while I can't attach yet the supporting articles (in pdf format), I wanted to at least share his very interesting top-level view, i.e.

"Old Tom thought his New Course was better than his beloved Old, however thanks to shocking changes by Colt on 1920 the New Couse has been rendered Ok from whence it was once far better."

[Alex Miller]

I think the front nine at the Eden offers as many excellent lessons (albeit different) as the front nine on the Old Course.
Missing the Eden's front nine is missing something important.

... but the problem is essentially it all changes after 10

On the Eden we begin to learn more about what not to do.

The Old gets "ridiculously" better as it goes and possesses a stretch that architecturally could arguable be the best the game has to offer.


The New does nothing for me outside of a few of the middle holes

The Eden had many more special holes (1-5, 7, 8, 17, 18) than the New for me as well. The New's 8th, 9th, and 15th are the only holes that really stand out to me as great. While there aren't any travesties that resemble the 14th and 15th on the Eden, it's just not all that inspiring DESPITE the setting.

[Jim Sherma]

I always find the conversation around the New course interesting. I played it twice and really thought that there was an awful lot of good golf to be had. I also found the New to be significantly more interesting than the Eden. A lot of the Eden's allure were the Colt greens and a few neat shots but if I had the option of choosing between the two courses over many repeated plays I doubt I would choose the Eden more than 2 or 3 rounds out of 10. I felt that the Jubilee just does not have enough width to play in a heavy wind. On a calm day it would still be challenging but much more manageable.

I would love to see some evidence of what Colt did with the 1920 revisions versus what was on the ground previously.

[Doug Wright]

The Old gets "ridiculously" better as it goes and possesses a stretch that architecturally could arguable be the best the game has to offer.
[/i]

Ian, Just curious since this is a very strong statement--What holes are you referring to?

[Ally Mcintosh]

The Old gets "ridiculously" better as it goes and possesses a stretch that architecturally could arguable be the best the game has to offer.
[/i]

Ian, Just curious since this is a very strong statement--What holes are you referring to?

11 to 17 I suspect. A strong statement but surely a true one.

[Ian Andrew]

The Old gets "ridiculously" better as it goes and possesses a stretch that architecturally could arguable be the best the game has to offer.
[/i]

Ian, Just curious since this is a very strong statement--What holes are you referring to?

The 11th may be the most (conceptually) copied hole in golf and makes my list for best threes on the planet - green contours, bunkering
The 12th is as good a short four as I have seen - unbelievable green, narrowing the aggressive line
14th may be the most admired five in the game - Hell bunker, the front of green, etc. etc.
16th is so good that Mackenzie spent a lot of time breaking down the strategies in his book - principal's nose, green contours
17th was copied by Raynor, Emmet and CBM (along with others more recently) - green angle, dominant bunker, front feeding slopes of green

That's a list of some of the most brilliant architecture in history.

I think the 13th and 15th are just as god as the other holes personally.
And frankly how can you criticize the 18th with that awesome green and fronting swale.

In my narrow little mind, this might be the best stretch coming home in the game...
Hope that explains it.

[Mark_Fine]

Width! 

[Jon Wiggett]

TOC is so great because you very rarely face the same shot twice regardless of how often you play. 6 foot can completely alter how you can approach the shot. The problem is that even the best GCAs over plan on the one side but also limit themselves to giving the golfer only 4, 5, 6 ways to play the hole.

Finally, recreating TOC would not be so difficult IMO but anyone who did would almost certainly get slated for doing so which is a shame.

Jon

[Marty Bonnar]

Terrain?
I think TOC plays over the best of the land on the headland/peninsula. There's great golfing ground on the other courses, but not in the same quantity/quality as on the auld lass.

F.

[Peter Pallotta]

As I say, I don't know how to cut/paste the pdfs Melvyn sent, but I've been reading them and sure enough, while the Dundee Courier wrote about the anticipation surrounding changes to the New, when those were completed the paper reported that there was hardly anyone to be found who had anything good to say about them, and that many thought they should've left well enough alone.  (In fairness, the Evening Telegraph was more positive about the results, though on one hole they praised the removal of two gnarly green-side bunker and the raisiing of the green by a couple of feet so that it would't be blind from the tee....hmmmm)

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

The Old gets "ridiculously" better as it goes and possesses a stretch that architecturally could arguable be the best the game has to offer.
[/i]

Ian, Just curious since this is a very strong statement--What holes are you referring to?

The 11th may be the most (conceptually) copied hole in golf and makes my list for best threes on the planet - green contours, bunkering
The 12th is as good a short four as I have seen - unbelievable green, narrowing the aggressive line
14th may be the most admired five in the game - Hell bunker, the front of green, etc. etc.
16th is so good that Mackenzie spent a lot of time breaking down the strategies in his book - principal's nose, green contours
17th was copied by Raynor, Emmet and CBM (along with others more recently) - green angle, dominant bunker, front feeding slopes of green

That's a list of some of the most brilliant architecture in history.

I think the 13th and 15th are just as god as the other holes personally.
And frankly how can you criticize the 18th with that awesome green and fronting swale.

In my narrow little mind, this might be the best stretch coming home in the game...
Hope that explains it.

One interesting thing about that stretch 11-17 is the variety of the holes and the shots required!   13 is one of my all time favorite par 4s with all the broken ground out front and the requirement to play an aerial shot.  16 was such a fun driving hole until the Powers That Be turned the fairway left of the P's Nose into rough.   16 is also the only green that falls away front to back.   What more can you say about 14 and 17, maybe the best of their par anywhere.  12 is a ticklish very short par 4. 

I always say Pasatiempo's back nine is the best of all, but the Old Course is surely close behind even if 10 and 18 are less than stellar.   (And I do love 18 as a finisher!)

[Ronald Montesano]

...while the Dundee Courier wrote about the anticipation surrounding changes to the New, when those were completed the paper reported that there was hardly anyone to be found who had anything good to say about them, and that many thought they should've left well enough alone.  ...

Why does this sound familiar? I'm looking in a mirror and...

Oh, right, the Dundee Courier must have the DNA of the GCA DG !!

[Ally Mcintosh]

As I say, I don't know how to cut/paste the pdfs Melvyn sent, but I've been reading them and sure enough, while the Dundee Courier wrote about the anticipation surrounding changes to the New, when those were completed the paper reported that there was hardly anyone to be found who had anything good to say about them, and that many thought they should've left well enough alone.  (In fairness, the Evening Telegraph was more positive about the results, though on one hole they praised the removal of two gnarly green-side bunker and the raisiing of the green by a couple of feet so that it would't be blind from the tee....hmmmm)

Peter

What did Colt do on the New, then? As a point of comparison, the newspapers didn't much like MacKenzie's alterations to Lahinch, either... A lot of Tom Simpson's stuff was ridiculed by his peers... Colt vs Simpson changes at Muirfield and Sunningdale were clearly debated endlessly...

In fact, those Golden Age guys certainly didn't get a free run of it from the critics. I guess this has always been the way when you push some boundaries, or at least change some parameters...

To answer the original question, it is:

1. Terrain
2. Green Complexes (no-one was ever going to replicate TOC)
3. Changing trends
4. A genius stretch from 11 to 17 (by design or coincidence) which...
5. ... influenced all that was to come apart from the New Course which...
6. ...probably needed to show a tougher, more modern counterpoint to the Old