News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« on: March 13, 2015, 05:33:39 PM »
Tom Doak has the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 17th, 23rd, 43rd ranked courses.

Coore & Crenshaw have the 1st, 3rd, 16th, 21st, 30th, 33rd, 52nd, 64th, 71st, 76th, and 98th.

This is a great era in architecture.

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2015, 06:00:41 PM »
I don't see it that way. I see it as Doak and Coore are trendy now. They are dictating taste. What they are producing is in right now so it is ranked highly, but in 20 or 30 years you will see how they will have trickled down the list. Their very best will not doubt remain highly rated, however. I'm not knocking them, but that is a constant theme in these lists. Remember, Harbour Town was once ranked in the Top 10 according to Golf Digest, now it is outside the Top 100. Tastes change.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 06:04:07 PM by matt kardash »
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Gary Sato

Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2015, 06:02:22 PM »
What about the classics they have restored?

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2015, 09:43:44 PM »
This raises the question, at what point does the line move?  When does a course built in 1961 become a classic?  When does the line move to 1965 or 1970. Or, when do we get to a point with three lists?  Classic, 1960-2000, and 2001-presenf?  Has to happen sometime doesn't it?  I don't have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic for discussion (to me, at least).
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 11:43:05 PM by Bill Seitz »

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2015, 09:55:08 PM »
Tom Doak has the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 17th, 23rd, 43rd ranked courses.

Coore & Crenshaw have the 1st, 3rd, 16th, 21st, 30th, 33rd, 52nd, 64th, 71st, 76th, and 98th.

This is a great era in architecture.

Maybe it's just two great architects and not a great era.

hhuffines

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2015, 10:45:03 PM »
Can anyone give a short explanation of why 1960 is the cut off? 

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2015, 06:51:20 AM »
From our Raters Handbook:

Classic and Modern

The Golfweek’s Best program virtually transformed the golf course
ratings process and had a powerful influence on the perception of golf
course design when Golfweek initiated two parallel lists: one
recognizing Classic (pre-1960) courses and the other acknowledging
Modern (1960 and after) courses. Golfweek believes there are good
reasons for this split list:

At the heart of Golfweek’s Best course rating system is the distinction
between Classic and Modern courses.

Classic
Golfweek defines Classic courses as those opened for play prior to
1960. This includes 6,500 of the existing 16,000 courses, or 41
percent. Many of these layouts debuted during an unprecedented era
of creativity in golf course design called the Golden Age of
Architecture. This era, running from 1919 to 1939, saw the
introduction of 67 of the 100 courses on Golfweek’s Best Classic list.

During this era, design visionaries like Charles Blair Macdonald,
Alister MacKenzie, Seth Raynor, George C. Thomas Jr., Donald
Ross and A.W. Tillinghast were at their peak creative powers.
This Classic style of architecture was basically naturalistic, with
intimate routings that enabled holes to cling to native landforms.
These designers were not afraid to utilize dramatic vertical slopes or
to sculpt their bunkers into artistic shapes, but they did so by
enhancing the given features of the land. Earth scraping was
minimal, and what little was undertaken was carried out by draft
animals, not by mechanized earth movers deployed on a large scale.
Greens were built from native soil that was pushed up and shaped.
This gave designers of the Classic era enormous freedom to build
oddly-shaped putting surfaces with more contour than was the case
in the Modern era of cored-out, sand-based greens.

With respect to site selection, the greater abundance of buildable
land in those days gave architects tremendous creative freedom as
well. If they didn’t like one site, they could easily move down the road
to another empty parcel for consideration. For better or worse, they
were also unhindered by the regulatory process. There was no such
thing as a wetland in the 1920s; they called it a swamp back then, and
if it posed a design problem, they would either fill it or drain it.
Many of the great old courses could not be built these days
because contemporary regulations now prohibit what used to be the
commonplace practice of using low-lying wet areas.
Nor did designers have to worry about maximizing home lots on the
golf course. And they couldn’t rely upon paved cart paths to resolve
their routing problems. If they wound up with too long a walk from a
green to a tee, they headed back to the drawing board to reroute the
entire course until they got it right.

Courses didn’t have to be perfect on opening day. They evolved
slowly, were often tweaked and improved upon in their early years
and only gradually did they acquire a reputation.
But that reputation could often last for decades and still does.
The premier courses on the Classic list are today a roll call
of architectural tradition and greatness: Cypress Point;
Pine Valley; Shinnecock Hills; Pebble Beach;
and Augusta National.

Modern

Golfweek considers all courses opened after 1960 to be Modern. This
comprises 9,500 of the existing 16,000 courses, or 59 percent. In the
last four plus decades, there has been a phenomenal growth of the
game, in part spurred by the recreational needs of a rapidly expanding
suburban community. The growth of golf in the Modern era of design
starts with its popularization, the appeal of Arnold Palmer and the
consequences of bringing the game into the homes of television
audiences, especially with the widespread adoption of colorized
tournament telecasts in the mid-1960s. Additionally, popular glossy
magazines – increasingly featuring luscious color photographs of golf
courses – played no small role in making golf and golf course
architecture matters of public interest.

Mass access to golf travel also bridged the distance gap, making
previously out-of-the-way places and exotic resort sites well within
reach of avid golfers. This helped cultivate an awareness of golf’s great
courses and brought home, to both architects and students of the
game, the value of fine architecture.

It wasn’t just the market that changed. Design and construction
techniques for courses shifted fundamentally after 1960.
Mechanized earth moving became standard, with many sites
requiring 500,000 cubic yards to 1 million cubic yards of earth
to be moved in the construction process. The USGA developed
sophisticated methods for sand-based greens built as perched
water tables. This required extensive planning, documentation
and meticulous excavation. The advent of new, highperformance
bentgrasses meant better quality conditions, but
the quicker putting speeds meant that greens could not be built
with the same dramatic slope as had been the case before. As
mowing heights on greens came down from the quarter-inch of
the Classic era to one-eighth of an inch and now to one-tenth
of an inch today, Modern architects came to enjoy little margin
of error when building and draining their courses. These were
the skills of professionally trained landscape architects, not just
creative golf visionaries. Gradually, the profession shifted and
became more technically oriented, with architects spending less
of their time designing in the field and more time designing on
paper so that the project could be bid out to a contractor.

As the economic and technical requirements got more complicated, so
did the regulatory process. Plans had to be submitted well in advance and
were subject to scrutiny by local, state and federal authorities. Nowhere
was the regulatory process more evident than when it came to
wetlands and increasingly stringent requirements by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Moreover, golf was now part of ever-more
complicated land plans involving such mixed uses as residential
homesites and commercial real estate.

While golf architects had to be skilled landscape designers, they also had
to be gifted salesmen. Robert Trent Jones Sr. ushered in the era of public
relations as an essential to course architecture. Indeed, architects became
golf celebrities in their own right, and as a few designers (Tom Fazio, Pete
Dye) established themselves as big names, others sought to cash in on
their PGA Tour fame by marketing themselves as well. At least some
would-be designers (Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer) were smart enough
to create technically qualified design shops and hire skilled architects.

At the same time, some Modern designers went back to basics
and adopted a more retro-Classic approach, spending time on the
ground, designing and working mainly in the field. Among its
many unique features, the Golfweek’s Best Modern Courses list
can be credited for discovering and publicizing the seminal works
of such designers as Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw, Tom Doak, Jim
Engh, Gil Hanse, Brian Silva, Steve Smyers and Mike Strantz.
Collectively, these designers represent an amazing proliferation of
talent. Their work, especially since the mid-1990s, has resulted
in what may be termed a Second Golden Age of Architecture.

The work tends to be technically brilliant, with flawless construction
standards and impeccable grooming to ensure that the courses are in
perfect shape on opening day. Among the leading courses recognized in this Modern category are: Sand Hills;
Pacific Dunes; Whistling Straits; Pete Dye Golf Club; Bandon Dunes; and Friar’s Head.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 06:54:12 AM by Brad Klein »

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2015, 09:20:10 AM »
Could the two lists be titled "Pre-Caring About Rankings" and "Rankings Era?"

When did course rankings start?

WW

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2015, 09:36:14 AM »
Brad -

I've long thought a better break point is the end of WWII. P'tree and Firestone then get grouped with the Moderns, which is where they belong.

Bulldozers, big time earth-moving, big budgets, the RTJ big course ideas all started post WWII, albeit there were relatively few such projects for a while. The pace quickened by 1960 and later, but the qualitative changes (that is, what we know call the 'modern era') in designing and building golf courses occurred first at P'tree in 1948. 

Bob

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2015, 10:21:35 AM »
"When did course rankings start?"

Depends on your definition of 'rankings'. As early as 1905 John Low published a ranking of favorite courses in Britain as voted on by prominent amateur and professional players of the time. There was no pretense to objective criteria. Participants simply voted for the courses they liked best. A disarmingly honest approach, I think.  

TOC won every year over the period of six or seven years in which the poll was conducted.

Bob
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 10:23:14 AM by BCrosby »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2015, 10:35:18 AM »
At the top end (most noticeably/interestingly) the 'numbers' behind the rankings currently give an edge to the classics; but you can just feel the change, can't you? In a few years time, with perhaps only a very few exceptions (i.e. Pine Valley and Cypress Point), the modern top 10-20 will more than hold their own against their classic counterparts. And with each passing year (and the evolving golfing demographics and playing patterns and subjective tastes) the new guard will replace the old guard (individually) in the hearts and minds of engaged golfers and (collectively) in the narrative about great golf course architecture. I'll leave it to JK to be the prescient one, but my vision of Ballyneal as eventual No 1 looks ever-more to be coming to fruition.  

Peter
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 10:37:39 AM by PPallotta »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2015, 10:48:25 AM »
Bob,

I get your point, appreciate it, it has some merit, but sorry (actually not), I vote 1960: USGA greens, Penncross bentgrass, suburbia, real estate. The 1950s were a death spell for architecture, a sleepy period that didn't emerge until the 1960s explosion. We're imposing an arbitrary line here; all such lines are a matter of judgment. My sense is that 1960 works better across the board.

I think you can make a stronger argument for 2000+ being Post-Modern. But there aren't enough courses (yet) to showcase such a list or to validate that claim and I will leave it to my successors to figure that one out.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 10:59:53 AM by Brad Klein »

Mark Fedeli

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2015, 10:52:53 AM »
I like Golfweek's rankings because they go so far down the line and give exposure to courses that would never sniff a top-100.

When it comes to the overall top-100, I've never been a big fan of the split. Not comparing the two eras could give the impression that the same age-old design principles are not still critical across all eras. It also makes it easier to disregard classic courses as being dated.

Above it says "Golfweek believes there are good reasons for this split", and then gives a great list of the advantages and disadvantages of both eras. In my mind, it presents a fairly level playing field between the two and no obvious reason why the split was necessary.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 10:56:14 AM by Mark Fedeli »
South Jersey to Brooklyn. @marrrkfedeli

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2015, 11:01:48 AM »
Brad -

We will have to disagree. The advent of better green turf grasses should not out-weigh the arrival of RTJ and Dick Wilson, the impact of USGA monster courses in 1951, etc.

I'm not sure why suburbia should have a bearing on things. But if it does, we were into full bore suburbia by the early 50's with the GI Bill, etc.

Gears are grinding in my head when asked to rank P'tee and Firestone in the same batch with Myopia, Garden City and NGLA.

Bob

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2015, 11:05:04 AM »
Bob,

How many lists do you want? We were trying to do more than a stale top-100 back in 1996. We succeeded. It made sense for us in all sorts of ways.

Brad

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2015, 11:14:32 AM »
Brad -

I'm not suggesting a new category, just that a more natural break-point for your Classic/Modern distinction is 1945. For the reasons given above.

Understood that we disagree about this.

Bob

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2015, 11:22:17 AM »
Brad,

I'm with Bob Crosby on this one too, not that it matters since its your line to draw, but here's my rationale.

Post World War Two ushered in the era of mechanization. Industrial development had gone through rapid expansion to gear up for the war effort. And then all that capacity had to find an outlet which impacted society.

The expanding access to machinery represented a fundamental change in how courses would be built. That impacted where courses were developed and how a design would be approached. This also impacted how they would be maintained which influenced design. We entered the machine age, where rules and standards became a larger player in what was developed.

It's such a strong line between two eras and two different approaches to golf development.
"Appreciate the constructive; ignore the destructive." -- John Douglas

Kevin_D

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2015, 11:26:28 AM »
If you don't think we are in a great era of golf course architecture, then maybe golf just isn't for you.

Wherever they are ranked, there have been so many great courses built in the last 20 or so years. I am in the camp that mant of these will hold their own against the great classics in 50 years.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2015, 01:38:14 PM »
Only two more and they will collectively tie Tom Fazio's 20.

Bogey
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2015, 05:26:25 PM »
Bogey, maybe I miscounted, but I have 18 for Fazio and 18 for C&C/Tom.  Of course, Tom and C&C have a stranglehold on the top of the list.  They also have several international courses ranked in our favorite world top 100.  My bet is that Doak will end up with close to 10 world top 100 courses... and C&C close to that as well.  Will Fazio have any in the top 100? 

Mark Steffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2015, 11:56:35 AM »
Peachtree Golf Club___Bobby Jones, Robert Trent Jones Sr.__1948
Dunes G&BC_________Robert Trent Jones Sr._____1949
Rockrimmon Golf Club__Robert Trent Jones, Sr, Orrin Smith____1949
Bayonet GC____Gen. McClure, Gene Bates____1954
NCR Country Club (South)___Dick Wilson______1954
Old Warson CC___Robert Trent Jones, Sr.____1955
CC of Florida____Robert Bruce Harris, Lester George   ___1956
Deepdale GC____Dick Wilson   ____1956
Saucon Valley CC (Grace)___William Gordon, David Gordon____1957
Torrey Pines (South)___William F. Bell____1957
Point O'Woods_____Robert Trent Jones Sr.___1958
Shady Oaks   ______Robert Trent Jones Sr._____1958
Champions GC (Cypress Creek)___Ralph Plummer____1959
Laurel Valley GC____Dick Wilson____1959
Pauma Valley CC____Robert Trent Jones Sr.____1959

... may have holes, but these above are the courses that have been in the main lists since 2000 for the period in question.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2015, 01:02:59 PM »
JIm et al, I'm hardly a Fazio apologist, having labled him the "King of the Sixes." 

That said, I fear we too easily dismiss him in the Treehouse.  He, more than any modern architect I can think of has brought good golf architecture to the masses in the U. S.

Steve Jobs is quoted as saying "real artists ship."  Given the amount of Fazio's work in the golf market and its generally favorable reception I'm hard pressed to say he's anything less than a legitimate artist, however repetitive and uninspired his work might be thought to be.

Let's look at it this way:  What would the top 200 modern list look like without Tom Fazio?

Respectfully,

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2015, 01:05:27 PM »
I have spreadsheets of many of the Top 100 lists of GW, Digest, and Golf.  Fazio used to be way up on the lists with many courses, then some started to fall.  It appears there are "flavors of the month"...and he was one of them for awhile.  I would bet that our current "flavors of the month" will see some of their courses fall on the lists too.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2015, 01:14:23 PM »
...
Let's look at it this way:  What would the top 200 modern list look like without Tom Fazio?
...

Better?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek modern courses. Has anyone noticed
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2015, 01:21:05 PM »
Top 155 (approx)
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon