Why not? Chicago Golf

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - there was an interesting (if brief) thread recently discussing how bunkers were designed/play on Tom D's Common Ground - a flat site; and there have been many threads over the years on the bunkers and greens and strategies at the highly regarded Garden City - another flat site; and as you note, you've had your share of such flat sites to work with, so you will know/understand this topic better than most. From where I sit I think this:
if it was all about playing the game, if the quality of a golf course was measured solely in terms of how effectively it functioned as a field of play, if architects focused on (and were judged by their ability to make manifest) interesting and challenging and thought-provoking angles, over & around smartly-placed and genuine hazards, and to fun and nuanced green surfaces that were tied to the hole as a whole and gave meaning to those hazards and angles, then a flat site would not be any kind of negative at all, nor in any way a handicap to building an excellent golf course.
But the problem is that courses like Chicago and Garden City -- where it actually and truly *was* all about the playing of the game and creating a field of play, with the 3-4 areas of focus that goal entailed (as per above) and with no other 'factors' considered all that important -- have long been the exception and not the rule, then and now.
That's fine, I suppose, at least for most folks: almost everyone likes their golf served with big dollops of stunning scenery and seaside cliffs and vast vistas of undulating turf and majestic dunes; and those factors sure do seem to help ensure 'award winning courses'; but they sure aren't, it seems to me, essential to 'top flight golf course architecture', nor to providing an 'exemplary game of golf'.
That's what I meant by saying, in answer to Ira's original question, that nowadays (ie the last 80 or so years in America, and for varying reasons) few are willing to stoop so low, ie to humbly aim to serve -- and to gratefully accept -- 'merely' a top flight game of golf.
And that, kind sir, is the sum total of all that I think I know/have come to believe about gca after all these years -- my complaint and closing argument both.
I think it a shame, this love/demand for 'non essentials', and I think it both wasteful and at significant odds with the essence & purpose & ethos & spirit of the game as established/evidenced by its birthplace.
Others, of course, will have very differing views -- indeed, I've been told many times by the professionals here that you simply *can't* separate the 'golf architecture' from the 'golf course'.  But I suppose I can *wish for* whatever I want, regardless of what they say!
Peter

[JMEvensky]

Nice post Peter. I had some comments to add but after I read them I realized all they did was detract from your post.

[Tom_Doak]

Chicago Golf is not all that flat ... i am traveling so I don't have the topo handy, but I'd guess there is ~30 feet from high point to low, and more than ten feet of elevation on all but a couple of holes.  Florida it ain't.


I can't think of anywhere in the USA I have seen someone develop a new course on 180 acres of farmland, with zero houses, anytime recently.  Mike Clayton's course at Ranfurlie is the closest in terms of a starting point - and it's quite good.  But it lacks the history of CGC, and CGC benefits from the old trees on property, too.

[William_G]

Chicago Golf is not all that flat ... i am traveling so I don't have the topo handy, but I'd guess there is ~30 feet from high point to low, and more than ten feet of elevation on all but a couple of holes.  Florida it ain't.


I can't think of anywhere in the USA I have seen someone develop a new course on 180 acres of farmland, with zero houses, anytime recently.  Mike Clayton's course at Ranfurlie is the closest in terms of a starting point - and it's quite good.  But it lacks the history of CGC, and CGC benefits from the old trees on property, too.

Tom,

I don't we  are looking for such a narrow definition, and thank you, but I could be wrong.

Cheers

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff - there was an interesting (if brief) thread recently discussing how bunkers were designed/play on Tom D's Common Ground - a flat site; and there have been many threads over the years on the bunkers and greens and strategies at the highly regarded Garden City - another flat site; and as you note, you've had your share of such flat sites to work with, so you will know/understand this topic better than most. From where I sit I think this:
if it was all about playing the game, if the quality of a golf course was measured solely in terms of how effectively it functioned as a field of play, if architects focused on (and were judged by their ability to make manifest) interesting and challenging and thought-provoking angles, over & around smartly-placed and genuine hazards, and to fun and nuanced green surfaces that were tied to the hole as a whole and gave meaning to those hazards and angles, then a flat site would not be any kind of negative at all, nor in any way a handicap to building an excellent golf course.
But the problem is that courses like Chicago and Garden City -- where it actually and truly *was* all about the playing of the game and creating a field of play, with the 3-4 areas of focus that goal entailed (as per above) and with no other 'factors' considered all that important -- have long been the exception and not the rule, then and now.
That's fine, I suppose, at least for most folks: almost everyone likes their golf served with big dollops of stunning scenery and seaside cliffs and vast vistas of undulating turf and majestic dunes; and those factors sure do seem to help ensure 'award winning courses'; but they sure aren't, it seems to me, essential to 'top flight golf course architecture', nor to providing an 'exemplary game of golf'.
That's what I meant by saying, in answer to Ira's original question, that nowadays (ie the last 80 or so years in America, and for varying reasons) few are willing to stoop so low, ie to humbly aim to serve -- and to gratefully accept -- 'merely' a top flight game of golf.
And that, kind sir, is the sum total of all that I think I know/have come to believe about gca after all these years -- my complaint and closing argument both.
I think it a shame, this love/demand for 'non essentials', and I think it both wasteful and at significant odds with the essence & purpose & ethos & spirit of the game as established/evidenced by its birthplace.
Others, of course, will have very differing views -- indeed, I've been told many times by the professionals here that you simply *can't* separate the 'golf architecture' from the 'golf course'.  But I suppose I can *wish for* whatever I want, regardless of what they say!
Peter

Peter,


Your post captures much of what animated my OP. I had the same feeling/question when I played Woking on our recent trip. It is on sand and has trees, but it is relatively flat and the setting undramatic. I almost did not want to fall into the Woking fan club because it is so trendy to do so. But it embodies everything in your post—just pure stripped to the bones terrific golf. I do wish that modern economics and taste did not keep more Chicago Golf and Woking like courses from being built.


Ira