[Rich Goodale]

Just because the land is perfect, which I believe it to be as well....


...doesn't mean whats there is perfect.


If anyone tried to build something like that today, i suspect it'd be a career ender...

Several people have said that the land at Sand Hills is superior.  The Yank and I have both said that, in our view, that land at St Andrews is perfect.  Neither of us has commented on either course.

Oh Masters of Sophistry....
To state that in youses viewses St. Andrews is perfect is a "comment" in itself, is it not?


Your humble servant.

[Jon Wiggett]

But Rich, if you read what is written they don't say St. Andrews is perfect. They say the land is perfect which it is. I would not take it to mean nowhere else is as good or better.

[Mark Pearce]

Rich,


It is possible to build a poor course on perfect land.  It is also possible to build a world class course on perfect land.  It is not ossible to build a world class course on poor land.  All I was doing was pointing out that the suggestion that the land at Sand Hills is better suggests either a lack of understanding of what makes great golf land or an ignorance of the land at St Andrews.

[Kevin_Reilly]

That being said, SH is in the Capital of Nowhere, and whomever chose to separate the course from the unappealing "Clubhouse" is/was an idiot.

Rich - I recently had the good fortune to spend two days at SH, and not for one moment (including day two where we played 45 holes) did I desire to return to the clubhouse for any reason, except at the end of the day to prepare for dinner.  I don't understand the need or appeal of an adjacent clubhouse given 1) the golf course and 2) the amenities offered at Ben's Porch. 


As you know, more than one golf course has been ruined/diminished by the location of the clubhouse or driving range.  Not so the case at Sand Hills.

[Sean_A]

Sure, but isn't Ben's Porch essentially an outpost of the house?


Ciao

[Jim Franklin]

I would be absolutely stunned if it’s not.

What is one thing that you find superior at Sand Hills?

Haven’t been to either but I’d imagine the steak is better in Nebraska...

The Dunvegan used to be owned by a guy from Texas and his Scottish wife. I am sure many on here know their names. They imported beef from Texas and the steaks were really good. Maybe not Sand Hills good, but it was the best place to eat in Scotland.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Why is Texas steak considered better than Aberdeen Angus?

[Adam Lawrence]

I would be absolutely stunned if it’s not.

What is one thing that you find superior at Sand Hills?

Haven’t been to either but I’d imagine the steak is better in Nebraska...

The Dunvegan used to be owned by a guy from Texas and his Scottish wife. I am sure many on here know their names. They imported beef from Texas and the steaks were really good. Maybe not Sand Hills good, but it was the best place to eat in Scotland.

'The best place to eat in Scotland'? God help me.


signed


Andrew Fairlie

[JESII]

The point was the differences really would be a matter or opinion, not fact, at this level.


Being 500 years old does not, on its own, make St Andrews better than Sand Hills...although there’s every chance it is.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha, ha.
Adam's post reminded me of an old university friend: smart, wonderful guy (now a neurosurgeon) but very picky eater. He went off to do his MA at St Andrews. He sent me a letter soon after arriving to describe his first on-campus meal, which I still remember some 25 years later:

Q: "Would you like fat or lard?"
A: "Oh, lard please."

Q: "Do you want that deep fried or just fried?"
A: "Ah, make it deep fried."

Q: "Would that be in butter or oil?"
A: "In butter if you don't mind."

Q: "And: smothered in mayonnaise?"
A: "No, I think I'll skip the mayonnaise today - you know, trying to eat a little healthier and all that".

Tee hee. Don't know what he was complaining about - it sounds delicious to me!

[Adam Lawrence]

Andrew Fairlie runs a two Michelin starred restaurant at Gleneagles, widely seen as the best in Scotland, Peter, so I'm unsure why my post made you think of that....

[John Kavanaugh]

What it comes down for me, and I've seen nothing on this thread to change my mind. People who influence the dreams of fellow golfers have a moral obligation to declare St. Andrews as the finest course they have ever played. It is the star of Bethlehem of which all wise men should navigate to on faith alone.

[Thomas Dai]

Can’t comment on Sand Hills, never been there, never likely to either.
As to TOC, well, with modern equipment it’s worth playing for its special aura, the start and finish in the town and some of the holes.
However, if playing with yee olde period equipment, plus if the course had a lower standard maintenance regime, TOC may well be a lot more than the above, it may be a great, great test/challenge of skill and brain from start to finish.
Atb

[David Davis]

With high enough levels of ignorance it's plausible to believe anything really.


Sand Hills is absolutely a great course, no doubt and has a special place in my heart as for long time my best ever scoring round occured there with some fellow GCA'ers.


What's realistic is that you can't argue the novelty factor it has for American golf. The number of links courses in the US can be counted on 1 hand. It's highly private and thus not many people get to play it. This means in most cases it will be raved about even that much more. It's extremely difficult for anyone without a helicoptor to reach, increasing this perceived value.


If we moved Sand Hills to the UK and nestled it between between any of the other great courses would it stand out in the same way or would it be just another of the great UK courses to visit? I'm not so sure but I have a feeling it would be generally seen as one of the many.


What if we moved The Old Course to Nebraska in it's exact same form. Would it be seen to be as great as it currently is? Naturally we would have to move the R&A as well given that's it's clubhouse.


In any case, even if you've played them both many times (and for the record I have) it's still not a cut and dried choice as in a majority would answer one way or another. I do think in general the majority of American's would answer Sand Hills is better and I've not yet read remarks from a single European/UK/Irish that has chosen Sand Hills as the better course, though I guess not that many have made the journey there for obvious reasons.

[Eric Smith]

With high enough levels of ignorance it's plausible to believe anything really.

#dignity

[John Mayhugh]

What's realistic is that you can't argue the novelty factor it has for American golf. The number of links courses in the US can be counted on 1 hand. It's highly private and thus not many people get to play it. This means in most cases it will be raved about even that much more. It's extremely difficult for anyone without a helicoptor to reach, increasing this perceived value.

The helicopter comment is a bit dramatic, don't you think? I would guess the vast majority of people get there by other means. You may not realize this, but the USA is a rather large country, and people here are probably more accustomed to traveling longer distances to get to places worth visiting. Sand Hills is easily worth the added effort. Besides, I can make it to Sand Hills in no more time than it takes for me to get to Bandon.
As to the novelty factor, while there may not be many "true" links courses in the US, Sand Hills isn't one either. So if you suggest that Sand Hills is more popular due to playing linksy, then you also have to consider all sorts of other US courses that play that way.

The massive advantage that Sand Hills has over TOC is that most visitors get to play multiple rounds at SH. At TOC it's generally one round only on a trip. It's very hard to absorb sublety in during a single play, so players have the chance to get much more familiar with SH. I think that, more than the novelty/access/nationalism is what boosts the appeal of Sand Hills.

Personally, I love both. But if offered a tee time at either on Friday, I would be headed to Scotland. Only a couple more hours of travel time, and I have so much more to see and do there.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,


It is possible to build a poor course on perfect land.  It is also possible to build a world class course on perfect land.  It is not ossible to build a world class course on poor land.  All I was doing was pointing out that the suggestion that the land at Sand Hills is better suggests either a lack of understanding of what makes great golf land or an ignorance of the land at St Andrews.

Hi Kevin


I think we are going OT a bit here, but as good as it is, Ben's porch is really only an enhanced halfway house in Mittelnowhere.  I wouldn't wan't to spend more than 30 minutes before getting sweaty and lonely, even if I were with my favorite golf buddies.


As for perfection, the land vs. the course, etc., to paraphrase what Joe E Brown said at the end of "Some Like it Hot," nobody nor anything is perfect.  To say it is not so, is to say a lie.


All the best


Rich

[John Kavanaugh]

https://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/standrews1/


As someone who has only played St. Andrews once I like how the above, oddly missing, review starts with a quote from David Fay. "Anyone who raves about the Old Course after one or two rounds there is either a liar or a fool."

[George Pazin]

Most of us who post on here are liars or fools, whether by the standard JK mentions, or the standard Rich G uses.


There is a tendency, when arguing/discussing things on here and elsewhere, to require formality in the standard of the most rigid mathematical proof. I'd suggest instead we strive to adopt a more informal usage of language, a colloquial form of sorts. Everyone understands - or at least should understand - that when discussing a subjective topic, the word perfect imposes an impossible standard in the rigid sense. But similarly, we should all understand what someone means when they say the land is perfect.


I have no doubt that, should I ever enjoy the opportunity to play TOC, I will feel it's terrific after only one play. But that has more to do with my own thoughts and ideas on gca than it does serve as an indictment of my truthfulness or competence. Or at least that's my defense.


There, that's my contribution to beard pulling for the year.......


EDIT: (Not sure why this didn't show in real text size, other than the moderator's incredulity at the statement)


I find myself agreeing with JK's sentiment that we should all be touting TOC.

[John Kavanaugh]

To say that any one course is better than another requires a leap of faith. My love of St. Andrews after only one play is entirely faith based. I simply believe it to be the best course I have or will ever play. Faith, the bastion of liars and fools.

[Peter Pallotta]

In architectural-design terms, is it plausible that C&C got so 'right' in about a year's time what it took Nature & Old Tom & Wind & Rain & Countless Tweaks-Changes rooted in hundreds of thousands of Golfers & Rounds of Golf some 150+ years to achieve?

I suppose it *is* plausible -- C&C may be geniuses! But if their course ends up being regarded as better than TOC, one could still ask (given the very different creation histories): A better *what*?

 Peter

[Brian Finn]

In architectural-design terms, is it plausible that C&C got so 'right' in about a year's time what it took Nature & Old Tom & Wind & Rain & Countless Tweaks-Changes rooted in hundreds of thousands of Golfers & Rounds of Golf some 150+ years to achieve?

I suppose it *is* plausible -- C&C may be geniuses! But if their course ends up being regarded as better than TOC, one could still ask (given the very different creation histories): A better *what*?

 Peter

I think you are forgetting about the portion of Sand Hills' formation that consisted of millions of years of ocean tides, followed by many more of winds, rain, and other weather that led to the land being such as it was when C&C first walked it.

One might even argue that C&C did far less to "create" the golf course at Sand Hills than did Old Tom at The Old Course. 

This is great fun to discuss and debate, but there is not a correct answer, no matter which side of the pond you prefer.

PS - In listing my own ABC's of golf courses, I considered the Old Course at St. Andrews for both my S slot (where I chose Sand Hills) and my O slot (where I chose Old Town).

[David Davis]

With high enough levels of ignorance it's plausible to believe anything really.

#dignity

Mr. Smith, how's it going my friend? I admit this reads snarkier than intended however, plausible belief can most certainly have you believing that your local muni is better than St. Andrews Old Course and that was my point. If your mind tells you that then no need trying to convince you otherwise. That would indicate a high level of ignorance would it not? 




@John


5 hours drive from the closest major airport in my book certainly qualfies as extremely hard to get to. Sure I do that kind of ridiculous stuff all the time but still there is nothing easy about flying someplace then taking a 5 hour drive to get to your destination unless you are really use to spending huge amount of time in the car. My friends in Denver don't seem to think it's a big deal at all. However, to put it into perspective as you said Bandon is 5 hours from PDX. Though you can fly from Denver and SFO to Coos Bay with regular flight from a major airline that will cut that commute by a wide margin. Don't forget I'm from Oregon where you have to drive hours for a cup of coffee.


In 5 hours I can fly to Scotland from The Netherlands and pretty much have my first round at St. Andrews finished.


It's funny that you talk about Sand Hills having a massive advantage because you get to play multiple rounds and I won't argue that except to say that it is far easier to play multiple rounds at the Old Course than it is at Sand Hills, you just have to be willing to show up every morning early or get lucky and win their lottery. Heck you could even move there and buy a links ticket for the summer and play it every darn day. However, you said it like it's a given but you happen to be in an incredibly small group that has the luxury of access through friends etc there. Everyone can play the Old Course and I assure you far more people have played multiple rounds there than will ever play Sand Hills so you are really arguing from an extremely privelidged place if you want to throw that in.


As far as links goes I meant to write links-like, it all depends on your definition. Most links like courses dont' have all the characteristics of links courses as in fine grasses, fast and firm surfaces and are situated on pure sandy sites with significant wind (not taking a large body of water into consideration). Sand Hills would be as close to a links as you could get without actually being one. Even the distinction of being situated on the unfertile ground is a perfect fit.

[Kalen Braley]

Based only on what I've heard.


Seems a tad ironic Sand Hills is being blasted for being a "long drive" when everything I've heard about Scotlands travel system, by train or automobile is just as bad if not worse.


Yes we have long distances in between our towns and cities west of the Mississippi, but at least we have a good highway system to get us there relatively quickly.. 

[Eric Smith]

David,


You needed all 5 hours of that drive to tell me your story and that was only til the age of 10.


Kalen,


Please stop. Getting around in Scotland is getting around anywhere else. Wth are you talking about?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()