[Ben Hollerbach]

When Golf Magazine released their first top 100 list in 1985 they ranked 49 courses built during the golden ages and 33 courses built in the post war era between 1940-1990. 32 years later, the current list is made up of 48 golden age courses to only 7 post war courses. Of the current 48, 32 of them have been on the list since 1985. Which means that there are 17 golden age courses that were ranked in 1985 and are no longer ranked and 16 golden age courses that have been added to the list over the years.

Virtually all of these golden age courses that have been added to the list were more than 50 years old at the time of the first ranking in 1985, having been forgotten by the public, and only recently been "rediscovered" and brought back to prominence. Architects such as Ian Andrews have been quoted as saying that the majority of significant golden age restoration has been completed and has suggested that we begin to look at our post war courses. Tripp Davis has already begun this practice with his restoration of Dick Wilson's Meadow Brook.

Lets look into the past at what courses we've forgotten. What post war courses (1940-1990) should we be giving more attention to? What are the 10 best courses built in each of these decades. What design features of these courses should we applaud more frequently and what can be done to bring more attention to these courses?

I took a stab at putting together a partial list of great postwar courses:
40's:

• Peachtree
• Dunes Club

50's:

• Praire Dunes
• Old Warson
• Royal Montreal
• Laurel Velley
• Deepdale

60's:

• Golf Club
• Harbour Town
• Hazeltine
• Quail Hollow
• Spyglass
• Pine Tree
• Grandfather

70's:

• Murfield Village
• Teeth of the Dog
• Shoal Creek
• Oak Tree

80's:

• TPC Sawgrass
• Honors
• Wade Hampton
• Long Cove
• Black Diamond
• Shadow Creek

What should be added/subtracted from this list and why?

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


Interesting exercise.  Of the courses I have played, I would add the following:


Cog Hill #4 (sounds as if the Rees Jones restoration needs undoing)
River Course at Kohler (1990 but in same vein; not sure any restoration necessary although have not played it in years)
Golden Horseshoe in Williamsburg (probably not in "great" category but certainly quite good; recently restored)
Butler National?? (it is so friggin difficult that I am not sure I could consider it great)


Ira

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ira,
I was thinking about Cog Hill, but after all the recent renovations I was not sure if it still applied to this list. I got the sense that today it's more of a Rees Jones redesign than a Wilson original. Of course I listed Quail Hollow and the same could be said for that course as well.

I really really like Golden Horseshoe but I would agree that I'm not sure if it's in the great category. I have not seen it since the restoration but It's got to be pretty close to great and worthy of further discussion.

[Jeff Schley]

A couple that come to mind are:
1. MPCC Shore Course2. Desert Forest in AZ3. Forest Highlands

[Thomas Dai]

(it is so friggin difficult that I am not sure I could consider it great)[/font][/size]

I guess the words in brackets could be applied to a quite a few courses. Same with the terrain that some have been built on.
Atb

[David Wuthrich]

Champions Cypress Creek course in Houston from the 50's 
Used to be top 100

[Ben Hollerbach]

A couple that come to mind are:
1. MPCC Shore Course2. Desert Forest in AZ3. Forest Highlands

Jeff,
Didn't Strantz completely redo the Shore Course in the early 2000's? Are you speaking of the course that predated that and are you advocating that they go back to that course?
When were Desert Forest and Forest Highlands built?

[Jeff Schley]

A couple that come to mind are:
1. MPCC Shore Course2. Desert Forest in AZ3. Forest Highlands

Jeff,
Didn't Strantz completely redo the Shore Course in the early 2000's? Are you speaking of the course that predated that and are you advocating that they go back to that course?
When were Desert Forest and Forest Highlands built?

Strantz did completely redo the Shore course so that is cheating a bit.  I know DF was in the 60's and I thought FH was 80's.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


There are always going to be some newish courses that get into the top 100 right away and then decline and fall out over the course of a few years.  This is because the first panelists to go and see them are those pre-disposed to like them . . . fans of my courses are the first to go see a new one of mine, while fans of Rees Jones go to see his; then when my fans go to see his course or vice-versa, their average vote skews lower.  That explains a lot of the courses from the 80's and 90's that were once in the top 100 and are now gone. 


Likewise, twenty years from now, some of the new generation of courses will have fallen out of the top 100.  It's not so easy to pick which ones are most vulnerable, but a good rule of thumb is that the longer they've been in the list, the less likely they are to drop out.


Among the older set [1950's through 1970's], I think it's more a matter of them having been selected as tournament sites when they were fairly young, which skews voting in their favor for years afterward.


Also, Prairie Dunes is not really a 1950's course - the backbone of it is Perry Maxwell's original nine.

[Kalen Braley]

At the risk of invoking Sir Bobs spirit from beyond, its my understanding the original Shore course was not up to par with its superb location.  Stranz allegedly reversed the routing to better take advantage of the site in addition to his distinctive artistic styling that hit a great note with me.  I count myself very fortunate to have experienced it at the Monterey KP..

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

The crux of my post was in the influx of classic courses into the rankings, the courses that were already 50 years old and well established but overlooked at the time of the first rating that have made their way into the rankings today.

When we look back 50 years from today, what courses are their from that period are we overlooking, what courses from the 40's onward should we think about as good candidates for restoration and recognition?

Press Maxwell's 2nd nine at Prairie Dunes, was it built from Perry's plans, or was it more of an original set of 9 holes? If its the later, it could be argued that the whole of the property as an 18 hole course was not capitalized on until the expansion. Within your rating system, don't you discredit a nine hole course because of the greater difficulty in making 18 great holes in comparison to 9?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

The crux of my post was in the influx of classic courses into the rankings, the courses that were already 50 years old and well established but overlooked at the time of the first rating that have made their way into the rankings today.

When we look back 50 years from today, what courses are their from that period are we overlooking, what courses from the 40's onward should we think about as good candidates for restoration and recognition?

Press Maxwell's 2nd nine at Prairie Dunes, was it built from Perry's plans, or was it more of an original set of 9 holes? If its the later, it could be argued that the whole of the property as an 18 hole course was not capitalized on until the expansion. Within your rating system, don't you discredit a nine hole course because of the greater difficulty in making 18 great holes in comparison to 9?

I don't believe that very many of the courses from the 1940's to the 1970's will ever make it back into the rankings, restoration or no.  Few of them were built on great parcels of land for golf, or built with the sorts of cool detailing we love from the Golden Age masters.


As for Prairie Dunes, I don't know the history of the course and whether Perry Maxwell had routed the additional holes or not.  [I'd be surprised if he didn't, because he had so much land to work with.]  I would be happy to argue that there aren't many of the additional holes that are superior to any of the older ones.


P.S.  I just use '9' as the ceiling on the Doak Scale for a nine-hole course, since many courses would rate higher if you only had to count their best nine . . .

[mark chalfant]

NCR  South 1954  (Wilson)  fine par fours over superb terrain , with massive  fun to play greens



Fowler's Mill, ( Pete Dye)  in Ohio 1971  great routing on low profile land


Desert Forest   (Red Lawrence)  Arizona c. 1965


Shady Oaks,  RTJ senior in Fort Worth


Crag Burn,  RTJ  near Buffalo   circa 1970   

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,

I don’t really care too much about the rankings, and I don't think you do either. My point is there are current highly regarded golden age courses that were off everyone's radar not to long ago.  Everyone knew about the iconic benchmark courses , but there was a healthy collection of really good courses that we just simply forgot about.  Now we're a generation later and the lost courses are from the 1940-1980, just like likes some classic courses that were forgotten 20 or 30 years ago.

More golf courses were built in the 50' and 60’s than any prior decade and there was little slowdown in the 70’s and 80’s. I don’t believe the post war courses are better on average than classic courses but based on the shear number of courses built, more than just a few should be worthy of discussion and recognition.

Sure sites on average may have been less than stellar, but we're not looking for average. We're looking for the best.  Based on shear numbers, some courses had to be built on good land. I threw out a 50 year period that saw a monumental golf construction boom in America. If you pick a course at random it was most likely built during this period, but yet it’s hard to come up with the best 50 of the time? It’s a huge blind spot in the current study of golf architecture.

I know professionally it makes more sense right now to bash these courses.  The big money clubs are usually classic courses, better to praise them and their design features in the quest of the next renovation job. The current trend in renovations is to “fix” the mistakes of the post war era. Perfectly understandable, it’s a business after all.  But if any group of people can see past such a  bias and just evaluate courses for their architecture merit its this site.  I believe in the GCA membership.  Some of these courses are good, lets find them and help to make them better.

As for Prairie Dunes, there is a thread on here questioning if every hole at Prairie Dunes should not be considered the best on the course.  Maybe it can, maybe it can’t.  But if its even a discussion, it means the holes built in the 50’s are pretty darn spectacular.  Are those really the only 9 holes built in the 50’s worth analyzing their merits?  Surely there are more.

[Sven Nilsen]

As for Prairie Dunes, I don't know the history of the course and whether Perry Maxwell had routed the additional holes or not.  [I'd be surprised if he didn't, because he had so much land to work with.]  I would be happy to argue that there aren't many of the additional holes that are superior to any of the older ones.

When PD opened in 1937 the Carey brothers were already contemplating 9 additional holes in the near future (I don't know if plans for the additional 9 were drawn up at that time) as well as another 18 hole course.


Sven

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I don’t really care too much about the rankings, and I don't think you do either. My point is there are current highly regarded golden age courses that were off everyone's radar not to long ago.  Everyone knew about the iconic benchmark courses , but there was a healthy collection of really good courses that we just simply forgot about.  Now we're a generation later and the lost courses are from the 1940-1980, just like likes some classic courses that were forgotten 20 or 30 years ago.


. . .

I know professionally it makes more sense right now to bash these courses.  The big money clubs are usually classic courses, better to praise them and their design features in the quest of the next renovation job. The current trend in renovations is to “fix” the mistakes of the post war era. Perfectly understandable, it’s a business after all.  But if any group of people can see past such a  bias and just evaluate courses for their architecture merit its this site.  I believe in the GCA membership.  Some of these courses are good, lets find them and help to make them better.

Ben:


If you really want to piss me off, just imply that I am saying what I'm saying for monetary gain.  I've never been in consulting work for the money, and I'm not signing up any more consulting clients in future.  Money has nothing to do with my argument.


My point is that there were classic courses that were overlooked because the standard from that era was so high, and there were tons of courses built with the great detail work to greens and bunkers that defined the era, so it's natural that a bunch of them slipped through the cracks . . . in my part of the USA, that was Crystal Downs and Belvedere. 


By contrast, the postwar era abandoned the idea of craftsmanship in favor of modernity.  So it's not that there weren't some courses built on better land than others . . . it's that even those courses didn't have the detailing to make them great.  The height of 1960's architecture in northern Michigan was the Heather course at Boyne Highlands, by Robert Trent Jones . . . later split in two when the resort expanded.  Put back together and restored, would it be a great course?  Not in my opinion.


I guess you could make the case that the better sites from that period could be turned into better courses by someone today who built a set of great greens and bunkers over the top of them.  The only example I can think of right now is RACV Healesville in Australia.  Someone could make a good living doing projects like that, IF they could convince the clubs in question to let them at it.  But in general, those who appreciate good architecture have not been drawn to join clubs built in this era.

[Thomas Dai]

Curious to know where some UK and Continental courses fit in here particularly those links courses that were significantly trashed during WWII and were later re-instigated but not necessarily as they were before ... ie, same area of land, different course?
atb

[Jeff Schley]

Curious to know where some UK and Continental courses fit in here particularly those links courses that were significantly trashed during WWII and were later re-instigated but not necessarily as they were before ... ie, same area of land, different course?
atb

I believe Turnberry was used as an airforce base during WWII and had to be redone after.  Also Prince's down next to Deal as well I know was used as a base and rebuilt or restored.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Good point Thomas,
That would be an interesting exploration. On the whole were the UK courses damaged by the war put back the way they were or were design changes made?
Maybe not a war damaged course, but where should Waterville be placed? Was the work completed in 1973 a complete redesign?

[Thomas Dai]

Curious to know where some UK and Continental courses fit in here particularly those links courses that were significantly trashed during WWII and were later re-instigated but not necessarily as they were before ... ie, same area of land, different course?
atb

I believe Turnberry was used as an airforce base during WWII and had to be redone after.  Also Prince's down next to Deal as well I know was used as a base and rebuilt or restored.

I’m sure others know more about specific details on these and other courses effected by WWII. Saunton would be another example of a pre-WWII course, or rather two courses, that were significantly effected.
I believe many courses along the French, Belgian and Dutch coast were heavily effected too and that courses in other parts of the world were as well.
It would be a question of extent though as for example, many a UK links course had pillboxes, fencing etc installed and defensive measures like gun emplacements were placed on courses near harbour mouths, headlands etc. Many an airfield was of course built too. Even inland courses were effected, some having fairways including course features ploughed up for food production or camps, hospitals etc built there. And many a course never reappeared after WWII.
Atb

[Derek_Duncan]

If pressed to the fire I would probably agree with Tom that the courses of the 50s, 60s and 70s lack the detail and little intricacies that make courses from the 10s and 20s so interesting. Considering the mass of courses that were built, they just don't seem to be there.


But I often wonder if we ever get a true look at what the post-War courses really were. I'm guessing most have evolved dramatically or been renovated over the course of the 50-70 years since they opened. We think of Firestone and Bellerive, to take two examples, as being narrow, treelined and dull, but they weren't designed that way originally. Neither had very many trees at all, and we know how grass lines tend to shrink until forcefully pushed back (and this is not to mention these courses and others have undergone heavy remodeling).


One of the reasons those classic courses you mention have recently debuted on top 100 lists is because their architectural features were rediscovered and brought back to life. We really don't know for certain what kind of features or details might be missing from some of the prominent (and maybe not prominent) post-War courses because they likely haven't been preserved or have been paved over. I'm not certain we're judging them in full context.


If you went back to 1982 and dropped someone on an average Donald Ross course, you probably would think he was that great of an architect either.

[David_Tepper]

Curious to know where some UK and Continental courses fit in here particularly those links courses that were significantly trashed during WWII and were later re-instigated but not necessarily as they were before ... ie, same area of land, different course?

Thomas Dai -

I believe 6 of the current holes at Royal Dornoch (#6 thru #11) were built post WWII. Those holes were built on land that was not part of the course prior to WWII.

DT

[Tom_Doak]

I believe 6 of the current holes at Royal Dornoch (#6 thru #11) were built post WWII. Those holes were built on land that was not part of the course prior to WWII.

True.  The six holes from the original course were split off to become the start and finish of the Struie course.  And going up over the bluff toward Embo did give the course another dimension.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If pressed to the fire I would probably agree with Tom that the courses of the 50s, 60s and 70s lack the detail and little intricacies that make courses from the 10s and 20s so interesting. Considering the mass of courses that were built, they just don't seem to be there.


But I often wonder if we ever get a true look at what the post-War courses really were. I'm guessing most have evolved dramatically or been renovated over the course of the 50-70 years since they opened. We think of Firestone and Bellerive, to take two examples, as being narrow, treelined and dull, but they weren't designed that way originally. Neither had very many trees at all, and we know how grass lines tend to shrink until forcefully pushed back (and this is not to mention these courses and others have undergone heavy remodeling).


One of the reasons those classic courses you mention have recently debuted on top 100 lists is because their architectural features were rediscovered and brought back to life. We really don't know for certain what kind of features or details might be missing from some of the prominent (and maybe not prominent) post-War courses because they likely haven't been preserved or have been paved over. I'm not certain we're judging them in full context.


If you went back to 1982 and dropped someone on an average Donald Ross course, you probably would think he was that great of an architect either.

Derek,
It was actually one of your podcast episodes that made me start thinking about this subject. Design is always so cyclical, as it has been pointed out here recently the design work of the 40's, 50's, and 60's were in direct response away from some of the golden age designs. Now today where we hold the golden age courses in such high esteem, its not surprising that the post war courses are viewed so poorly. But these were the courses of the great golf boom across the US, these were the courses that the majority of players learned the game and grew up on. It would not be surprising that soon enough the nostalgic notion of the time will come back into view and greater interest will be placed upon these forgotten properties. Like art and design in virtually any arena, It is not a stretch to think that one day the popular view will be in favor of postwar courses.

We discuss all the time of design intent when it comes to golden age courses and if designers were really designing for the how the course would naturally evolve. For the postwar courses, the same questions can be presented. But at the same time we have much better documentation as to their original presentation. If we feel that a course like Firestone is a fairly strong routing but has been to narrowed with trees, we have the ability to assess the course's presentation from day one and successfully return it back into that condition.

Eventually all of the golden era courses will either be restored or redesigned. All of the owners of these post war courses won't want to feel that their properties are without merit and they will look for those in the industry that can best restore the glory of their designs. Soon enough there will be architects branding themselves as Dick Wilson or RTJ specialist that can take a course Deepdale or Pine Tree and rediscover them for the masses.

[Tom_Doak]

The masses do not get past the front gate at Deepdale or Pine Tree.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()