What was the demarcation of harder is not better in modern golf architecture?

[Stewart Abramson]

I actually enjoy that golf course, but that hole doesn't really work. Even if you hit the island fairway, you still have an incredibly difficult second shot. There's not enough benefit to risk it for 99% of golfers.

Indeed. I went for and hit the island fairway with a 2-iron hybrid. But my second shot was so long and the green at such an awkward angle from there that I ended up laying up back to the main fairway, making the whole thing a waste! I guess you could fault me for going for it but compromising and taking less club off the tee.

As silly as it looks, trying to hit that island fairway is one of the most thrilling shots that I've played. They just need to shift the angle of the green to favor a shot from there and maybe make it a bit bigger so that there'd be a reward consummate with the risk.

I've played that hole several times and have tried both options more than once. I've always managed to ef up the hole either way. As you said, even with a successful tee shot on to the island fairway, the second shot is very difficult and going the long way around is not an easy par. I'm not fond of the hole, but the groups I've played with have mostly liked it and all remember the hole, so that must count for something.

[Sven Nilsen]

Heading out your way this September, Sven...hoping you're in the neighborhood.

I'll be here.


You should see if you can add Bar Run in Roseburg to the itinerary.  I'm hearing good things.


Sven

[Philippe Binette]

I doubt a place like sand hills had a big impact, except for the golf architecture nerd... most players have never seen it


I think that the presidents cup 1998 at Royal Melbourne had a big influence...


Before that, North Americans had seen firm fast golf only on links courses .  And the beauty of links courses is hard to expose on TV


Then at royal Melbourne in 1998, you see a firm fast yet amazingly beautiful, with trees and bunkers that are closer to what North Americans are use to see.


The course played tough but on was wide, receptive to running approaches, no water...


Vastly different than the overwaterred course at the time

[MCirba]

I'll be here.


You should see if you can add Bar Run in Roseburg to the itinerary.  I'm hearing good things.


Sven

Awesome.. I'll check it out, thanks!

[Tommy Williamsen]

I doubt a place like sand hills had a big impact, except for the golf architecture nerd... most players have never seen it


I think that the presidents cup 1998 at Royal Melbourne had a big influence...


Before that, North Americans had seen firm fast golf only on links courses .  And the beauty of links courses is hard to expose on TV


Then at royal Melbourne in 1998, you see a firm fast yet amazingly beautiful, with trees and bunkers that are closer to what North Americans are use to see.


The course played tough but on was wide, receptive to running approaches, no water...


Vastly different than the overwaterred course at the time

While not many had played the Sand Hills it sure got a lot of press about playability and fun. Then it jumped high in the ratings. In some ways it is the most impactful course in the last forty years.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It seems to be sometime after the advent of “minimalism” as in 2004 Ed Seay designed Gillette Ridge in Bloomfield, Connecticut for Arnold Palmer Golf in a border town to where I live. It opened to some acclaim but it’s reputation changed in the ensuing years to way too hard to be fun. It has eleven forced carries and nothing I would call a breather hole. The example is not meant to be a hit piece on Gillette but rather an example that clients and or some architects were still promoting “exceedingly hard” is the way to go as late as 2004. What say those in the know?

Tim,
It surely wasn't 2004. 

[Tim Martin]

It seems to be sometime after the advent of “minimalism” as in 2004 Ed Seay designed Gillette Ridge in Bloomfield, Connecticut for Arnold Palmer Golf in a border town to where I live. It opened to some acclaim but it’s reputation changed in the ensuing years to way too hard to be fun. It has eleven forced carries and nothing I would call a breather hole. The example is not meant to be a hit piece on Gillette but rather an example that clients and or some architects were still promoting “exceedingly hard” is the way to go as late as 2004. What say those in the know?

Tim,
It surely wasn't 2004. 

#DroppingKnowledge

[Jim_Kennedy]

 


Jeff and Tom's mention of the change in the rating approach of relevant golf magazines is, to me, the 'moment', but a look at the 'Top 50' toughest courses in the USA shows that there are plenty which built before and after they made their changes, and many after Gillette's inception.


IMHO the switch they made helped open up a whole new way to look at and create new golf courses, which eventually fostered  extremely good architecture that was playable - an old idea that was dusted off and given a new life by enterprising young architects.

[Jordan Standefer]

I wonder what effect Sand Hills had. It is no pushover but it is great fun and a joy to play. It does not beat the player up but gives him places to shine.

The book DREAM GOLF by Stephen Goodwin details pretty well how a round at Sand Hills inspired Mike Keiser to value fun over difficulty when starting to build Bandon Dunes.

[Steve Lang]

   Folks were having fun playing golf before Sand Hills GC opened and Mike Keiser was inspired...  it all between the ears, left vs right brain stuff.


I would propose that the demarcation line was approximately when Rees Jones was nicknamed the "Open Doctor"