The Consensus Problem: Classic vs Modern

[Ben Sims]

BLUF: Modern courses are getting screwed.


TL;DR: Using Golf Magazine’s Top 100 in the US list (someone please feel free to do this with other lists and across other regions or worldwide), by my count, only 1 of the top 10 were built in the last 40 years. 4 of the top 30. 25 of the top 100.


Were the ODG’s just THAT much better? Or is consensus too hard to break? Or are a lot of those classic courses that are still great precisely because a lot of the new good guys have worked extensively on them?


Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

[Kyle Harris]

If time is truly a crucible for great architecture, as many have said, then perhaps this is what distinguishes the various iterations of holes 100-600 yards in length combined to form 18 as much as anything else.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe the fact that they are still golf courses 100 years later says something about them.  Maybe a course shouldn’t even be on the list until it is 75 or 100 years old to prove it can stand the test of time!  Golfweek does make this distinction but many don’t like that because a golf course is a golf course regardless when it was built and they want to see them all compared to one an other. 


Let’s face the elephant in the room, this game and the courses it is played on have a lot to do about tradition for many (not all) and there is something about standing on the tee at The Old Course or Merion or Shinnecock Hills,…, and recognizing the history that happened there.  Maybe golfers will feel the same way one day when they stand on the tee 100 years from now when they play some of these “modern” designs that survived and persevered until then.


I have to laugh, we had two raters show up at my club last fall (neither from Golf Digest by the way) who didn’t know who William Flynn was or had any idea what courses he designed (including ours). Are you kidding me and these guys were raters for a major golf publication trying to decide how good or bad our course was!!!  Then it got me thinking, maybe raters shouldn’t know a thing about GCA history or anything about the course before playing it or who Donald Ross is or Tom Doak or Bill Coore,…. Maybe then they would truly just be looking at the design with no bias.  It’s a great concept but Good luck finding those kind of panelists who are really capable of determining the best of the best.  That kind of panelist doesn’t exist at least not for long 

[Ben Sims]

Kyle and Mark,


Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.


If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle and Mark,


Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.


If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.

Is it your position that a course can’t be tied, then? I can’t think of much else. How do you break a tie?

[Ben Sims]

Kyle and Mark,


Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.


If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.

Is it your position that a course can’t be tied, then? I can’t think of much else. How do you break a tie?

Kyle,


I acknowledge what you’re trying to ask me. I’m cool with ties. But based on my OP would you assert that classic and modern architecture is tied?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle and Mark,


Sorry I’m not buying. If you care about architecture even just a little bit, it shouldn’t be too hard to identify features and characteristics of good holes regardless of how long they’ve been around.


If time indeed IS a crucible, you’re going to need to identify characteristics that classic courses tend to feature that modern courses don’t. Hosting a tournament or Bing Crosby having a lark don’t count.

Is it your position that a course can’t be tied, then? I can’t think of much else. How do you break a tie?

Kyle,


I acknowledge what you’re trying to ask me. I’m cool with ties. But based on my OP would you assert that classic and modern architecture is tied?

If we posit that classic architecture is anything that isn't modern and modern architecture is anything that isn't classic, sure.

This brings in an even greater problem, though.

A golf course that has managed to survive the various challenges of a century (or more) of economic pressure could be argued to be "better" than a course that's only managed to survive one Great Recession. Even at the highest level, golf is a consumer good.

[Joe Zucker]

I think the survivorship bias is strong in the older courses (Matt Schoolfield has brought this up before).  Not only do we only see the best of the ODGs, but those courses have had 100 years to evolve and improve.


In 2100, does anyone think Pacific Dunes and Streamsong and Sand Valley will be worse courses than they are today (assuming they are cared for)?  I think they will all get better as the owners and supers tweak them for a new era.  You could argue that whatever tweaks were made to the classics are not enough to make them uniformly appear ahead of moderns in the rankings and I would probably buy that, but we are seeing close to the best version of the classic courses.  I'm not sure if we have seen the best version of the modern greats or if we just have to wait another 75 years?

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
On most (definitely not all) of their designs, I think most Golden Age designers would be in awe if they could see their courses today.  First they would be thrilled to see they are still golf courses and secondly they would be amazed at how they evolved to still hold and create interest, excitement and challenge for golfers playing a game that they would see has changed quite significantly in 100 years. The maintenance practices in particular would blow their minds and they would quickly realize this had to have an impact on the architecture and their design.


These architects knew the game was going to change and some even planned for it building elasticity into their courses or providing tree planting recommendations etc.  Some lived long enough to modify their own designs as they felt necessary but none believed as far as I could tell that what they did was perfect and shouldn’t ever be touched. 


If I could bring three architects back to see three courses it would be Ross to see #2 and Mackenzie to see Augusta National and Crump to see Pine Valley (especially since Crump never saw it completed). Their reactions would be something to witness but either way, jaws would be wide open for all three of them. 

[Michael Felton]

Is some of this a real estate issue? The land you build a golf course on has an impact on its quality. Presumably people would start off with the best bits of land (100+ years ago) and are now looking for not such good property on which to build the newer courses? I don't think it's an accident that a lot of the strongest new courses are built in the middle of nowhere. Prime real estate for golf courses near major metropolitan areas must be very limited.

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
Location and land is part of it.  Clearly many of the best modern courses are built on the best sites.  It would be interesting to see a list of the best modern courses built on the worst or less than ideal sites.  It would be a very different list with some different architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael,
Location and land is part of it.  Clearly many of the best modern courses are built on the best sites.  It would be interesting to see a list of the best modern courses built on the worst or less than ideal sites.  It would be a very different list with some different architects.

That would be pointless.  Golfers aren’t going places to give a grade to the architect - they’re going to play the finished product.  And nobody really knows how to judge what parameters we started with (permitting, budget, etc).

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree, there are so many factors most will never know about.  And yes golfers just care about the end product and not  what it took to get there.  But there are some great courses out there that were it not for the vision and creativity of the architect (and in some cases a good budget) that great golf was created out of almost nothing. 

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


I think your title explains it all.


A brand new course has no consensus on where it ought to rank, unlike the older ones.  There is a huge rush to judgment when the course opens, but it’s 100% based on first impressions, which partly explains why new courses come in hot and most fall down the list in the years that follow.


There is also a consensus about who are the great architects of all time and therefore (indirectly) how many places they deserve out of 100.  But for anyone still active, the consensus is unclear because we still have more to do.  The first test for Childress Hall will be how it compares to Tara Iti, Ballyneal, and Rock Creek.  The panelists are trying hard to arrive at a consensus of where it fits on my own totem pole first, and they are influenced by each other’s opinions.  I don’t know what my glass ceiling is, but I must be close enough to wear a helmet.


By contrast, new architects don’t have that ceiling yet, so it’s easier to make room for their first really excellent course - by definition, it adds to the variety of the list.

[Ira Fishman]

There also is the math to consider.


On the one hand, it seems odd that the 30 years since Sand Hills has seen so few courses displace the Golden Age courses in the top quartile given that the Golden Age was roughly 30 years. However, hundreds and hundreds of courses were built in the Golden Age compared to the relatively small number in the past 30 years and particularly from 2008 until just recently.


The interesting question from a design philosophy standpoint is why so few courses among the thousands built from 1950 to 1990 fare well among architecture fans.

[Mike Hendren]

Ford has built a lot of Mustangs in the past 60 years but the ‘65 remains a classic.  Not necessarily the greatest, but clearly a classic.  The sticker price on today’s high end model is around $85,000.  Sure, it’s a better car ( starting with a/c) but it’s not a classic that will be time honored. 


Just like you can’t make old friends, you can’t build a classic golf course.

[Ally Mcintosh]

There also is the math to consider.


On the one hand, it seems odd that the 30 years since Sand Hills has seen so few courses displace the Golden Age courses in the top quartile given that the Golden Age was roughly 30 years. However, hundreds and hundreds of courses were built in the Golden Age compared to the relatively small number in the past 30 years and particularly from 2008 until just recently.


The interesting question from a design philosophy standpoint is why so few courses among the thousands built from 1950 to 1990 fare well among architecture fans.

This was where I was going to go…


Ben mentions 25 of the Top-100 built in the last 40 years. That is probably over-proportionate to the total courses built in the time period, not under.


(Perhaps not given the proliferation of builds in the ‘85 to ‘00 timeframe but then most of those courses were built on bad land using a real estate model).

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
Your point about many courses being part of real estate complex is a good one. But it also shows how important the surrounds are to a great golf course.  Many here say they don’t consider what is “off the golf course” but apparently they do when it comes to houses and condos, etc 


If they were just rating “the golf course” why would the real estate around it matter? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The real estate model often defined the corridors the golf course could use. So it put constraints on the routing… It wasn’t all about the - undeniable - negative aesthetic of playing between houses lining both sides of the fairway.

[Tim Martin]

Ford has built a lot of Mustangs in the past 60 years but the ‘65 remains a classic.  Not necessarily the greatest, but clearly a classic.  The sticker price on today’s high end model is around $85,000.  Sure, it’s a better car ( starting with a/c) but it’s not a classic that will be time honored. 


Just like you can’t make old friends, you can’t build a classic golf course.

If “patina” counts for anything as it relates to golf courses which I believe it does than this post hits the bullseye. It’s not a knock on the moderns as only time can deliver it.

[Tom_Doak]

Ford has built a lot of Mustangs in the past 60 years but the ‘65 remains a classic.  Not necessarily the greatest, but clearly a classic.  The sticker price on today’s high end model is around $85,000.  Sure, it’s a better car ( starting with a/c) but it’s not a classic that will be time honored. 


Just like you can’t make old friends, you can’t build a classic golf course.

If “patina” counts for anything as it relates to golf courses which I believe it does than this post hits the bullseye. It’s not a knock on the moderns as only time can deliver it.

Warm-season grasses do not produce this “patina” and that is one of the many subtle biases against courses from those regions.


By contrast, Pacific Dunes and St Patrick’s had a patina almost immediately, due to the way we handled the soils.  Perhaps too much of one, for some tastes!  Whether you like the style or not, minimalism is the quickest route to this in a new course.

[Ira Fishman]

There also is the math to consider.


On the one hand, it seems odd that the 30 years since Sand Hills has seen so few courses displace the Golden Age courses in the top quartile given that the Golden Age was roughly 30 years. However, hundreds and hundreds of courses were built in the Golden Age compared to the relatively small number in the past 30 years and particularly from 2008 until just recently.


The interesting question from a design philosophy standpoint is why so few courses among the thousands built from 1950 to 1990 fare well among architecture fans.

This was where I was going to go…


Ben mentions 25 of the Top-100 built in the last 40 years. That is probably over-proportionate to the total courses built in the time period, not under.


(Perhaps not given the proliferation of builds in the ‘85 to ‘00 timeframe but then most of those courses were built on bad land using a real estate model).

By my quick count, Ross has 9 courses in the GM US 100. He designed over 300 courses. C&C and T Doak have a combined 8 in the GM US 100. I doubt that they have designed a third as many as Ross.


On the flipside, Dr. Mac does seem a unicorn at least in terms of his US designs.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't believe quotas should matter here, even if I understand why some may analyze the lists in this fashion.

A great to elite course ought to stand on its merits...aka what was put in the ground.

[Ira Fishman]

I don't believe quotas should matter here, even if I understand why some may analyze the lists in this fashion.

A great to elite course ought to stand on its merits...aka what was put in the ground.

I am not advocating for quotas. I am just pointing out that in proportion to the number of courses designed, the best of the modern architects do well—higher than a “quota” in fact.


The question of course is whether in a hundred years, that will still be true.


Ira

[Michael Felton]

I don't believe quotas should matter here, even if I understand why some may analyze the lists in this fashion.

A great to elite course ought to stand on its merits...aka what was put in the ground.

I was thinking about this a little this afternoon. If someone came along who could somehow create 100 perfect copies of Pine Valley (and you subscribe to the idea that PV is the best course in the world), arguably those 100 courses would completely fill the top 100, but that would obviously not be particularly helpful. So I can see the desire to have some variety at least in the type of courses. I don't think a course should be excluded because its architect already has x number of courses in the top 100 and someone decided that was enough.

[Tags:]

Tags: