[henrye]

I have been following the site for the past few weeks and as a “newbie” have been somewhat intimidated.  It appears that so many of you have experienced such a wide variety of golf on the most prestigious courses known.  And most seem to support the notion that the greatest courses are the classics.  I know there are always some exceptions.

With modern technology, extensive literature to study, architects with university landscape degrees and seemingly unlimited developer budgets it would seem to me that the modern course should be able to be superior.  Do we believe that a course is superior for nostalgic reasons like its history, or because of its famed deceased architect (there not making Alister Mackenzie courses anymore)?

If we play an old classic and a modern gem, but we are not told of the history or the architects and just play the two courses and stack them up for their pure playability, enjoyability, even their architectural accomplishment – which will we prefer?  How much is decided based on our preconceived notion?

Hitting the ball over the edge of the ocean or next to waterfall vs. that dogleg around the massive oak?  Which is more fun?

In 50 to 100 years will the moderns be classic and the classics refurbished to emulate the moderns?

[Slag_Bandoon]

Great questions Henrye,  For brevity's sake, with optimism, I believe many greats are yet to come.  Perhaps the best is yet to come.  

[Tim Weiman]

Henrye:

I would hope that in a 100 years we would have some more "classics". But, equally, I hope we resist the urge to "refurbish" today's classics.

FYI, I'm one of those people who believe that the classics are superior to modern designs and slowly came to that conclusion by traveling and visiting many classic courses. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or some "famed deceased" architect. Mostly, it has to do with how the architect used the land and the character of the land itself.

Landscape degrees and unlimited budget just don't seem to be able to compete. Why that is, I can't explain.

[A_Clay_Man]

Henrye-One word sticks out in your post, to me, and that is that little word called playability. While I encourage people that golf is a game for life, I fully realize it is not a game for everyone. One of the problems with the modern designs is that they were built for profitability and that would be acheived thru volume volume volume. There are execptions which will never be profitable, like trying to recover your sunk costs when that sunk cost is tens upon tens of millions.

Take Pebble Beach for example or Bethpage Black. Can you imagine playing those courses, back in the day, unless you were very skilled at golf? Forced carries that are as intimidating as some on this site, if not more, are what seperates the ball striker from the bowler. Modern designs seem to have taken that distinction out of the equation for nothing other than getting the most people around in the least amount of time to acheive their volume goals ergo profit.

[BCrosby]

Henrye -

There will be new classics down the road. Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes come to mind.

But I doubt that there will be as many "classic" courses built in any era as there were between, say WWI and the Great Depression. It was a Golden Age when a there was a confluence of all sorts of things to produce an incredible number of great golf courses in an incredibly short time frame.

Golden Ages aren't unique to golf course architecture. They've occurred in art, literature and music. One of my favorite Golden Age stories is of a reception in Vienna in 1791.
At the party was an aging Hayden, W. Amadeus Mozart in his prime (soon to be cut down) and an young composer named Ludwig v. Beethoven. Talk about a Golden Age.

I think gca has already had its Golden Age, which is not to say there haven't been any great courses built since. And there will be great courses built in the future. But I doubt there will be as many built in so such a short span of time as the period from WWI to 1930.

Though I will be the first to celebrate if I'm wrong.

Bob

[Tim Weiman]

Adam Clayman:

One of my most memorable rounds came on the River Course at Blackwolf Run in Kohler, Wisconson several years ago.

At first, it seemed like I wasn't going to have a very enjoyable time. I was fixed up with a couple who told me it was only their second time playing golf. For the life of me, I couldn't understand why they would be taking on such a course when their experience playing was so limited.

But, to them it made perfect sense. "We heard this was a good course", they explained.

Just when I was about to cry, the starter asked us to hold up for another couple minutes. The pro shop called saying a fourth person would be joining us. It turned out to be a very attractice young lady who left me speechless, made me forget about the two beginners and made it difficult to concentrate on playing the course.

By the 18th hole I managed to work up enough courage to ask her if she wanted to play the last hole for drinks after we finished.

She accepted and won the hole, her par to my bogey.

I still have no idea why any beginners would want to play Blackwolf Run, but the entire round, including drinks and dinner after were pretty nice.

Somehow I have a feeling the same thing must have happened once or twice in the 1920's at Pebble Beach, don't you think?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Henrye,

No need to be intimidated.  Its a great topic, and philosophical at that, worthy of the board.

As a modern architect, I like to think that your premise is  largely correct - modern courses should be and are better. On the other hand, visit any of our websites, and 99 out of 100 architects agree, we are "paying homage to MacKenzie" or whatever.  Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it is still imitation!  We must believe the art form was basically perfected in the Golden Age, (at least for American inland courses) and we are simply applying those principals.  Of course, CB MacDonald said that in 1900 or so!

IThe top courses of any era are more than functional - they are works of art, and no generation has the monoply on artistic talent.  I feel the top courses of each era compare favorably.  In fact, the modern classics really are different mostly in application of technology that couldn't be applied before - Artificial dunes at Whistling Straights, Waterfalls in the Desert, Golf courses on hilly ground owing to carts and cart paths, etc.  

I believe architects of all ages design for their clients wishes and target audience.  As Adam suggests, there is more emphasis now on playability for all than there may have been when the audience was almost exclusively rich white men.  Most courses are built on sites that don't offer everything - over different eras, different design characteristics were emphasized, and in some areas, you give a little (like close green to tee walks, and thrilling tee shot carries) and get a little (like spectacular vistas, or more safety, faster rounds and playability by all).

Everyone is entitled to their favorites, and even their own bias' in how they choose their favorites.  Comparing purely objectively is not so simple, especially when you consider each course is built for a specific purpose, which is not always to be a top 100 course.  

I would wager that the broad middle of today's courses are much, much better.  There are more talented designers today than ever before.  Lastly, I think human nature pushes standards higher generally, meaning that more courses today have built in  maintenance and design quality, etc. that classic courses took years to implement, like even moderate irrigation, and that means generally better courses across the board.


But, a classic is a classic.....

[somalley]

I could not agree with A_Clay more.  I have spoken with a few architects in this Southwest region and they have all but admitted that designing in playability sometimes compromises the process of incorporating exciting obstacles and carries that may be too intimidating for Joe Corporate's ego.  Volume and money too often rule to the detriment of design.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

At first I didn't see that you mentioned the round at Blackwolf was only several years ago. I thought at first you were going to tell us you married that attractive young lady!

It reminded me of the story about some guy whose name I can't remember who saw a stunning lady on another hole and said to his friends and partners; "See that lady over there! She's going to be my future EX-wife!" And sure enough that's what happened--all of it!

[Paul Richards]

henrye:

You said:
>In 50 to 100 years will the moderns be classic and the classics refurbished to emulate the moderns?


By then, Golfweek will offer three top 100 lists:

Classical
Modern
Post-Modern

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()