Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Michael Chadwick on May 31, 2023, 07:43:26 PM
-
I recently returned from my first golf trip to Ireland and Northern Ireland, and played the following courses: Ballybunion, Lahinch, St. Patrick’s, Cruit Island, Portrush, County Down Annesley, County Down Championship, and County Louth. There are already a few very good threads on St. Patrick’s Links, most recently from Sean A. with hole by hole detail (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,71512.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,71512.0.html)). Instead, I want to reflect by taking a different angle, and to foreshadow my forthcoming thoughts, I reviewed the “Sacred Cow” thread once started by Tom ([/color]https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,24482.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,24482.0.html)[/size][/url]).
What I might enjoy most in discussing golf architecture is comparing and matching great courses against one another. Comparing world class courses is a hairsplitting exercise, where opinion may take more precedence than fact, because in my view any course above a 7 on the Doak scale is exceptional. Yet pinpointing nuanced differences and biases at that tier of greatness, I think, reveals not only more about your engagement with a course, it also reveals what kind of golfer you are and what excites or confounds you most.
Of the eight courses I played, I believe five of them are Doak 9’s. It was a thrilling week, with exceptional weather, and after taking a Scottish trip last September where I did not play the Old Course, Dornoch, Muirfield, or Ailsa, I feel like I remedied that itinerary by seeking out the lions’s share of the Emerald Isle’s benchmarks for architecture.
During the flight home, with yardage books strewn on my tray table, I began scribbling out a number of matchups, curious to see which holes appealed to me most, which holes were weaker than others, and ultimately which courses I most favored and in what order.
As a reference point, below are the Irish courses I saw as ranked in GOLF Magazine’s current World Top 100, along with similarly ranked modern designs I have played. For GOLF, no modern design is ranked higher than County Down; the highest ranking modern course on that panel is Sand Hills at 10.
County Down - 6
Portrush - 15
Friar’s Head - 21
Ballybunion - 24
Pacific Dunes - 28
Lahinch - 36
Ballyneal - 54
St Patrick’s - 55
Below is my own order for those eight courses, which may come as a surprise (or slander), and is the reason I wanted to generate a thread to discuss:
Pacific Dunes
Ballyneal
County Down
Friar’s Head
Portrush
Ballybunion
Lahinch
St Patrick’s
Now, before I get written off as a Doak groupie, bear with me a moment to flesh out a working thesis for why I’m willing to put two modern designs ahead of RCD, and Friar’s over the remaining elite Irish/N. Irish courses.
For well over 100 years, individuals in our sport have been deliberately going about thinking, writing, designing, and constructing venues in an attempt to discover what best suits the game. With varying levels of success, there is a progressive quality to any artistic or commercial enterprise. Colt and Mackenzie believed they were professionalizing architecture and creating better work than their predecessors. Robert Trent Jones thought the same. Technological advances aside, players and architects today have golf history’s collective body of work and thought at our disposal. Air travel has broadened access to far flung destinations and exhilarating sandy properties. With all of those resources, why shouldn’t a course built in the last 30 years be able to break into the world’s top five? Shouldn’t we want that for the sake of the game? Aren’t records meant to be broken across all sports? Don’t we expect it?
Part of the problem for why a modern design hasn’t supplanted a historic Top 5 (or Top 9) course may be due in part because much of Doak and Coore & Crenshaw’s success, being the modern architects most represented on GOLF’s rankings, is borne out of their reverence for the Golden Age masters. Their work can be interpreted not as a reaction to their immediate predecessors, but instead as an endorsement of the tenets first developed in early 20th century design. Look no further than the name Tom chose to brand his own architectural firm.
But I think that narrative, even if it may be widely accepted today, is incorrect. It renders these modern architects as being too deferential to the past, which consequently might cause their original designs to not be genuinely placed in competition with the stalwarts of the Golden Age, a possible mistake committed by golf’s community of raters.
There remains, in my opinion, a progressive thrust in these architects’ work, a desire to improve upon the past while nevertheless being respectful of it. When I compare Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal with Royal County Down, from their routings, greens, settings, and architectural flourishes, I think Doak has already surpassed—twice over!—the magnificent Royal County Down, and I think it’s important to acknowledge and celebrate that potential accomplishment.
Though yardages vary, County Down’s holes 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are structurally very similar. Tee balls (a mix of blind and not) are played to a corridor angled to the left, followed by a rightward approach on a slight dogleg hole overall. Many of them are breathtaking and wonderful to play, but there is a repetitive pattern that cannot be denied. The relatively simple routing results in the exceptional front 9 closest to the water and importantly the more interesting ground, but those contours recede on the back nine as holes work further away from the water. Holes 16-18 comprise a noticeable downshift, particularly the landing area of the 17th and Donald Steel’s myriad bunkers on 18.
Without question, if I only had one round on the island to play, I’d choose Royal County Down, for its setting and layout produces some of the most invigorating golf on the planet. But (with few exceptions) golf is played across a full 18 holes, and when I pit County Down against Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal at that hole to hole basis, and consider the above referenced elements at play in a course’s collective design and layout, I feel it is well within reason to give the edge to those two modern courses.
A course’s age should have no bearing on its stature with regard to other courses. Yet I think we mistakenly allow older courses to coalesce behind its history, the patina of their clubhouses, the tournaments they have hosted, and their accreted prestige to overly influence what we perceive from the holes on the ground, when it’s the holes themselves—more than anything else—that we should be considering.
-
;D
Wow, heresy no, bold and argumentative maybe but good for conversation, absolutely.
I've never had the pleasure of playing Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal have played the Irish courses and Friars Head. Loved Portrush and like County Down found the finish a bit lacking relative to the rest of the course. But the rest of the holes were in general remarkable. Friars Head is really good in it's own right, so it's not easy to rank them without an in depth knowledge of all the shots and watch all levels of players have at it.
That's why I'm so comfortable talking about Pine Valley. It's about the time served.
I thought the turn to the sea for the first time at Portrush was breathtaking , and felt like Brigadoon was waiting at the end of the path walking down to water. Friars Head's 14th hole had me thinking I was at Cypress Point, no small feat. Can't wait to play Pacific Dunes , hopefully when I can still hit it a little.
After all that gotta abstain from ranking , isn't it kind of like who's the most beautiful woman in the world.
-
Of interest to me is your framing of the theory. You write "Part of the problem....".
I am not overly fussed where classic or modern courses fall on a list of greatness so I don't identify a problem. I do, however, wonder why the classic/modern division is deemed important enough to keynote. Perhaps the single biggest reason for any perceived lack of recognition for modern courses is time. Time is no easy matter to dismiss. Time not only allows a subject to embed itself into a culture, but time also allows later generations to learn from previous masters of the subject. It is understandable to believe that he who arrives first with major ideas is the best. In a very real sense modern practitioners have a few generations of concepts to build upon.
Most interesting for me is that much of the best of modern architecture uses not only time tested design concepts, but also the front end smarts of choosing great sites which foster exceptional architecture.
Ciao
-
Michael,
Hard to disagree with any of your points.
But really it’s a toss up: For every modern course that loses out to history or reverence, one wins for zeitgeist or being the new best thing.
I haven’t seen Ballyneal or Pacific Dunes. I may well put them above RCD. But then I tend to put 4 Irish courses above RCD too.
-
Michael,
I'd suggest that perhaps the modern courses haven't been fully road tested just yet. The older courses have built there reputations over a number of years and therefore hard to say that their general standing isn't merited although I do acknowledge that there is perhaps a tendency towards herd mentality and confirmation bias although in fairness that can exist for modern courses also.
Niall
-
Michael,
I'd suggest that perhaps the modern courses haven't been fully road tested just yet. The older courses have built there reputations over a number of years and therefore hard to say that their general standing isn't merited although I do acknowledge that there is perhaps a tendency towards herd mentality and confirmation bias although in fairness that can exist for modern courses also.
Niall
Quite. Some are over-rated (for me, Kingsbarns falls in this category), others are under-rated.
-
The other aspect is that comparing modern to classic can sometimes be like comparing apples to oranges in terms of scale, number of tees, forced carries etc. Preference therefore might come down to which style you prefer.
Niall
-
As an aside it's worth noting that most older courses tend to be at golf Clubs whereas most/many of the newer courses tend to be golf facilities, pay-n-play etc.
The two, for example, the 365 days per year wants and expectations etc of the users, the owners and the staff, are not the same thing, often far from it.
atb
-
There is a reluctance to place a new course immediately in the Pantheon of greats and there are multiple good reasons for that:
1. People tend to get very excited about the new and different, but something really different is likely to become less so over time, as that architect gets more work and more people try to copycat their success. As examples, look at the only modern courses to instantly break into the GOLF DIGEST top 10 in the past fifty years -- IIRC, they were Harbour Town and Shadow Creek! [caveat: the Harbour Town thing was done back when it was more of an editorial decision than a true vote, and Shadow Creek unlocked the perfect way to game the voting]
2. New courses are generally overrated because they are being promoted at 10x the scale of older places. So there is a collective "let's wait and see" attitude at the very top of the rankings that's probably justified. It took Sand Hills quite a few years to push just into the top ten. [caveat: older courses that host tournaments get the same bump and nobody frets about that]
3. The way the voting is structured does not help. At GOLF and GOLFWEEK anelists are asked to vote whether a course is top 10, top 25, top 50, or whatever, and the natural reluctance to put a new course into the top ten means people are probably only willing to consider one or two at most, and they split the vote and none of them quite get over the threshold.
P.S. I appreciate your use of Pacific Dunes and Ballyneal as examples. To balance out my ratings karma, this morning on Instagram some dude who claims to be a fan of my work declared that Pacific Dunes is a "total calamity of a course" and "the most overrated course in the world". "Prevailing summer wind is into it every hole. Nothing memorable except the holes on the water. No water holes going into and from, all side to side." I'm thinking maybe he is not such a fan, but it just goes to show you that it's all a matter of opinion.
[/size]
[/size][size=78%] [/size]
[/size][size=78%]3. The way the voting is set up does not help. Voters are as[/size]
-
We do things differently in golf. It's funny, because in other areas where people like old things, they're often very willing to admit that the new things are better than the old things they like. In many areas we're able to easily draw a line between preference and greatness, but it seems to come harder in golf. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the physical size and cost of the objects in question. Maybe it's the fact that it's both a participatory sport and a work of art.
-
My tastes and opinions were very much skewed toward golden age courses when I became interested in golf course architecture. Living in Southern New England and also having proximity to NY, PA and NJ laid many of the good/great courses at my feet for purposes of easy travel. I would readily admit that I didn’t give proper consideration to the moderns which was a error in judgement as some of the courses built in the last thirty five years(give or take) are certainly at the level of greatness of the ODG’s. I’m now trying to play as many of the moderns as I can which wasn’t the case even ten years ago. Finally I wish I was more intrepid as to my travel habits as there is so much stuff in far reaching parts of the globe that I’ll know I will never see.
-
Without question, if I only had one round on the island to play, I’d choose Royal County Down, for its setting and layout produces some of the most invigorating golf on the planet. But (with few exceptions) golf is played across a full 18 holes, and when I pit County Down against Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal at that hole to hole basis, and consider the above referenced elements at play in a course’s collective design and layout, I feel it is well within reason to give the edge to those two modern courses.
To make sure I understand your perspective, are you saying that if Ballyneal or Pacific Dunes were up the road from Royal County Down and had locations similar to their US ones (one inland, one oceanside), you would play them before RCD? I know it's very hypothetical, but if you could, humor me.
-
The raters have decided what smells nice and what does not smell so good or even stinks.
To be a rater you have to like those same smells as the other raters. If you like modern smells you are not allowed to join the other boys who decide on the nice smell.
Normal golfers like most smells.
-
Lakota Canyon comes to mind (now known as Lakota Links) as a cautionary tale of sorts.
It burst on the scene to great acclaim when it first opened and made a few of the top 100 lists...and now doesn't even appear in the GD's top 15 best of state list.
I've played it as well as Ballyneal and certainly can't disagree with the latter's lofty status, but I think John presents an interesting hypothetical which I can't answer...
-
I am probably unfairly anti-hype in the sense that the more hype about a course, the more I might set expectations/standard for assessing unfairly. That certainly was the case with Pac Dunes on my first visit when I was a bit disappointed. Admittedly, I had played CPC a few days before which is one of the few courses that lived up to the hype. I had a very different appreciation for the course after two more plays (although I think Ballyneal is superior among the Doak courses I have played and Bandon Trails is the best course at the resort, both by a nose).
I find this particularly true regarding anti-hype distorting my assessment of newer courses because I tend to be a traditionalist who roots for the old. I did and do not care for Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart, but they are probably better than I give them credit. On the other hand, the hype around SS Red and Blue was relatively less pronounced, and I think that both courses are outstanding so maybe I am giving them a thumb on the scale.
As stated so many times before, when fortunate to play in the rarified air of such good courses, the subjectivity of my views is just that—personal and subjective.
Ira
-
With appreciation for the thread and deference to those who have played more "shrines" than myself, I can unequivocally state that the notion of tradition absolutely affects my view of the course, generally for the better.
The windmill at NGLA cannot be replicated at a modern course, not during my lifetime anyways. A modern course that involves a rock wall will not be able to compete with walking off North Berwick into the town's main street.
Perhaps in 200 years all of these modern/classic designations will evaporate, and perhaps justly so. Right now I have no trouble admitting a bias to "classic" because architecture is in some ways encompassed by the overall experience. Otherwise, why would Cypress be as lovable?
-
Max,
NB is the only other course I have had the privilege to play that met, actually exceeded, the hype.
Ira
-
Enjoying the responses thus far!
Sean--I'll touch on my sense of "problem" here differently. In my mind it has more to do about the perception of the differences (or to phrase it more strongly, an artificially construed gap) between classic and modern design. Touching on Thomas Dai's comment here, the age, exclusivity, or price of admission onto any course should not affect the quality of a course's holes or its standing in a critical analysis. Yet we all know that's not the case, and that, for me, is problematic. For example, if Pacific Dunes was the only course on the Bandon coastline, and it was a private club with a membership comparable to Sand Hills, my guess is its ranking would be better than it is now. Which, were that to be true, would be a fault of rater culture.
More importantly for me is that I think it would be a disservice to golf course architecture if either contemporary architects and/or players and raters are not operating under the belief that any new course has the potential to surpass Pine Valley, Cypress, TOC, Shinnecock, etc. That is not to say any particular modern course can or will do it, but if the possibility is a closed door in people's minds, we as a community are mistakenly keeping the ceiling too low.
John M--the passage you quoted was specific only to Ireland and Northern Ireland, but I understand your question. What I wrote implied that, though I personally think Portrush is the better course overall, the experiential value of RCD, in combination with the course, would lead me to pick RCD over anything else if I only had time for one round. In your hypothetical, were Pac Dunes or Ballyneal also available choices, then yes, given my own rationales I've laid out I'd be selecting one of the Doak courses to play in a single round scenario.
I don't find that as a slight to RCD. It's magnificent and provided one of my best days in golf ever. My point is that, after thinking about the course, I wanted to come to the defense of a couple modern designs that I find to be more compelling, even if consensus rankings don't reflect my views, and I wanted to probe that discrepancy a bit more deeply on the DG.
-
Modern courses, at least at the high level that Michael mentioned (PD, Ballyneal, SH, FH, St. Patrick's) have one advantage that wasn't afforded to many (not all) classic golf courses in that they were built on hand picked sites, with ample acreage, by dedicated owners and personally chosen architects who were given sufficient budgets and resources.
Most classic courses (again, not all) were built on the land that was available, which was often limited by roads, railroad tracks, or housing and the need to be close to town, by local crews typically working from plans and drawings, with limited budgets and, especially in the UK and ROI, were not built with tourism or big money memberships in mind.
When you are building an out and back course between the sea and the town, a lot of your big design decisions are made for you. That's why you have sub-optimal situations like the closing stretches of RCD and Portstewart, most of the back nine at Royal Aberdeen, the holes that were ultimately rebuilt at Portrush, #1 & #18 at Fraserburgh etc.
If you play the course and then go to the bar at Sand Hills and look at the constellation map that Coore & Crenshaw drew up and then think about a course like North Berwick built by ???, you realize how hard it is to compare golf courses.
-
Maybe the old classic course rests upon the land better? Like a pair of shoes that have broken in and fit their feet.....naturally.
-
What I can never get around: there are a number of “Valley of Sin” depressions in golf, but only one touches this often unemotional sole in an unexplainable way. How could I ever fairly compare the architecture?
Perhaps rankings should be left to people with absolutely no knowledge or experience in the game who are decent players. About as rare as a juror of your peers.
-
Maybe the old classic course rests upon the land better? Like a pair of shoes that have broken in and fit their feet.....naturally.
I agree with much of what others have said about why the top classics are probably rated ahead of the top moderns. I haven't played most of the top classics or several of the top moderns, but I have played Royal County Down, the Sunningdales, Portrush, and Royal St. George's among the classics and the Bandon and Cabot courses among the moderns. And while I can't say anything about where I'd rank any of these courses in a top 100, I think my favorites among the classics (Royal County Down, Sunningdale (Old), and Royal St. George's) have some features than incline me to put them ahead of my favorites of the moderns, which are Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trails.
And it's kind of what Craig said, that the former seem to fit the land better. But I mean it in a specific way. All of the courses above seem (as far as I can tell) very well routed and have many very good holes. But the older courses all have a bit of oddness, a bit of quirk that fit their sites well that the latter don't seem to have. Each has several blind shots and some of them just feel very unusual, like the quick uphill drives on Sunningdales's 7th or RCD's 11th. I especially like how on Sunningdale 7, when you crest the hill after that funky drive, the hole opens into a vast expanse framed by pine forest. It's strange and surprising...and wonderful.
Also, there seems to be less order to the architecture on these classic courses, so their great holes seem to be more original than the modern courses. Who'd build a green like the 4th on Royal St. George's or a hole like the 13th at RCD? I guess in golf architecture, like in music, I like a little grit. It's kind of a marvel that given the shape and nature of the property, Pacific Dunes is so not-quirky. But I think I'd like it a little more if it had a few more weird shots on it. Many of my favorite shots on the great courses in the British isles are blind shots and many of my favorite holes don't really fit any kind of template (some became the template).
One more thing about RCD that makes it for me clearly one of the top 2 courses that I've played (along with Pinehurst no. 2): the course has an incredible balance of difficulty. There are a lot of blind drives, but they're usually to fairly open landing areas. The one that's a bit tighter (no. 6) is a short par 4. And it also compensates for that shortness with one of the most difficult green sites. The land gets a bit tamer at the end, so the 18th cranks up the fairway bunkers. Also, I don't have a problem with the tame finish because the course to that point, while well balanced, is still obviously very difficult. Some people complain that the greens are basic. But would you want such a difficult course from tee-to-green to have difficult greens?
That's a strength of Pacific Dunes too--the greens are narrow and hard to hit but when you're on them, they're not so hard to putt. Again, good sense of balance. And that's the opposite of the course next door, Old MacDonald, where it's easier to hit the greens but hard to putt them.
-
Maybe the old classic course rests upon the land better? Like a pair of shoes that have broken in and fit their feet.....naturally.
I agree with much of what others have said about why the top classics are probably rated ahead of the top moderns. I haven't played most of the top classics or several of the top moderns, but I have played Royal County Down, the Sunningdales, Portrush, and Royal St. George's among the classics and the Bandon and Cabot courses among the moderns. And while I can't say anything about where I'd rank any of these courses in a top 100, I think my favorites among the classics (Royal County Down, Sunningdale (Old), and Royal St. George's) have some features than incline me to put them ahead of my favorites of the moderns, which are Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trails.
And it's kind of what Craig said, that the former seem to fit the land better. But I mean it in a specific way. All of the courses above seem (as far as I can tell) very well routed and have many very good holes. But the older courses all have a bit of oddness, a bit of quirk that fit their sites well that the latter don't seem to have. Each has several blind shots and some of them just feel very unusual, like the quick uphill drives on Sunningdales's 7th or RCD's 11th. I especially like how on Sunningdale 7, when you crest the hill after that funky drive, the hole opens into a vast expanse framed by pine forest. It's strange and surprising...and wonderful.
Also, there seems to be less order to the architecture on these classic courses, so their great holes seem to be more original than the modern courses. Who'd build a green like the 4th on Royal St. George's or a hole like the 13th at RCD? I guess in golf architecture, like in music, I like a little grit. It's kind of a marvel that given the shape and nature of the property, Pacific Dunes is so not-quirky. But I think I'd like it a little more if it had a few more weird shots on it. Many of my favorite shots on the great courses in the British isles are blind shots and many of my favorite holes don't really fit any kind of template (some became the template).
One more thing about RCD that makes it for me clearly one of the top 2 courses that I've played (along with Pinehurst no. 2): the course has an incredible balance of difficulty. There are a lot of blind drives, but they're usually to fairly open landing areas. The one that's a bit tighter (no. 6) is a short par 4. And it also compensates for that shortness with one of the most difficult green sites. The land gets a bit tamer at the end, so the 18th cranks up the fairway bunkers. Also, I don't have a problem with the tame finish because the course to that point, while well balanced, is still obviously very difficult. Some people complain that the greens are basic. But would you want such a difficult course from tee-to-green to have difficult greens?
That's a strength of Pacific Dunes too--the greens are narrow and hard to hit but when you're on them, they're not so hard to putt. Again, good sense of balance. And that's the opposite of the course next door, Old MacDonald, where it's easier to hit the greens but hard to putt them.
I like this take. I'll bet blind shots especially are an area where modern courses fall short. It's not a surprise, given what most modern architects have to say about them (really most ODGs too).
To push back a little, I'd mentioned that outside of golf, people who like old things/quirk are readily able to say the newer versions are better while still admiring what they love about the old. Very few antique car guys would actually rather be in a Model T or '61 Continental than a new Mercedes on a cross-country car trip. In golf, we have a harder time (me included) making this type of distinction. I'm not sure why, but I notice this most in golf. I'd love to hear if someone sees it, on this large a scale among the well-informed, in areas other than golf. There are caveats as well. The bad old golf courses (cars, tools, etc.) didn't really survive...and so on, but I'm curious.
-
Maybe the old classic course rests upon the land better? Like a pair of shoes that have broken in and fit their feet.....naturally.
I agree with much of what others have said about why the top classics are probably rated ahead of the top moderns. I haven't played most of the top classics or several of the top moderns, but I have played Royal County Down, the Sunningdales, Portrush, and Royal St. George's among the classics and the Bandon and Cabot courses among the moderns. And while I can't say anything about where I'd rank any of these courses in a top 100, I think my favorites among the classics (Royal County Down, Sunningdale (Old), and Royal St. George's) have some features than incline me to put them ahead of my favorites of the moderns, which are Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trails.
And it's kind of what Craig said, that the former seem to fit the land better. But I mean it in a specific way. All of the courses above seem (as far as I can tell) very well routed and have many very good holes. But the older courses all have a bit of oddness, a bit of quirk that fit their sites well that the latter don't seem to have. Each has several blind shots and some of them just feel very unusual, like the quick uphill drives on Sunningdales's 7th or RCD's 11th. I especially like how on Sunningdale 7, when you crest the hill after that funky drive, the hole opens into a vast expanse framed by pine forest. It's strange and surprising...and wonderful.
Also, there seems to be less order to the architecture on these classic courses, so their great holes seem to be more original than the modern courses. Who'd build a green like the 4th on Royal St. George's or a hole like the 13th at RCD? I guess in golf architecture, like in music, I like a little grit. It's kind of a marvel that given the shape and nature of the property, Pacific Dunes is so not-quirky. But I think I'd like it a little more if it had a few more weird shots on it. Many of my favorite shots on the great courses in the British isles are blind shots and many of my favorite holes don't really fit any kind of template (some became the template).
One more thing about RCD that makes it for me clearly one of the top 2 courses that I've played (along with Pinehurst no. 2): the course has an incredible balance of difficulty. There are a lot of blind drives, but they're usually to fairly open landing areas. The one that's a bit tighter (no. 6) is a short par 4. And it also compensates for that shortness with one of the most difficult green sites. The land gets a bit tamer at the end, so the 18th cranks up the fairway bunkers. Also, I don't have a problem with the tame finish because the course to that point, while well balanced, is still obviously very difficult. Some people complain that the greens are basic. But would you want such a difficult course from tee-to-green to have difficult greens?
That's a strength of Pacific Dunes too--the greens are narrow and hard to hit but when you're on them, they're not so hard to putt. Again, good sense of balance. And that's the opposite of the course next door, Old MacDonald, where it's easier to hit the greens but hard to putt them.
I like this take. I'll bet blind shots especially are an area where modern courses fall short. It's not a surprise, given what most modern architects have to say about them (really most ODGs too).
To push back a little, I'd mentioned that outside of golf, people who like old things/quirk are readily able to say the newer versions are better while still admiring what they love about the old. Very few antique car guys would actually rather be in a Model T or '61 Continental than a new Mercedes on a cross-country car trip. In golf, we have a harder time (me included) making this type of distinction. I'm not sure why, but I notice this most in golf. I'd love to hear if someone sees it, on this large a scale among the well-informed, in areas other than golf. There are caveats as well. The bad old golf courses (cars, tools, etc.) didn't really survive...and so on, but I'm curious.
I love Arts and Crafts furniture. I love the proportions, aesthetics, and craftsmanship. It was all the rage at the beginning of the 20th century. In the '50s, '60s, and '70s you could find it in garage sales across the Midwest. No one wanted Mamaw's crusty ass settle or sideboard. Sure, some children and grandchildren held on to some of the stuff out of sentimentality, and if they held onto it long enough they were handsomely rewarded.
As the 90's rolled around, that stuff gained serious value and it was Mid-Century Modern stuff you could find everywhere. People generally poopooed it because it was made of plastic and metal. I think they liked the design of it, but was considered dated. Now? Prices have gone up appreciably and garage sale and thrift store finds get snapped up immediately.
I think it all comes full circle. The better designs (if they aren't destroyed) will have staying power. If enough people have an affinity for them they will see the power of the design. Whether it overtakes a sacred cow is another story.
-
Michael,
Nice post. It will be really interesting to see how your opinion develops after multiple returns to the Emerald Isle and multiple plays of all the mentioned courses.
I love Pac Dunes, I'm from Oregon and somewhere deep down inside it makes me proud to be an Oregonian. May sound funny but the world's best golf resort is in the state where I'm from. Sure I may be slightly biased but whatever.
I've now been lucky to play St. Patricks 3 times. From your list Friars and Ballybunion I've played the least at only 2x each. My 3 least favorite courses (naturally all of them are great) are Ballybunion, Ballyneal and Friars Head. As a panelists they are also the 3 I feel are the most overrated in the group. I do have them all in my personal Top 100 so of course I'm also grasping at straws and still placing them in the Top .01% of courses in the world.
Somehow I keep trying to figure out how St. Pats is not Doak's best course to date. In my mind the property is magnificent from beginning to end without a single dull moment. My least favorite hole being the uphill par 3, 15th. Reminiscent of my least favorite hole at Shanqin Bay, a steep uphill half blind par 3, the 14th. Balance may or may not be important when comparing and discussing this form of art. Look at how it's what is used to "cut down" RCD. Suggestions that the back 9 is a let down after the front are ludicrous in my mind. Ending with a getable par 5 with an amazing green complex and surrounds is a far better idea than ending with an impossible par 4 (9th) (one of my favorite holes on the planet).
Back to St. Pats, as much as I love Pac Dunes, Tara Iti, Barnbougle etc...I can pick out what I'd call fine details that allow me to justify the superiority of St. Pats as a property but let's face it, those are all A+ properties and Renaissance team did amazing work on all of them. These fine details relate to things like; memorability, # of what I deem World Class Holes, dull ground (ie connecting holes) and even "wow" moments.
My personal ranking for what you have listed:
County Down
Portrush
St. Patricks
Pacific Dunes
Lahinch
Friars Head
Ballybunion
Ballyneal
Recently, I was invited to a special showing of Vermeer's greatest works in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. As a 25 hcp art connoisseur - I can easily say it's not my thing but the fact is, there are probably a million people that would have killed or died to have had that invitation and perhaps it was wasted on me. I do realize what an honor it is to have been able to have that experience.
...and what a privilege it is to be a connoisseur of the art of GCA ;D
-
I saw zero value in Muirfield today.
-
Interesting that there are 6 separate tee boxes on 18. Scorecard must be 8 by 11.5.
-
One more thing about RCD that makes it for me clearly one of the top 2 courses that I've played (along with Pinehurst no. 2): the course has an incredible balance of difficulty. There are a lot of blind drives, but they're usually to fairly open landing areas. The one that's a bit tighter (no. 6) is a short par 4. And it also compensates for that shortness with one of the most difficult green sites. The land gets a bit tamer at the end, so the 18th cranks up the fairway bunkers. Also, I don't have a problem with the tame finish because the course to that point, while well balanced, is still obviously very difficult. Some people complain that the greens are basic. But would you want such a difficult course from tee-to-green to have difficult greens?
That's a strength of Pacific Dunes too--the greens are narrow and hard to hit but when you're on them, they're not so hard to putt. Again, good sense of balance. And that's the opposite of the course next door, Old MacDonald, where it's easier to hit the greens but hard to putt them.
Brett, I appreciate the insights. Perhaps in 50 years we'll be lucky to have a scenario where the architect or dedicated member lives/hangs around their modern masterpiece and tinkers with it, a la Ross at Essex or members who massaged places like Myopia or RCD over decades.
The thing with the modern beauties, as sort of mentioned in this thread, is those lifetime tinkering scenarios seem far less likely to occur than what took place 100 years ago. Be it money or location or developers, I that C&C would/could ever move to Sand Hills and just hang out and tinker for 15 years.
Perhaps it's that massaging shaped by years of study that makes the classics more appealing to me.
-
To push back a little, I'd mentioned that outside of golf, people who like old things/quirk are readily able to say the newer versions are better while still admiring what they love about the old. Very few antique car guys would actually rather be in a Model T or '61 Continental than a new Mercedes on a cross-country car trip. In golf, we have a harder time (me included) making this type of distinction. I'm not sure why, but I notice this most in golf. I'd love to hear if someone sees it, on this large a scale among the well-informed, in areas other than golf. There are caveats as well. The bad old golf courses (cars, tools, etc.) didn't really survive...and so on, but I'm curious.
Charlie,
If function is a large part of our assessment of the object, cars and golf courses may not be a great analogy because there have been so many technological advances that have made cars perform better. You can't compare today's cars in terms of function to those from decades ago. But while there have been technological advances in building golf courses, it's still just hitting a ball across a piece of ground. So an old course can function just as well as a new one, especially because you can make tweaks to improve drainage, soften slopes that have become too steep, or many other small changes that retain the form but improve the function (I guess you could also put a new engine in an old car).
And the limitations of the past in golf course construction are probably why we have some of the quirks that I admire so much in the older courses. They couldn't bulldoze the dunes at RCD, so they did the best they could, which was to leave enough room to hit to on the other side. Site limitations like these also make it more likely that you'll have a lot of originality because every site is different and if there are some strange/challenging things that you can't avoid, you may end up creating something really great and different from it.
Or you may just create something awkward. From what I had heard, I was concerned about this with RCD. I thought that it might be too narrow and difficult, especially given the wind. I didn't think it was. But other old links courses that I like, like Perranporth or Rye, don't strike the balance between quirk and playability that RCD does, which is part of why I think that RCD is a superior course.
So as I'm sure others have said on this website many times before, not all quirk is good quirk. We still assess its function and may have different views on that. A lot of people love the unusual 4th hole on Rye, with its fairway routed along the dune ridge. I think it's too narrow, especially in a cross wind. But because they can change them, modern architects don't have to figure out how to make something of these site limitations. And while that removes some of the risk of creating something bad, it also probably reduces some of the opportunities to create something original and good. The best courses of the past stand apart in the latter.
-
You made good points Brett, I especially like the following.
...may not be a great analogy...
You're right about the analogy. I've been on the lookout for a good analogue to golf courses and have never come up with one that makes any sense. They're just too big, diverse, interactive, and alive for any other comparison. Car racing tracks are similar in scale and interactivity, but the old ones just killed too many people to be justified in keeping them the same. The search continues!
But because they can change them, modern architects don't have to figure out how to make something of these site limitations. And while that removes some of the risk of creating something bad, it also probably reduces some of the opportunities to create something original and good. The best courses of the past stand apart in the latter.
I really like this sentiment. I wonder how a contemporary architect could overcome this limitation, or is it only a limitation to architecture geeks like us?
-
I saw zero value in Muirfield today.
I'd have to agree with John
-
Maybe the old classic course rests upon the land better? Like a pair of shoes that have broken in and fit their feet.....naturally.
I agree with much of what others have said about why the top classics are probably rated ahead of the top moderns. I haven't played most of the top classics or several of the top moderns, but I have played Royal County Down, the Sunningdales, Portrush, and Royal St. George's among the classics and the Bandon and Cabot courses among the moderns. And while I can't say anything about where I'd rank any of these courses in a top 100, I think my favorites among the classics (Royal County Down, Sunningdale (Old), and Royal St. George's) have some features than incline me to put them ahead of my favorites of the moderns, which are Pacific Dunes and Bandon Trails.
And it's kind of what Craig said, that the former seem to fit the land better. But I mean it in a specific way. All of the courses above seem (as far as I can tell) very well routed and have many very good holes. But the older courses all have a bit of oddness, a bit of quirk that fit their sites well that the latter don't seem to have. Each has several blind shots and some of them just feel very unusual, like the quick uphill drives on Sunningdales's 7th or RCD's 11th. I especially like how on Sunningdale 7, when you crest the hill after that funky drive, the hole opens into a vast expanse framed by pine forest. It's strange and surprising...and wonderful.
Also, there seems to be less order to the architecture on these classic courses, so their great holes seem to be more original than the modern courses. Who'd build a green like the 4th on Royal St. George's or a hole like the 13th at RCD? I guess in golf architecture, like in music, I like a little grit. It's kind of a marvel that given the shape and nature of the property, Pacific Dunes is so not-quirky. But I think I'd like it a little more if it had a few more weird shots on it. Many of my favorite shots on the great courses in the British isles are blind shots and many of my favorite holes don't really fit any kind of template (some became the template).
One more thing about RCD that makes it for me clearly one of the top 2 courses that I've played (along with Pinehurst no. 2): the course has an incredible balance of difficulty. There are a lot of blind drives, but they're usually to fairly open landing areas. The one that's a bit tighter (no. 6) is a short par 4. And it also compensates for that shortness with one of the most difficult green sites. The land gets a bit tamer at the end, so the 18th cranks up the fairway bunkers. Also, I don't have a problem with the tame finish because the course to that point, while well balanced, is still obviously very difficult. Some people complain that the greens are basic. But would you want such a difficult course from tee-to-green to have difficult greens?
That's a strength of Pacific Dunes too--the greens are narrow and hard to hit but when you're on them, they're not so hard to putt. Again, good sense of balance. And that's the opposite of the course next door, Old MacDonald, where it's easier to hit the greens but hard to putt them.
This was an interesting post with a lot of points I’d argue.
Last point first, Old Mac’s wide fairways and wild greens also demonstrate balance, though it’s not the weighting you prefer.
Also - when we were building Pacific Dunes, toward the end of the project, there was a discussion of whether 12 and 15 should have more difficulty or quirk. I said no - and pointed out that we already had a blind tee shot/narrow fairway on 1, a center bunker with a dead tree stump (since removed) on 2, a split fairway on 3, a lumpy approach on 5, a 20-foot-deep bunker on 6, a bunch of moguls interrupting the fairway on 7, and two greens, with a gorse bush (since removed) between a bunker and the lower green on 9.
So I think you don’t know quirk when you see it. You just don’t credit it because you know it was a conscious decision by an architect you know.
-
That's a strength of Pacific Dunes too--the greens are narrow and hard to hit but when you're on them, they're not so hard to putt. Again, good sense of balance. And that's the opposite of the course next door, Old MacDonald, where it's easier to hit the greens but hard to putt them.
This was an interesting post with a lot of points I’d argue.
Last point first, Old Mac’s wide fairways and wild greens also demonstrate balance, though it’s not the weighting you prefer.
Also - when we were building Pacific Dunes, toward the end of the project, there was a discussion of whether 12 and 15 should have more difficulty or quirk. I said no - and pointed out that we already had a blind tee shot/narrow fairway on 1, a center bunker with a dead tree stump (since removed) on 2, a split fairway on 3, a lumpy approach on 5, a 20-foot-deep bunker on 6, a bunch of moguls interrupting the fairway on 7, and two greens, with a gorse bush (since removed) between a bunker and the lower green on 9.
So I think you don’t know quirk when you see it. You just don’t credit it because you know it was a conscious decision by an architect you know.
Hi Tom,
Sorry for the lack of clarity; I agree that Old MacDonald achieves balance. What I meant is that it achieves it in the opposite way from Pacific Dunes, with big greens that are hard to putt like you say. Like RCD, I think both score very high on the balance scale. And that they're so different brings variety to the resort, which is a huge plus.
On the latter points, I guess we'd have to have a debate about what counts as quirk. I'd have to think about it a lot more to give a coherent answer. It just seemed to me that the old courses I mentioned had a few more unusual features and unusual holes than Pacific Dunes or Bandon Trails. I guess that split fairways and multiple greens per hole are quirky too, but a lot of courses have these. Unless those split fairways/multiple greens have some unusual feature, just having a split fairway or second green doesn't strike me as unusual/original the way that the incorporation of a natural feature in a way unlike what I've seen before does.
Obviously someone who just sees the final product doesn't see all the decisions that went into making it. Maybe some of the stuff that you left on Pacific Dunes was controversial and you could have gotten rid of it or worked around it, but chose not to. Maybe that counts as quirk. I don't credit those decisions because I don't see them (maybe this is all in the Making of Pacific Dunes, which I haven't read). But what's there doesn't seem to be on the order of the blind drives or some of the other features on the three courses I mentioned.
Ultimately this is all nitpicking. I was just trying to give some reasons why I feel a slight preference for RCD and a few of the other top old courses over some of the top moderns. It's not like I think this creates some chasm between them, where I think it'd be unreasonable for anyone to think that the latter are better than the former. And as I said, there's something to marvel at in how not-quirky Pacific Dunes. It's not like it's on some vast property where it was a complete open book as to what you could do. I just thought there was reason to give the original poster some pushback and make an argument for the olds.
-
But because they can change them, modern architects don't have to figure out how to make something of these site limitations. And while that removes some of the risk of creating something bad, it also probably reduces some of the opportunities to create something original and good. The best courses of the past stand apart in the latter.
I really like this sentiment. I wonder how a contemporary architect could overcome this limitation, or is it only a limitation to architecture geeks like us?
I missed this point earlier. My response would be that the architect can easily self-impose the "limitation" of being able to move dirt, by sticking to the idea of being a minimalist. Indeed, I think that one reason people like our courses is because we do leave some more quirky features in the mix. Get ready for the 8th hole on the new course at Pinehurst!
-
But because they can change them, modern architects don't have to figure out how to make something of these site limitations. And while that removes some of the risk of creating something bad, it also probably reduces some of the opportunities to create something original and good. The best courses of the past stand apart in the latter.
I really like this sentiment. I wonder how a contemporary architect could overcome this limitation, or is it only a limitation to architecture geeks like us?
I missed this point earlier. My response would be that the architect can easily self-impose the "limitation" of being able to move dirt, by sticking to the idea of being a minimalist. Indeed, I think that one reason people like our courses is because we do leave some more quirky features in the mix. Get ready for the 8th hole on the new course at Pinehurst!
I don't know if this will make sense or not, but I'll try to ask anyway. What's more common, holes on great/good, old courses where modern construction equipment/methods would have made worthwhile improvements...or...holes on great/good, new courses where a lighter touch would mean worthwhile improvements? I realize that's convoluted, but I'm trying to get a sense of something.
-
I missed this point earlier. My response would be that the architect can easily self-impose the "limitation" of being able to move dirt, by sticking to the idea of being a minimalist. Indeed, I think that one reason people like our courses is because we do leave some more quirky features in the mix. Get ready for the 8th hole on the new course at Pinehurst!
Sounds intriguing. Curiosity piqued!
atb
-
Lukas Michel's better tapped into the zeitgeist than me, and he's written both a more thorough and visually captivating piece related to this topic. I encourage everyone to take a look: https://contours.golf/journal/from-pixels-to-putts/ (https://contours.golf/journal/from-pixels-to-putts/)
-
I don't know if this will make sense or not, but I'll try to ask anyway. What's more common, holes on great/good, old courses where modern construction equipment/methods would have made worthwhile improvements...or...holes on great/good, new courses where a lighter touch would mean worthwhile improvements? I realize that's convoluted, but I'm trying to get a sense of something.
Well, that's a matter of opinion, I suppose. Recent changes to places like Royal Portrush (Dunluce) and Royal Dornoch are two good examples of applying modern construction methods to older courses that wouldn't have considered the newer holes back in the day. Those are generally hailed as positive changes by most observers, but not by me. There are good reasons for my work to imitate Dornoch, but there is no good reason for Dornoch to imitate my work.
-
I haven't seen the RD work, but the concept seems sound.
People love the new Portrush holes, but my concern was more about the sacrifice of two cool Colt holes to make it happen. That little valley was one of the highlights of the Valley Links.
Ciao
-
I haven't seen the RD work, but the concept seems sound.People love the new Portrush holes, but my concern was more about the sacrifice of two cool Colt holes to make it happen. That little valley was one of the highlights of the Valley Links.
Yes they were. And personally, I don't rate either of the new holes as highly as either of the holes that were sacrificed to make them. The par-3 7th was a terrific hole, and the little par-4 was a beauty, too. The new par-5 is difficult but not great, and the new par-4 is the most awkward hole on the property. They got away with murder by comparing the new holes to the old 17th and 18th, instead of the holes that occupied that same property.
EDIT: I just had to fix the text size here.
-
Regarding Portrush, the concept of the new holes was a good one. I’m just less enamoured with the detailing.
Going back to Brett’s conversation - and Tom’s response - there is a big difference with approaches to links work. If you start with a construction approach that is minimalist, through choice and often budget, you more often than not end up with a very natural feeling course that doesn’t feel new and built like many modern courses do.
What has disappointed me with much links work I’ve seen is when I see sand brought in to entire fairway corridors and wholesale reshaping occurring. This is what happened at Trump and this is what happened with the 8th at Royal Portrush… a braver approach to the 8th would have been purely to soften the fantastic humps and hollows that were there, leaving the natural ground in place. Instead we have the usual tell-tale signs of rolling waves of tie-ins to the side dunes.
Construction techniques and abilities have definitely improved over the years. That’s not in doubt. But limitations - whether enforced or self-imposed - can bring about some of the best and unique work.
-
But because they can change them, modern architects don't have to figure out how to make something of these site limitations. And while that removes some of the risk of creating something bad, it also probably reduces some of the opportunities to create something original and good. The best courses of the past stand apart in the latter.
I really like this sentiment. I wonder how a contemporary architect could overcome this limitation, or is it only a limitation to architecture geeks like us?
I missed this point earlier. My response would be that the architect can easily self-impose the "limitation" of being able to move dirt, by sticking to the idea of being a minimalist. Indeed, I think that one reason people like our courses is because we do leave some more quirky features in the mix. Get ready for the 8th hole on the new course at Pinehurst!
I saw the hole at the weekend, and Tom is seriously NOT KIDDING!
-
People love the new Portrush holes, but my concern was more about the sacrifice of two cool Colt holes to make it happen. That little valley was one of the highlights of the Valley Links.
Ciao
Regarding Portrush, the concept of the new holes was a good one. I’m just less enamoured with the detailing.
I didn't see the old holes, but I liked the new 8th. It's a tough driving hole like the rest of the course, but it brings something a bit different with the drop-off on the left.
The 7th is gorgeous but kind of eye candy. And it's a good example of reducing character with earthmoving. One of our caddies told us that Mackenzie and Ebert 'softened' some of the dunes in the left side of the lay up area to reduce balls collecting in one area and creating a lot of divots. It also looks like that would have improved the sight line for the second shot. If so, that's too bad--the drive is wide open and a little blindness and more of a decision about whether you can carry the dunes on the second would have added character.
Just as much as the old 5th and 6th on the Valley Course, I would have liked to have seen the old 17th and 18th on Dunluce. I know they were on flat land past the parking lot, but I'm sure that Colt added plenty to make things more interesting. I should have gone out there and walked them.
Good holes as they are in their own right, new 7 and 8 feel different from the rest of the course. Even if old 17 and 18 weren't as good, I bet they would have made up for it by bringing greater consistency in character to the course.
-
People love the new Portrush holes, but my concern was more about the sacrifice of two cool Colt holes to make it happen. That little valley was one of the highlights of the Valley Links.
Ciao
Regarding Portrush, the concept of the new holes was a good one. I’m just less enamoured with the detailing.
I didn't see the old holes, but I liked the new 8th. It's a tough driving hole like the rest of the course, but it brings something a bit different with the drop-off on the left.
The 7th is gorgeous but kind of eye candy. And it's a good example of reducing character with earthmoving. One of our caddies told us that Mackenzie and Ebert 'softened' some of the dunes in the left side of the lay up area to reduce balls collecting in one area and creating a lot of divots. It also looks like that would have improved the sight line for the second shot. If so, that's too bad--the drive is wide open and a little blindness and more of a decision about whether you can carry the dunes on the second would have added character.
Just as much as the old 5th and 6th on the Valley Course, I would have liked to have seen the old 17th and 18th on Dunluce. I know they were on flat land past the parking lot, but I'm sure that Colt added plenty to make things more interesting. I should have gone out there and walked them.
Good holes as they are in their own right, new 7 and 8 feel different from the rest of the course. Even if old 17 and 18 weren't as good, I bet they would have made up for it by bringing greater consistency in character to the course.
Ally and Brett
If you thought losing the old 5th and 6 holes on Portrush's Valley was upsetting, wait until to see the
Martin Ebert two phase proposal for the Portrush Valley course. Sorry I can't post at this time because the proposal is presently being reviewed by the membership for a vote later this year, but I'll leave you with this teaser. If passed, 80 % of the course will be altered in an exciting re-do that will include, in Phase one, 7 new or severely altered holes. Phase two will re-work two tees and a green for better sea views. This will really raise the bar for the Valley and I personally quite like the final results as proposed. I'll post when appropriate as it will be interesting to get the groups thoughts on whether the end justifies the means.
-
Construction techniques and abilities have definitely improved over the years. That’s not in doubt. But limitations - whether enforced or self-imposed - can bring about some of the best and unique work.
Exactly. It's a large reason why so many modern courses feel disconnected from their site.
-
People love the new Portrush holes, but my concern was more about the sacrifice of two cool Colt holes to make it happen. That little valley was one of the highlights of the Valley Links.
Ciao
Regarding Portrush, the concept of the new holes was a good one. I’m just less enamoured with the detailing.
I didn't see the old holes, but I liked the new 8th. It's a tough driving hole like the rest of the course, but it brings something a bit different with the drop-off on the left.
The 7th is gorgeous but kind of eye candy. And it's a good example of reducing character with earthmoving. One of our caddies told us that Mackenzie and Ebert 'softened' some of the dunes in the left side of the lay up area to reduce balls collecting in one area and creating a lot of divots. It also looks like that would have improved the sight line for the second shot. If so, that's too bad--the drive is wide open and a little blindness and more of a decision about whether you can carry the dunes on the second would have added character.
Just as much as the old 5th and 6th on the Valley Course, I would have liked to have seen the old 17th and 18th on Dunluce. I know they were on flat land past the parking lot, but I'm sure that Colt added plenty to make things more interesting. I should have gone out there and walked them.
Good holes as they are in their own right, new 7 and 8 feel different from the rest of the course. Even if old 17 and 18 weren't as good, I bet they would have made up for it by bringing greater consistency in character to the course.
Ally and Brett
If you thought losing the old 5th and 6 holes on Portrush's Valley was upsetting, wait until to see the
Martin Ebert two phase proposal for the Portrush Valley course. Sorry I can't post at this time because the proposal is presently being reviewed by the membership for a vote later this year, but I'll leave you with this teaser. If passed, 80 % of the course will be altered in an exciting re-do that will include, in Phase one, 7 new or severely altered holes. Phase two will re-work two tees and a green for better sea views. This will really raise the bar for the Valley and I personally quite like the final results as proposed. I'll post when appropriate as it will be interesting to get the groups thoughts on whether the end justifies the means.
Thanks Jamie - I knew there were proposals underway. I also understood that the design was open to tender but no-one else bid as they suspected Martin Ebert had it tied up…
I didn’t know the extent of the works.
For what it’s worth, I - unlike Tom and Sean - thought the concept behind adding the two holes on the Dunluce was the correct one. I just wasn’t over-enamoured with the execution.
As for the 4 new holes on the Valley that resulted, some of that work I also liked, some I didn’t.
I can’t possibly fathom how such wholesale change that you mention will improve the course or is needed. I say this knowing that some of Colt’s green-sites are superlative. It will quite probably be another case of “looks good on plan, adds drama, loses the subtlety, uniqueness, detailing and flow”. I eagerly wait to find out!
-
Enjoying the responses thus far!
Sean--I'll touch on my sense of "problem" here differently. In my mind it has more to do about the perception of the differences (or to phrase it more strongly, an artificially construed gap) between classic and modern design. Touching on Thomas Dai's comment here, the age, exclusivity, or price of admission onto any course should not affect the quality of a course's holes or its standing in a critical analysis. Yet we all know that's not the case, and that, for me, is problematic. For example, if Pacific Dunes was the only course on the Bandon coastline, and it was a private club with a membership comparable to Sand Hills, my guess is its ranking would be better than it is now. Which, were that to be true, would be a fault of rater culture.
More importantly for me is that I think it would be a disservice to golf course architecture if either contemporary architects and/or players and raters are not operating under the belief that any new course has the potential to surpass Pine Valley, Cypress, TOC, Shinnecock, etc. That is not to say any particular modern course can or will do it, but if the possibility is a closed door in people's minds, we as a community are mistakenly keeping the ceiling too low.
I guess it's not a big deal to me. Rankings are opinions. New or old matters little to me except for the general baggage that tends to come with each. I prefer to visit clubs rather than resorts/public courses, but I count Kingsbarns, St Pat's and Castle Stuart among the best in GB&I.
Time is my key. I see courses a bit differently with each visit. Time in the larger sense is also important because attitudes and desires will be different. I think we can see a stark change of philosophy starting around 1990 compared to earlier. People slowly bought into it and now that philosophy has sprouted different ideas. That is a function of time.
Ciao
-
People love the new Portrush holes, but my concern was more about the sacrifice of two cool Colt holes to make it happen. That little valley was one of the highlights of the Valley Links.
Ciao
Regarding Portrush, the concept of the new holes was a good one. I’m just less enamoured with the detailing.
I didn't see the old holes, but I liked the new 8th. It's a tough driving hole like the rest of the course, but it brings something a bit different with the drop-off on the left.
The 7th is gorgeous but kind of eye candy. And it's a good example of reducing character with earthmoving. One of our caddies told us that Mackenzie and Ebert 'softened' some of the dunes in the left side of the lay up area to reduce balls collecting in one area and creating a lot of divots. It also looks like that would have improved the sight line for the second shot. If so, that's too bad--the drive is wide open and a little blindness and more of a decision about whether you can carry the dunes on the second would have added character.
Just as much as the old 5th and 6th on the Valley Course, I would have liked to have seen the old 17th and 18th on Dunluce. I know they were on flat land past the parking lot, but I'm sure that Colt added plenty to make things more interesting. I should have gone out there and walked them.
Good holes as they are in their own right, new 7 and 8 feel different from the rest of the course. Even if old 17 and 18 weren't as good, I bet they would have made up for it by bringing greater consistency in character to the course.
Ally and Brett
If you thought losing the old 5th and 6 holes on Portrush's Valley was upsetting, wait until to see the
Martin Ebert two phase proposal for the Portrush Valley course. Sorry I can't post at this time because the proposal is presently being reviewed by the membership for a vote later this year, but I'll leave you with this teaser. If passed, 80 % of the course will be altered in an exciting re-do that will include, in Phase one, 7 new or severely altered holes. Phase two will re-work two tees and a green for better sea views. This will really raise the bar for the Valley and I personally quite like the final results as proposed. I'll post when appropriate as it will be interesting to get the groups thoughts on whether the end justifies the means.
In 2021 I spent 20 minutes listening to the starter at the Valley course rant about how the changes to Dunluce have ruined the Valley. This might kill him.
All it does is allow me to skip the Valley in future trips and either go around Dunluce twice or head on down the road.
-
Ally and Brett
If you thought losing the old 5th and 6 holes on Portrush's Valley was upsetting, wait until to see the
Martin Ebert two phase proposal for the Portrush Valley course. Sorry I can't post at this time because the proposal is presently being reviewed by the membership for a vote later this year, but I'll leave you with this teaser. If passed, 80 % of the course will be altered in an exciting re-do that will include, in Phase one, 7 new or severely altered holes. Phase two will re-work two tees and a green for better sea views. This will really raise the bar for the Valley and I personally quite like the final results as proposed. I'll post when appropriate as it will be interesting to get the groups thoughts on whether the end justifies the means.
The Valley course is my pick for best value in Ireland.
My concern is they'll take a very good and very affordable course, potentially make it marginally, better but then have perceived justification to dramatically increase greens fees.
My desires as a visitor understandably don't align with the voting members.
-
TL:DR
But of course they are. Time is a cruicible and modern implies they will be undervalued.