|
Post by grovey31 on Jan 22, 2021 9:28:02 GMT -5
I thought this could be a fun Friday/weekend discussion. Do you like the classic courses such as Cypress Point, Fishers Island, Winged Foot, Merion, NGLA, etc or do you like modern courses such as Sand Hills, Friars Head, Streamsong Black, Ohoopee MC, Tara Iti, etc.? What do you like or dislike about them? If you're a classic course person, what are your top courses in that era? For the modern courses people, what are your top designs in that category?
I'll start this discussion off that I'm in the modern course camp myself. While I have tons and tons of respect and appreciation for the golden age classics, the modern era courses seem to resonate more with me. The imagination and creativity along with incredible sites have created some of my favorite courses to look at and study. I think the number one aspect of modern courses that does it for me is the expertly blurred lines of what is man made and what's naturally already there. It's how the edges of the course tie in seamlessly into the natural surroundings and the shaping and sculpting of the contours of fairways and greens. My favorite course were already listed above but I would also add courses like all of the course at Bandon, Barnbougle, and Streamsong, Trinity Forest, Rustic Canyon, and Cabot Cliffs. The fact that most of these course are resorts allows for almost anyone to get to play them which might be one drawback of some of the classic courses from the early 1900's.
Hopefully this is a fun topic (not sure if it's been done before though) and I'm curious to see what others think about it!
|
|
|
Post by cd06 on Jan 22, 2021 9:47:51 GMT -5
I'm probably more partial to classics, although some modern courses (the likes of Tara Iti, Barnbougle, Ohoopee M.C etc) are really catching my eye.
From an architectural standpoint, I'm all for the classics though (learning a little more about Raynor/Macdonald templates recently has been great). Having grown up near the UK heathland courses in Surrey, I certainly appreciate Harry Colt more as an architect.
Great topic though. I'd almost separate it into three categories - the Golden Age, the Dark Age and the Doak/Minimalist age where more architects are making courses where ground game is vital.
Naturally I haven't got the chance to experience American classics as of now, but I'm a huge fan of Cypress Point and Pasatiempo. I'm also a huge sucker for a Pete Dye course - recently The Golf Club and The Honors Course have really peaked my interests.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 22, 2021 9:48:17 GMT -5
Well, not only have you taken my answer, but you've given all of the same reasons for them. Admittedly, not all modern era courses are created equally and those that I have the most affection for have clearly taken a lot of influence from Golden Age design principles. Basically, anything designed by Coore/Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse or McLay-Kidd will be right up my street and I can almost always find inspiration even just studying the courses from afar. Having grown up with links golf, for me, the movement towards width, angles, playability for all golfers and the bold use of contours (rather than seeing non-straight bounces as unfair) is the golf I know and love - it's unpredictable, infinitely creative and above all else, fun. I guess you can chuck Sand Valley, Ohoopee Match Club, Castle Stuart and Tara Iti in with those great courses you've named as well. You could also look at the modernising renovations, with Pinehurst #2 and #4 being the most obvious examples there of adding in shot values that had been lost.
I guess the area I think you see the most gain with this sort of modern golf is in recovery shots. If a golfer misses the fairway or green, what options do they have? The more a course moves away from 'hack back to the fairway' or 'hit a high flop and stop shot' as your only options, the better it is.
Tangent, I know, but in-game, I wish there were more of a way to replicate how links courses play around the greens, where putting or chipping are almost always better solutions than the high flop shot. I think that would really see people appreciate this sort of design more.
As for my favourites from that group, it's really hard to say, having not been able to play any of them. But, my bucket list order would be:
1) Tara Iti 2) Cabot Cliffs - love absolutely everything I've seen of this course. 3a) Bandon 3b) Streamsong
One day...
---
Now, if you're asking me to choose between Sandbelt, links golf and the modern courses you mention, I'd find this reaaaaally tough to answer.
|
|
|
Post by sroel908 on Jan 22, 2021 10:00:30 GMT -5
I think if you'd have asked me this question about a year ago, I'd totally be on your side. But having had the chance to play a golden age course (Lawsonia - Links) last May really opened up my eyes to those types of courses. I started reading more about classic golf architecture, and continue to be impressed that the U.S. golden age courses still stand up today, despite being built around 100 years ago at least.
And I really love the modern courses as well, don't get me wrong. It's just I find myself more intrigued by how these timeless designs still stay in the golf world's consciousness so many years after they were constructed.
As for my favorites, I must say that I have a soft spot for Lawsonia, but would have to also put Cypress Point, Winged Foot, Pasatiempo, and Pinehurst No. 2 on my list.
|
|
|
Post by mvpmanatee on Jan 22, 2021 10:11:22 GMT -5
I would say that I also have more of an affinity for the modern courses. Like Ben pointed out, they really follow the ideals of the classic courses, but architects have been able to utilize the modern technology and use it to their advantage. It feels to me that they are doing something that is actually more like what we are doing in building courses in a video game, by knowing that they can do absolutely anything they please, and deciding to make it feel as natural and minimalistic as they can.
I can also say that this technique extends to courses that have seen a rebuild in the last 15-20 years or so. Old courses might have been great back in the day, grew tight and narrow over time, and a modern renovation might find them back into the category of great courses.
We are living in a resurgence of golf and we should all be so happy to see it!
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Jan 22, 2021 10:59:30 GMT -5
I love all of the golf.
Playing golf on a terrible course is better than not playing golf at all.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jan 22, 2021 11:01:52 GMT -5
For me, it all depends on whether restoration work makes you think more highly of modern architects or classic ones. Kyle Franz and Andrew Green are two guys who haven't done anything but restore courses and are damn good at it - see Congressional, Oak Hill, Mid Pines, Inverness, Country Club of Charleston, etc - are they modern architects or just an extension of the Golden Age?
|
|
|
Post by Leecey on Jan 22, 2021 11:08:11 GMT -5
Well, not only have you taken my answer, but you've given all of the same reasons for them. Admittedly, not all modern era courses are created equally and those that I have the most affection for have clearly taken a lot of influence from Golden Age design principles. Basically, anything designed by Coore/Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse or McLay-Kidd will be right up my street and I can almost always find inspiration even just studying the courses from afar. Having grown up with links golf, for me, the movement towards width, angles, playability for all golfers and the bold use of contours (rather than seeing non-straight bounces as unfair) is the golf I know and love - it's unpredictable, infinitely creative and above all else, fun. I guess you can chuck Sand Valley, Ohoopee Match Club, Castle Stuart and Tara Iti in with those great courses you've named as well. You could also look at the modernising renovations, with Pinehurst #2 and #4 being the most obvious examples there of adding in shot values that had been lost. I guess the area I think you see the most gain with this sort of modern golf is in recovery shots. If a golfer misses the fairway or green, what options do they have? The more a course moves away from 'hack back to the fairway' or 'hit a high flop and stop shot' as your only options, the better it is. Tangent, I know, but in-game, I wish there were more of a way to replicate how links courses play around the greens, where putting or chipping are almost always better solutions than the high flop shot. I think that would really see people appreciate this sort of design more. As for my favourites from that group, it's really hard to say, having not been able to play any of them. But, my bucket list order would be: 1) Tara Iti 2) Cabot Cliffs - love absolutely everything I've seen of this course. 3a) Bandon 3b) Streamsong One day... --- Now, if you're asking me to choose between Sandbelt, links golf and the modern courses you mention, I'd find this reaaaaally tough to answer. Totally agree on the links point. It would be an interesting exercise to see how the links courses in-game would play during competition if, for example, the flop and the splash shot weren’t available. Suspect they’d be much more interesting and challenging at the same time. Clearly those shots are used IRL on links courses but it’s a high-tariff play that usually isn’t the right one.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Jan 22, 2021 11:32:21 GMT -5
For me, it all depends on whether restoration work makes you think more highly of modern architects or classic ones. Kyle Franz and Andrew Green are two guys who haven't done anything but restore courses and are damn good at it - see Congressional, Oak Hill, Mid Pines, Inverness, Country Club of Charleston, etc - are they modern architects or just an extension of the Golden Age? This is also me. Reading your post, Grovey, I can't honestly seperate the courses you listed from golden age courses. Most of those were certainly built using ideas and design philosophy from the old days. Although they're technically modern because they were built recently, they feel to me like an extension of the golden age which has finally come back around after years of actual modernisation, which would be the RTJ, Rees Jone and Fazio era. When I hear "modern design" I think Firestone, Torrey, Shadow Creek etc etc. I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened anyway but, seeing the recent renaissance of old style design was hugely boosted by Pete Dye not just by way of his courses and a return to options/angles/strategy, but because he gave the likes of Doak and others their start in the industry and learned the principles from him. So I'd choose golden age courses all day long because I also include some of the courses you mentioned as an extension of that era. Some of those you mentioned I would say are more specifically an extension of Mackenzie's work and philosophy. One last point I want to make is that I believe true originality in course design is well and truly dead. There's always some other similar designed course or similar looking course to match whatever you build. Some people get hung up about wanting to "do something original" or worried that their new course will be too similar to their last. Don't worry about it, whatever you build there'll always be another in game or irl counterpart.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Jan 22, 2021 12:09:53 GMT -5
For me, it all depends on whether restoration work makes you think more highly of modern architects or classic ones. Kyle Franz and Andrew Green are two guys who haven't done anything but restore courses and are damn good at it - see Congressional, Oak Hill, Mid Pines, Inverness, Country Club of Charleston, etc - are they modern architects or just an extension of the Golden Age? I love the discussion about restorations because I think they are so important to the golf world. For this thread I guess my mind was set on focusing on the courses themselves based on when they were built and less on the actual architects. With that being said, I think we could have another great thread about modern restorations to classic courses because as you said, there have been so many recently that elevated the classics and brought their exceptional qualities into the modern era. Those architects deserve tons of recognition for their work, no doubt about that.
|
|
|
Post by SkinniePost on Jan 22, 2021 12:13:22 GMT -5
King Collins... Reversal of negative and positive space on a golf course routing?
Also could be thought of as hazards as focal points in a field vs. framing with the field?
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Jan 22, 2021 12:20:23 GMT -5
Well, not only have you taken my answer, but you've given all of the same reasons for them. Admittedly, not all modern era courses are created equally and those that I have the most affection for have clearly taken a lot of influence from Golden Age design principles. Basically, anything designed by Coore/Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse or McLay-Kidd will be right up my street and I can almost always find inspiration even just studying the courses from afar. Having grown up with links golf, for me, the movement towards width, angles, playability for all golfers and the bold use of contours (rather than seeing non-straight bounces as unfair) is the golf I know and love - it's unpredictable, infinitely creative and above all else, fun. I guess you can chuck Sand Valley, Ohoopee Match Club, Castle Stuart and Tara Iti in with those great courses you've named as well. You could also look at the modernising renovations, with Pinehurst #2 and #4 being the most obvious examples there of adding in shot values that had been lost. I guess the area I think you see the most gain with this sort of modern golf is in recovery shots. If a golfer misses the fairway or green, what options do they have? The more a course moves away from 'hack back to the fairway' or 'hit a high flop and stop shot' as your only options, the better it is. Tangent, I know, but in-game, I wish there were more of a way to replicate how links courses play around the greens, where putting or chipping are almost always better solutions than the high flop shot. I think that would really see people appreciate this sort of design more. As for my favourites from that group, it's really hard to say, having not been able to play any of them. But, my bucket list order would be: 1) Tara Iti 2) Cabot Cliffs - love absolutely everything I've seen of this course. 3a) Bandon 3b) Streamsong One day... --- Now, if you're asking me to choose between Sandbelt, links golf and the modern courses you mention, I'd find this reaaaaally tough to answer. Totally agree on the links point. It would be an interesting exercise to see how the links courses in-game would play during competition if, for example, the flop and the splash shot weren’t available. Suspect they’d be much more interesting and challenging at the same time. Clearly those shots are used IRL on links courses but it’s a high-tariff play that usually isn’t the right one. To expand on this point, I’ve actually started playing the game this way. I only allow my self to use the splash shot either from the bunker or a poor lie in the deep rough. I only allow myself to use the flop if I have an object or hazard to carry. It has really made the game much more enjoyable for me as I now have to either bump and run around the green or rely on my “touch” with a partial pitch shot. Makes the short game so much more meaningful especially on courses similar to many of the ones already mentioned. Give it a try! I don’t think you’ll be disappointed! As for my opinion pertaining to the OP, pretty much anything that’s not of the “penal” school of golf architecture (Rees Jones. et. all) modern or classic is fun to play. Agree with everyone here that options and strategy are pretty much the two biggest factors when separating bad courses from good ones.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Jan 22, 2021 13:12:05 GMT -5
Reading your post, Grovey, I can't honestly seperate the courses you listed from golden age courses. Most of those were certainly built using ideas and design philosophy from the old days. Although they're technically modern because they were built recently, they feel to me like an extension of the golden age which has finally come back around after years of actual modernisation, which would be the RTJ, Rees Jone and Fazio era. When I hear "modern design" I think Firestone, Torrey, Shadow Creek etc etc. I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened anyway but, seeing the recent renaissance of old style design was hugely boosted by Pete Dye not just by way of his courses and a return to options/angles/strategy, but because he gave the likes of Doak and others their start in the industry and learned the principles from him. So I'd choose golden age courses all day long because I also include some of the courses you mentioned as an extension of that era. Some of those you mentioned I would say are more specifically an extension of Mackenzie's work and philosophy. One last point I want to make is that I believe true originality in course design is well and truly dead. There's always some other similar designed course or similar looking course to match whatever you build. Some people get hung up about wanting to "do something original" or worried that their new course will be too similar to their last. Don't worry about it, whatever you build there'll always be another in game or irl counterpart. To clarify my OP, I was using modern to define a time period of design as opposed to a design philosophy. With that being said... I completely agree that the majority of course built in the last 35 years are extensions of the philosophies of golden age architects and courses. That is a really great point to make for sure. It's what makes today's courses so much better and more interesting than those like Torrey and Firestone that were still built in a more modern era but with a less evolved design philosophy. I think a about Cypress point vs. Friars Head and Pinehurst No. 2 vs. Streamsong... what is the main difference between them other than when they were built? Not much, which I think is the point you are making and again, one I agree with. The part I don't know if I agree with is the notion that there is no more true originality in course design. I'm not going to die on this hill since I do agree that hole designs and strategies tend to be variations or things that already exist but I think there are things being done that skirt the edges of originality. Some examples would be the way the greens evolved at Streamsong Black, Ohoopee MC half pars and it's alternative routing (also look at the scorecard for each as they have the half par holes listed as such), the bunkerless Sheep Ranch (I know it's not the only course like this but there are very few so maybe not the best example), and Tom Doak's reversible course.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Jan 22, 2021 15:01:34 GMT -5
King Collins... Reversal of negative and positive space on a golf course routing? Also could be thought of as hazards as focal points in a field vs. framing with the field? This is intriguing but I'm also not sure if I completely follow what you're saying here haha (that's a knock on me, not you!) Nonetheless, I would love to hear you elaborate on this a little.
|
|
|
Post by rjwils30 on Jan 23, 2021 14:31:44 GMT -5
King Collins... Reversal of negative and positive space on a golf course routing? Also could be thought of as hazards as focal points in a field vs. framing with the field? This is intriguing but I'm also not sure if I completely follow what you're saying here haha (that's a knock on me, not you!) Nonetheless, I would love to hear you elaborate on this a little. In architectural terms the fairway can be the focal point (positive space) within a field of rough (negative space) or the rough can be a focal point (positive space) within a field of fairway (negative space). The latter is like starting with a plot of fairway and adding rough and hazards in strategic locations, kind of like St. Andrews. I like this way of thinking and you can see it on courses like hoi an beach club where there is a perceived continuity of fairway with islands of rough and bunkers.
|
|