This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Changes at Deal (Royal Cinque Ports)
« Last post by Rich Goodale on Yesterday at 11:54:40 AM »

It may just be me, but I have played many "Royal" clubs and do not find any of them to be "like-minded" other than being populated with golfers.  In fact, my observation is that the more "Royal" a club becomes the less "like-minded" are their members.


PS--I have no probs with Mr. Huckaby.  He is a GCA icon.
PPS--I do not think that the purveyor of "Royal" status (i.e. Head of State Betty Windsor) knows or cares a thing about golf, other than that it keeps Prince Andrew occupied.  At least our Head of State can golf his ball.

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Changes at Deal (Royal Cinque Ports)
« Last post by Jon Wiggett on Yesterday at 11:54:13 AM »

Mark, Mike,

as a long standing member and herald for 'ROYAL' Dornoch I suspect his comments might be a little 'tongue in cheek'. :)
I posted the following on one of the William Watson related threads almost two years ago (,61453.msg1520733.html#msg1520733).  Seems like its relevant here.

On this site and others there seems to have been a number of questions as to Watson's involvement with two of the courses on the list above, namely Berkeley (n/k/a Mira Vista) and Burlingame.

With respect to Berkeley, the debate centers around whether Watson or Robert Hunter should receive the bulk of the credit for the original design.

For Burlingame, there are folks that think that Herbert Fowler was largely responsible for the changes made to the course in the early 1920's, with Watson only coming in to do some touch up work.  I've even read where folks think Watson may have only stopped by to offer his opinions on the work being done, and didn't really have much involvement in any formulated plans.

The following Dec. 19, 1921 Oakland Tribune article goes part of the way to clearing up these questions.  Not only does it confirm that Watson was brought in to Burlingame to offer more than a passing opinion on the work of others, but Robert Hunter himself was showing off the work at Berkeley as a Watson creation.

With respect to Berkeley, I am of the belief that both Hunter and Watson contributed significantly to the initial design, which ended up being a melding of both of their ideas.  In fact, there are reports that there was only one hole (the 17th) where the two men disagreed as to what should be done.  It is interesting that Hunter would be promoting Watson's efforts at the course over his own, but perhaps he was more interested in promoting the work of a Bay Area professional over his own, much the same way Thomas, Behr, et al. began to promote William Bell in SoCal. 
Golf Course Architecture / Re: RIP - Jamey Bryan
« Last post by Ronald Montesano on Yesterday at 11:35:17 AM »
I wrote to Ran recently, suggesting that a hall of fame was precisely what this site needs. There are guys with whom I fought virtually, but they damned well deserve to be in the hall of fame. I'd like to see something like that take shape. As much as we have 147 Custodians that are courses, we also have contributors that are custodians.
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Can you ever get the drainage right?
« Last post by Steve Lang on Yesterday at 11:10:15 AM »
 8)  Tommy, & all..

In case you've never looked at NOAA rainfall data, check out the short-long (5-min to 60-day) term info available at

So, I guess we all think things through differently.
Jeff,I agree with the above statement.  Kavanaugh issue really put it in perspective that so many saw it in an entirely different light...
Golf Course Architecture / Re: RIP - Jamey Bryan
« Last post by JC Jones on Yesterday at 10:57:56 AM »

heading to Camden on business this week and couldn't help thinking of Jamey and Camden CC. RIP. Very fond memories of an afternoon round and late evening in Camden with him.
Ironic the last post of this thread was from Bill McBride-RIP- who I first met at the Dixie Cup in 2004.

GCA needs a Hall of Fame


I met Jamey and McBride at the 2009 Dixie Cup in Aiken/Camden.  I remember McBride singing every word of Luckenbach Texas in the bar of the Aiken Inn and Whitaker wanting to strangle Jamey at dinner.  Still cracks me up.

Mark Pritchett and I needed an extra for a round at Hendersonville CC a few years before Jamey died.  If you wanted to reach him you had to call Camden CC and leave a message.  He filled in without hesitation and we had a great day.

RIP to pillars of GCA.
Since your date is the early 1930s, it seems fair to evaluate any present or recent major venues compared to their 1930 design.


Yes, for average players their variation in tee shot distance and location from day to day, and varied pin positions on gently rolling greens should make each hole different enough each day for variety.  Agree 99.9%.

Strategery is mostly for the top 1-5% (I get my ideas from top club players, not the PGA Tour) as to what constitutes a good playing course.  And, they are the tastemakers so to speak, so you can't ignore them.  Also, one reason I use kick plates often is that the average player likes it just as much when they can pull off a creative shot, and have the same thrill of getting close to the pin on a risky shot as a good player.  Like you say, they may not know just how risky it was.....

I consider a balance of shots that rewards length, accuracy and creativity (usually short game, but shaping longer shots) with an emphasis on the latter 2.  Length is its own reward.

So, I guess we all think things through differently.

Scioto, Canterbury, Beverly, Westchester. Is there some magic number that is enough to make the point that distance has made very good courses obsolete for tour players? Maybe I am still missing the point of the thread.


Wedge Dot Com tour has been at Canterbury last 3 years playing it a hair under 7,000 and scores have been -14, -8, -7 (cuts E, +2, +1). Soaked course on Thursday resulted in the low rounds for the week. Greens/Pins weren't nearly as bad as they are on a typical member Sunday.

I think some of the Golden Age courses could still be in play, but they don't have the surrounding land necessary for the circus to come to town. Players also aren't exactly GCA fans and do a lot of moaning and groaning when presented with the defenses typical of these courses.  9 bridges far superior to Trinity in their eyes.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]