Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JC Jones on July 27, 2010, 10:57:11 PM
-
Per Tom Doak in The Confidential Guide, here are the 10's:
St. Andrews Old Course
Muirfield
Royal Dornoch
Ballybunion (Old)
Royal Melbourne (West)
National Golf Links of America
Shinnecock Hills
Pine Valley
Merion (East)
Pinehurst (No. 2)
Crystal Downs (JC note - I swore he said recently in my Seminole v CD thread that he had CD as a 9 but this list is from a post of his from another thread)
Cypress Point
Here is the top 10, per Golfweek Magazine:
Pine Valley
Cypress Point Club
Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes
Shinnecock
NGLA
Merion
Oakmont
Crystal Downs
Pebble Beach
What do all of these courses have in common such that despite their obvious differences, they can all be considered "great" (whether by one man or the consensus)?
-
JC-You ask a very good question. I will give it a decent try, all though I have only seen Pinehurst #2. I think in general, all these courses have great variety and very little, if any, weaknesses. That is the key to them all, most likely. Thats the best I can do, but maybe that will spark more debate.
-
JC
I believe Tom also stated that Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are Doak 10's as well.
For mine - the thing that stands out for me on all the "truly great" courses is the meld of the design to the land. The flow of the routing and the variety of challenges that one is presented with - both off the tee and around the greens - give them that status.
They all have but very few flaws by my definition of "greatness".
-
JC:
I would say they all enjoy a fairly consensus opinion (what you have called something like a "collective" opinion over time?) that their architecture is superior for a variety of reasons.
Have any of those lists, magazines, opinion polls over time ever attempted to explain why all or any of them are considered to be great, architecturally or otherwise?
Now what about this issue and importance of this thing that some recently have been proposing and/or debating relating to these courses or superior architecture known as the so-called "Fun Factor?"
-
The 10s are 10s because they are not "10s".
And each of those 10s is a 10 in its own uniquely unique way, flaws and all.
Like Moby Dick and King Lear, they are great not in spite of their imperfections but because of them.
They adhere to higher and more nobler standards -- not to the rules of the good but to the freedoms of the great.
But the trouble is, JC, no one will come down from the mountain to tell us shmucks what those freedoms are.
Only the earth can tell us, and she only whispers - so we have to stoop down and pay attention.
Ah, if only someone would grant all of us the courage to be imperfect..and then to wait for the judgement of history.
Also, angles.
Coop
-
JC
I believe Tom also stated that Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are Doak 10's as well.
For mine - the thing that stands out for me on all the "truly great" courses is the meld of the design to the land. The flow of the routing and the variety of challenges that one is presented with - both off the tee and around the greens - give them that status.
They all have but very few flaws by my definition of "greatness".
Kevin,
Tom D may have stated that Sand Hills was a 10 but I have seen him to be far too modest to give his own course a 10, whether deserving (as is the case with PacDunes), or not.
Back to this thread, you saw many great courses last fall. Some were 10's, per Tom D, some were not and some were not in the Confidential Guide. Nevertheless, which, of the ones you saw, did not meld the design to the land and have the requisite routing and variety? And, were any of those more fun than the ones you considered to be "great"?
(Please feel free to answer that question on my other thread, if you so choose)
Thanks
-
JC: If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question. I expressed there my preference for courses which had a bunch of great short par-4 holes, and suggested that was often the main difference between my 10's and those which just missed the mark. Many "championship" courses omit that type of hole in order to gain championship length, but they lose out on variety and on the fun factor for average golfers in the process.
Having great short par-4's is not the ONLY ingredient for a course getting a 10 on the Doak scale, of course. I didn't assign grades that high unless I felt that a wide spectrum of golfers might agree. And THAT is why my list of personal favorite courses wouldn't be exactly the same as the list of 10's that I put on record. That, and the fact that modesty might prevent me from rating any of my own courses a 10, but it surely would not keep me from having them as favorites. ;)
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
-
JC: If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question.
I actually haven't read it at all. The blasted thing is too expensive for a teacher's salary ;)
Having great short par-4's is not the ONLY ingredient for a course getting a 10 on the Doak scale, of course. I didn't assign grades that high unless I felt that a wide spectrum of golfers might agree.
I find this very interesting. You only gave 10s to courses which you perceived the collective to have already determined great? So much for being the maverick critic ;) ;D
How did you know a wide spectrum of golfers would probably agree? Had a wide spectrum already determined which courses were great? If so, how did you differentiate your rationale for the greatness of the course from that of the collective?
Why, in your opinion, other than short par 4's and your belief in a consensus, did you determine those courses to be worthy of the label of "great"?
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
David,
I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post. I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list. It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played. Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.
Cheers,
S
-
Simon,
I'd imagine it actually feels pretty good to know you prefer Pine Valley over NGLA, Shinnecock, Cypress...
;D
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post. I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list. It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played. Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.
Partly jesting, Simon.
It is strange that this, along with the forced carries, seperates it from all other great golf courses. Is it really a great course for the short hitter, elderly, or casual player in the the way that Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, St Andrews and NGLA are?
-
By the same token, David, would those courses be as challenging/enjoyable for the Tour pro as they are for the regular amateur?
-
By the same token, David, would those courses be as challenging/enjoyable for the Tour pro as they are for the regular amateur?
Yes, that's what makes them great courses.
-
Tom Doak said, "JC: If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question. I expressed there my preference for courses which had a bunch of great short par-4 holes, and suggested that was often the main difference between my 10's and those which just missed the mark..."
Could you define what you mean by "short par-4 holes?" For example, do they need to be drivable?
-
Could you define what you mean by "short par-4 holes?" For example, do they need to be drivable?
Phil: No, they don't need to be drivable at all. I was talking about holes under +/- 375 yards, which the average golfer could reach in two shots without straining. If you don't have a few of those, a course is just a long slog for most, and it won't be much fun.
So for example, while Pine Valley is exceptionally challenging in general, it has holes like the 2nd, 8th, 12th and 17th where any visitor ought to have a chance to make par or even birdie, as opposed to the chain of bogeys and doubles they would likely make at a championship course like Medinah or Winged Foot or Olympic.
I find this very interesting. You only gave 10s to courses which you perceived the collective to have already determined great? So much for being the maverick critic ;) ;D
How did you know a wide spectrum of golfers would probably agree? Had a wide spectrum already determined which courses were great? If so, how did you differentiate your rationale for the greatness of the course from that of the collective?
JC: I find this not so interesting, so this is my last response to your topic. I had Crystal Downs rated as a 10 before GOLF DIGEST had heard of it, and National Golf Links rated that high when it was still somewhere below #50 on their rankings. [It was out of their top 100 altogether when I started my travels.] So I didn't care much about what had been published, or for being part of a consensus. But I did care that the courses had features that could appeal to a wide range of golfers, which most rankings ignore.
I have no intention of listing out every element which I think can contribute to making a course great. I did it for Ran once, years ago; I think I came up with 50 or 60 different things, a test that no course could ace. But even if I could find that list, I would not post it here, because I wouldn't want somebody to dig it up 20 years later to tell me that I had changed my mind about one of those 50 things. That would be pointless, when my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf.
-
Tom,
It is too bad you don't find this interesting. I think many on here, including myself, appreciate and very much find interesting your thoughts on what constitutes greatness. Where better to learn from than the man who back in the late 80's and 90's changed the way the world thought about golf course architecture?
-
JC: If you really want to know the answers to this, no one else can post them for you ... you have to go out there and learn for yourself. Pete Dye surely didn't tell me what the answer was, although I did learn a bunch of the ingredients from him along the way.
-
JC: If you really want to know the answers to this, no one else can post them for you ... you have to go out there and learn for yourself. Pete Dye surely didn't tell me what the answer was, although I did learn a bunch of the ingredients from him along the way.
Tom,
In no way am I suggesting that your posts are a substitute for my own education. As this is a discussion group, I find it interesting to hear your thoughts so that we can discuss them. While I am sure Pete Dye didn't explain it all to you, he probably discussed those things with you.
-
JC Jones said:
“I think many on here, including myself, appreciate and very much find interesting your thoughts on what constitutes greatness. Where better to learn from than the man who back in the late 80's and 90's changed the way the world thought about golf course architecture?”
Tom Doak responded to him with:
“JC: If you really want to know the answers to this, no one else can post them for you ... you have to go out there and learn for yourself.”
JC:
You asked Tom Doak for his thoughts on what constitutes greatness, apparently for any particular golfer. He gave you his thoughts in his response to you above. Apparently he thinks one needs to go out there and learn these things for himself. Are you going to accept his thoughts and his answer or are you going to continue to try to get him to say something else or something different?
-
Tom Paul,
Actually, I asked the board, generally, what they thought was the common thread in greatness. Tom chose to respond. I then asked what he thought constitutes greatness, for him personally.
Apparently you still need to work on your reading comprehension. ;)
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post. I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list. It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played. Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.
Partly jesting, Simon.
It is strange that this, along with the forced carries, seperates it from all other great golf courses. Is it really a great course for the short hitter, elderly, or casual player in the the way that Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, St Andrews and NGLA are?
How is a 200+ yard carry over the ocean "fun" for an elderly/short hitter? I am not knocking CPC as it is my #1 course, but to knock PV for its difficulty and not mention CPC's difficult carry is absurd. And please don't tell me someone is going to play around to the left because that certainly is not fun.
-
JC:
I realize you asked the board generally what constitutes greatness, and I realize Tom Doak chose to respond. I realize you then asked him what he thought constitutes greatness, for him personally. And I realize how he responded to you. Consequently, and subsequently I asked you if you planned to accept what he said to you about how to best learn golf architecture or if you planned to try to get him to say something else or something different. I don't think I need to work on my reading comprehension but you may need to answer that question of mine to you if you plan to ever learn if there is some common thread of greatness in golf course architecture, at least to learn it in the way that Tom Doak apparently feels it can and should be learned? ;)
-
I think that a lot of the best courses you leave the property thinking that they couldnt have done a better job using the land they had. From the courses I have played on this list, they all use the land to its absolute fullest potential.
Mark
-
JC: If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question.
I actually haven't read it at all. The blasted thing is too expensive for a teacher's salary ;)
Shame on you Jason. Haven't you heard of inter-library loan?
Now get serious and do some reading.
;)
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post. I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list. It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played. Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.
Partly jesting, Simon.
It is strange that this, along with the forced carries, seperates it from all other great golf courses. Is it really a great course for the short hitter, elderly, or casual player in the the way that Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, St Andrews and NGLA are?
How is a 200+ yard carry over the ocean "fun" for an elderly/short hitter? I am not knocking CPC as it is my #1 course, but to knock PV for its difficulty and not mention CPC's difficult carry is absurd. And please don't tell me someone is going to play around to the left because that certainly is not fun.
Jim,
My thoughts exactly. I was on a pretty good score when I came to 16 at CPC. I hit 3 drivers in the water. I still loved it!! I am neither elderley or short but that day there was no way I could get there.....there was also no way I wasnt going to try.
S
-
Sorry Jim - I agree with your overall point - what's good for the goose is good for the gander - just you try to tell the man I am standing with there that he didn't have any fun going left on the pictured golf hole. For him, the 100 yard carry going left was as heroic as the carry at the green for you and me. It's all a matter of abilities and perspective, my friend.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/THuckaby/CypressPointApril09028-1.jpg)
-
"How is a 200+ yard carry over the ocean "fun" for an elderly/short hitter? I am not knocking CPC as it is my #1 course, but to knock PV for its difficulty and not mention CPC's difficult carry is absurd. And please don't tell me someone is going to play around to the left because that certainly is not fun."
Jim Franklin:
If a golfer cannot possibly come close to hitting a golf ball 200 yards in the air anyway, then why in the world would it not be fun for him to play around to the left on Cypress Point's #16?
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
I have been fortunate enough to play 6 of Tom's listed 10s in the first post. I can only assume you are jesting that PV doesnt belong in that list. It is obviously all down to personal preference and as a links golfer through and through, it hurts me to say, that it is the best course I have ever played. Actually it doesnt hurt that much at all.
Partly jesting, Simon.
It is strange that this, along with the forced carries, seperates it from all other great golf courses. Is it really a great course for the short hitter, elderly, or casual player in the the way that Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, St Andrews and NGLA are?
How is a 200+ yard carry over the ocean "fun" for an elderly/short hitter? I am not knocking CPC as it is my #1 course, but to knock PV for its difficulty and not mention CPC's difficult carry is absurd. And please don't tell me someone is going to play around to the left because that certainly is not fun.
There is a story in The Spirit of St. Andrews about a man who wins the 16th Hole at CPC in a match by playing the hole entirely with a putter. I'm pretty sure that 200-yard carry is not non-negotiable.
-
Sorry Jim - I agree with your overall point - what's good for the goose is good for the gander - just you try to tell the man I am standing with there that he didn't have any fun going left on the pictured golf hole. For him, the 100 yard carry going left was as heroic as the carry at the green for you and me. It's all a matter of abilities and perspective, my friend.
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/THuckaby/CypressPointApril09028-1.jpg)
Great post.
-
Peter Pallotta:
I just noticed your Post #4. That's wonderful!
It makes me appreciate more the dynamics of the way various golfers look at golf courses and golf architecture and the broad diversity of approach and opinion.
The spectrum of that diversity on this thread seems to be your poetic approach counterpoised to JC Jones' attempt to somehow fit all the criteria into something akin to a logical legal brief.
I suppose, nay, I believe, that both might be right as rain for the particular person which pretty much goes to confirm the usefulness of Tom Doak's suggestion that we all need to go out there and learn these things for ourselves.
-
Tom Paul,
I did not ask Tom D any further questions after he said he was done posting so I am not sure from where your question is coming. Nevertheless, I think you know the answer based on our many conversations.
-
I have asked a few members of top clubs what their first impression/thought of their course was, and what their last impression/thought was.
Each one has answered differently to include things like culture, ambiance, intimacy, subtlety. But the common thread I am starting to see is this. Only the best courses have had the comment made that they are as enamored with the course now as they were the first time they played it. That in years in of membership, they are no closer to fully understanding the course than they were on day one.
In the end, a course must hold interest over the course of time. It isn't en vogue or du jour or forgotten, it's timeless. That's a 10 in my book.
-
David:
If you walk out to the 2nd fairway at PV and make a right and walk deep into the woods, you may find flowing water. I am told by a friend that has been a PV member for over 40 years that he once won 2 when his opponent deposited his ball in the hazard! :-)
-
"Tom Paul,
I did not ask Tom D any further questions after he said he was done posting so I am not sure from where your question is coming."
JC:
I realize that. Assuming you read Doak's last response to you on this thread I merely asked you if you were going to accept what he said to you in that response or whether you were going to try to get him to say something else or something different.
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
How about Shinnecock?
Maybe I just don't understand what "a water hazard without flowing water" is...
-
David:
If you walk out to the 2nd fairway at PV and make a right and walk deep into the woods, you may find flowing water. I am told by a friend that has been a PV member for over 40 years that he once won 2 when his opponent deposited his ball in the hazard! :-)
I tried looking on Google maps after you brought this up over the weekend. I scanned around but can't see it.. Is it more like a creek or a small pond in the woods Rory?
Mark
-
Rory:
I did not realize there was any kind of water hazard to the right of #2 at Pine Valley. There is a very nice house to the right of that fairway, fairly far into the trees. Matter of fact, that particular house was the second one on that property just after Crump's bungalow and it's where Jim Govan, Crump's foreman, pro, greenkeeper, club-maker lived with his family until one of his children got very sick inexplicably and Mrs. Govan made him move.
But if David Elvin really thinks PV does not deserve to be listed as it is because the water in the water hazards doesn't flow perhaps next time I'm there I could prevail upon the club to go down to Home Depot and get a few small engines and basically get the water in those WH's flowing a little bit! ;)
-
Tom and Mark:
I was alerted to the presence of the hazard by Tom's and my mutual friend King Knox. King was playing in an event known as the Amish Open against a former partner of mine (and longtime PV member) when the shot was struck and the little stream discovered. In fact, the story goes that King located the ball and alerted his opponent to the fact that the ball was in the hazard only to hear in response, "there's no g d damned hazard in here!" I have no idea whether it flows constantly or not nor have I seen it but in my mind's eye, there is running water at PV :-)
-
Sully:
Basically Shinnecock only has a single real WH in play and it's the pond on #6 which even the club has pretty much always admitted is about the poorest looking excuse for a water hazard imaginable. ;)
But Wayno Morrison is on the job as an historical consultant and he has recently recommended that pathetic excuse for a pond (WH) on #6 be fitted out with a mechanism that can shoot a cascade of water up to 100 ft in the air and actually somewhat blind the green to an approach if a drive is not placed in the right strategic position.
-
Not enought to make you aim left though I guess!
Mark
-
Mr Paul,
I have not laid out any criteria nor tried to fit anything into a mold. I have , quite simPly, asked questions. Any inferences made are your own.
-
Is a stream considered a hazard if there are no stakes or lines?
-
Rory:
I think what King was referring to is that little yellow and green plastic child's pool that sat on the lawn of that house to the right of #2. ;) And you are right, when the garden hose was in it, it probably could've been considered flowing water! ::)
As you probably know, because PV has always wanted it that way, there is very, very little free relief on that golf course, or I should say on that property.
-
Actually, as the story goes, relief can be quite expensive...
-
"How is a 200+ yard carry over the ocean "fun" for an elderly/short hitter? I am not knocking CPC as it is my #1 course, but to knock PV for its difficulty and not mention CPC's difficult carry is absurd. And please don't tell me someone is going to play around to the left because that certainly is not fun."
Jim Franklin:
If a golfer cannot possibly come close to hitting a golf ball 200 yards in the air anyway, then why in the world would it not be fun for him to play around to the left on Cypress Point's #16?
There is still a forced carry to get to the "fairway" on #16. It may be fun, but to penalize PV for forced carries and not CPC doesn't make sense is all I am saying.
-
Tom he didn't mention the pool but perhaps he left that part out to help preserve the mystique.
Jim, without lines or stakes, I don't know. I suspect that your command of the rules is better than mine but whether or not a hazard as defined by the rules, the area described to me sounded pretty hazardous.
-
"Is a stream considered a hazard if there are no stakes or lines?"
Yes, and by analogy to I suppose Dec 26-2 a golfer should determine the natural boundary of the WH.
Rory:
That particular yellow and green plastic child's pool that had a diameter of perhaps 10 feet that King's opponent apparently found his ball in far to the right of #2 fairway could be considered a very dangerous hazard because the kid who lived there was one unattractive and semi-violent brat, for sure. If King's opponent even attempted to retrieve his golf ball and take Rule 26 relief from that WH the chances of him getting very seriously whacked upside the head by that kid with something like a hard rubber duckie was very good indeed.
And frankly, Rory, the reality of a WH to the right of #2 in that situation with King Knox is really not the question at all. The real question is if during that particular incident King was wearing his yellow and white golf shoes or his red and white golf shoes?
-
Rory,
The only place on that course where it makes sense is way right off #14. There's a little stream system running out of the pond that could be what he's talking about. #18 has some retention ponds way right as well, but they don't "run" or "flow" so much. #2 could only really have a small little stream running out of an underground spring or something, and only in a short little area.
-
"There is still a forced carry to get to the "fairway" on #16. It may be fun, but to penalize PV for forced carries and not CPC doesn't make sense is all I am saying."
Jimbo Franklin:
No it really doesn't make sense and either does the person who was penalizing PV for forced carries! ;)
-
Ah yes, the predictable yet pointless "calling out" of a course that's accepted by all to be great because of one "rule" it has broken.
Why don't we can this nonsense and accept that both Cypress and Pine Valley are pretty good and move on to the genius written in post 32. ;D
-
Jim,
What was described to me matches your description of what was right of 2.
-
I have asked a few members of top clubs what their first impression/thought of their course was, and what their last impression/thought was.
Each one has answered differently to include things like culture, ambiance, intimacy, subtlety. But the common thread I am starting to see is this. Only the best courses have had the comment made that they are as enamored with the course now as they were the first time they played it. That in years in of membership, they are no closer to fully understanding the course than they were on day one.
In the end, a course must hold interest over the course of time. It isn't en vogue or du jour or forgotten, it's timeless. That's a 10 in my book.
Indeed there is genius within this simple and short post! :)
Seriously, I'd probably define greatness in a golf course as continually interesting. I would have meant that in the sense of one shot after the next within one round, but when coupled with Ben's point above, it takes on a whole new level - not just shot after shot within a round, but shot after shot within a lifetime of plays.
-----
I suspect David Elvins was just prodding everyone with a controversial statement.
-
I suspect David Elvins was just prodding everyone with a controversial statement.
To a degree, but not for the sake of being controversial.
i have always been intrigued that when you look at the threads that join the great courses, there are several threads that clearly bypass Pine Valley, such as absense of man made water hazards and absesne of repeated significant forced carries.
I would suspect that the true answer is, as Tom Doak states, that you can't define greatness by categories, but there has always been a suspicion that PV might get a free pass where other courses may not.
-
JC - thanks for starting this thread. I can't think of many subjects more relevant than this on a site dedicated to discussing great architecture. I have only played one Top 100 course, and it was a top 10 course. I liked the Par 3s on that course a lot - where/when the came in the routing, what they looked like, what they asked of me. Later I learned fom a much more experienced player (who is very familiar with that course) that folks rarely mention the Par 3s there. My point being that it was the whole of the course that made those Par 3s and the rest of the holes enjoyable. I do really believe that trying to deny any potential 'flaws' when talking about greatness is a mistake - in that those 'flaws' are part and parcel of the whole. Someone once told me that the word "art" comes from the German word for "trick" -- and I think the flaws on any great courses are part of what makes the trick/art work. Ever play a modern course that moves indistinguishably from one non-flawed hole to the next? Not that I want to criticize that - it takes a look of skill to create a good course; but a focus on something higher than just avoiding flaw to make a great one.
Peter
-
"There is still a forced carry to get to the "fairway" on #16. It may be fun, but to penalize PV for forced carries and not CPC doesn't make sense is all I am saying."
Jimbo Franklin:
No it really doesn't make sense and either does the person who was penalizing PV for forced carries! ;)
Thanks Tom, I am glad we agree (as usual) :).
-
I once asked a musician friend of mine what the difference between a really good singer and a great singer was; He said "attitude".
I don't know if that's expound-able or not, but it sounds good to me.
Joe
-
Kevin,
Back to this thread, you saw many great courses last fall. Some were 10's, per Tom D, some were not and some were not in the Confidential Guide. Nevertheless, which, of the ones you saw, did not meld the design to the land and have the requisite routing and variety? And, were any of those more fun than the ones you considered to be "great"?
Thanks
JC
As you mention - I was indeed fortunate last fall to see all of the US Doak 10’s in the CG or otherwise (save for Pinehurst and Crystal Downs). All of them were also 10’s in my book as well.
I also saw a range of other “great” courses that were either on the cusp above or a few rungs below that standard + others still that weren’t even in that league . Each as to their own in terms of their definition and scale of “greatness” and my few sentences try to summarise mine particularly for those at the top of the tree.
Two courses that stood out for me as being immeasurably “fun” and also should be included in a discussion of the “true greats” were Old Macdonald and Fishers Island. They were both worth the effort to get to and I could only dream of going back to either one of them in a heartbeat.
-
Here it is...
"my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."
from Tom D's prior post. Write it down, keep it in your files, and refer to it often.
Perhaps we could analyze this statement itself to learn a thing or a million.
-
What do all of these courses have in common such that despite their obvious differences, they can all be considered "great" (whether by one man or the consensus)?
The best use of angles anywhere.
-
Perhaps those courses don't have anything in common except the they succeeded in...
getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf.
-
Mac,
You know I love you but I have to tell you that the phrase you now hold so dear is completely and utterly meaningless.
Please tell me how you or anyone knows whether a course a) got the most out of the land or b) added to the greatness of golf (whatever that may mean)?
-
JC...
I've played a number of courses that have without a doubt got the most out of the land. Canterbury is my most recent example of seeing that. 146 total acres. Amazing golf course. I think we all know examples like this.
How did it add to the greatness of golf? Dude, if I have to tell you how NGLA added to the greateness of golf (or Pinehurst #2 or Merion, etc, etc, etc) then there is no help for you!
-
JC and Mac,
"my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."
I have just popped these words into my collection of good phrases to have in my minds eye as I think about golf course architecture! I think a holistic approach allows one to take on board nebulous statements such as the above. Has the golf architect not got the most out of the land when one feels comfortable and HAPPY playing on it? The greatness of golf is again, I think, when one feels that the golf has been benefited by the addition of the particular course to the collection.
Colin
-
Most have sandy soil.
Either Macdonald or MacKenzie was involved with over half the old ones at some point.
____________________________
There is still a forced carry to get to the "fairway" on #16. It may be fun, but to penalize PV for forced carries and not CPC doesn't make sense is all I am saying.
CPC 16 has a forced carry of a bit over 100 yards from the back tee. If one is adamantly opposed to forced carries, then I suppose one could criticize CPC for this. With the amount of time MacKenzie spent explaining it, it seems it was definitely something he considered.
I was under the impression Pine Valley had more forced carries and much longer forced carries. Is this not the case?
If a course has more forced carries and they are longer then surely there is no hypocracy in criticizing this course more than a course with fewer and shorter forced carries. Or am I missing something?
-
I once asked a musician friend of mine what the difference between a really good singer and a great singer was; He said "attitude".
I don't know if that's expound-able or not, but it sounds good to me.
Joe
My first thought was, this is perfect.
My second thought was, I've played a few courses with a nasty attitude.
I'll attempt to expound this way: A great course has a compelling attitude.
Singers, too.
-
What do all of these courses have in common such that despite their obvious differences, they can all be considered "great" (whether by one man or the consensus)?
The common thread to me is all are designed to play firm and fast with wind a key design factor. Merion might be the only exception on the wind.
Royal Dornoch is the only one of these I have played, so I'll comment a little further based on my 3 rounds there over a 30 hour period a month ago.
The prior comment on the short par 4s there is spot on - they give the round flow as they are perfectly placed along with the par 5s to give the round balance. #1 is the textbook "firm handshake" with an incredible setting - my buddy felt it was his favorite 1st hole anywhere and I had a hard time arguing with that. Then 3 difficult holes, all tough pars, then the 5th as another short par 4 before 3 more difficult holes to score a par, then the 9th as essentially a half-par par 5, then the 10th, which despite being under 150 yds I never parred, tough par 4 in 11, then another strategic half-par par 5 on 12, then another solid par 3, then arguably the toughest par 4 on earth followed by another perfectly placed short par 4 before 3 difficult par 4s over 400 yards to finish.
My second observation is the variability of the test - a dream course to members that I imagine plays a million different ways based on pins and conditions.
My final observation I had was the subtle nature of the challenge. The scorecard does not overwhelm you. On nearly every hole (with the clear exception of Foxy, maybe the 18th as well), birdie is a fair expectation under reasonable winds with 2 properly struck shots. Yet, even on the easier holes, one can easily slide into double bogey range with poor decisions or execution. The old lady has horns if you cross her - but she seduces you back again after she beats you up. And the high rough, the firm and fast turf, and winds are the key tools she uses to accomplish that.
I'll leave it to others better qualified to gauge how those qualities carry over to the other courses on the list.
-
JC...
I've played a number of courses that have without a doubt got the most out of the land. Canterbury is my most recent example of seeing that. 146 total acres. Amazing golf course. I think we all know examples like this.
How did it add to the greatness of golf? Dude, if I have to tell you how NGLA added to the greateness of golf (or Pinehurst #2 or Merion, etc, etc, etc) then there is no help for you!
I find it interesting that you chose fore your example of maximizinzing the use of land, a non-consensus great course.
Then, not only did you not explain how it added to the greatness of golf, you proceeded to use a strawman argument.
So, I am still waiting for an answer to my question.
-
JC...
I love this type of discussion. I have learned a great deal. But in all honesty, I got it now. I clearly see the common thread of greatness. I will watch you all discuss this further if you wish. Some like to debate on this site for debates sake, I seek to learn. And like I said previously, I know the answer to the question you have asked. Therefore, for my purposes I see no further need to debate it.
-
As a note, Pinehurst #2 has a water hazard sans flowing water; more like a glorified bird bath. I've always wondered why they never filled it in. It looks out of place.
Greatness in buildings or music is driven by individuality, quality, mass appeal due to being individual and having quality materials, techniques, and attention to detail. Greatness is almost indescribable through words. It's certainly not describable through mathematical formula's.
In golf the same applies. These courses are far from banal, from the standard mechanized, technocrat fare, are easily identified by those with some knowledge and they exude a sense of place. They have a story to tell, and offer a series of holes that largely defy monotony both in sequence and character.
When it comes to excellence and sense of place I often think of Harbour Town. The fairways are flat, and with what seems like little dirt moving Dye created something of interest, fun and beauty that reflects the region. Of his other less heralded courses I'd like to see Country Club of Colorado. Built not long after Harbour Town, on what sounds like similar land but without the glorious trees gracing Harbour Town.
-
JC...
I love this type of discussion. I have learned a great deal. But in all honesty, I got it now. I clearly see the common thread of greatness. I will watch you all discuss this further if you wish. Some like to debate on this site for debates sake, I seek to learn. And like I said previously, I know the answer to the question you have asked. Therefore, for my purposes I see no further need to debate it.
Mac,
You and I are here for the same reasons. I still don't know that statement means.
-
Mac,
I also read these posts to learn and that is why I hope you will help me get to the understanding that you have. I still do not really get the "Makes the most out of the land" point.
For instance, when I read about Sand Hills, I always read that the architects founds hundreds of holes and had to pare them down. I also read how the property had perfect soil and topography. In fact, in my copy of TCG, Sand Hills had a wonderful review without being completed.
My question is, what does it mean that they made the most of the property? I assume that it is not akin to Merion making a great course out of a small parcel.
Can you help me with your understanding of this sentence?
-
I am currently slammed at work, but I will post on this later tonight. I am not an architect, but will put my take on this on the site. Hopefully others will review it and add to it and we can get a really great idea of how to judge that aspect of a golf course.
JC...you've had some really great posts lately. At least, in my opinion.
-
JC...
I love this type of discussion. I have learned a great deal. But in all honesty, I got it now. I clearly see the common thread of greatness. I will watch you all discuss this further if you wish. Some like to debate on this site for debates sake, I seek to learn. And like I said previously, I know the answer to the question you have asked. Therefore, for my purposes I see no further need to debate it.
Mac, I think JC just wants something a little more specific - indeed, it seems to be the point of the thread.
As I said on the other thread, I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" type of definitions - a bit too egocentric for me, and it implies a lack of fleshed out thinking, imho.
I can accept it when Tom says a course adds to the greatness of golf, but I'd rather hear how... :)
-
As Bob Crosby might say, each of the great courses of the world is sui generis -- one of a kind, unique in its characteristics. It is strange to accept that the commonality amongst the great courses is this very lack of commonality - but maybe that's the case. And if so, it's the case because -- and I think this is what Tom D may be getting at -- most of architects involved had as their primary concern not some theoretical ideas about what constitutes greatness but the practical demands of using their skill in concert with the land as it presented itself to create the best golf course possible (thought of as a whole, and based on tried and true principles) -- and then let greatness be thrust upon them (or not) later. I guess that no top-flight architect has ever wanted any rules or definitions -- even the suppossed definitions of greatness -- to constrain them in their attemtps to get the most out of the land (as they understand 'the most').
Peter
-
If we are defining "Greatness", or maybe limiting the definition of "Greatness" to those 15 or so courses on the first post, my initial thought is that eliminates the Mackenzie creed of "the greatest joy to the greatest number..." as a descriptor...unless it was describing something else...maybe it was describing the architects job.
"Getting the most out of the land" can't be the descriptor for greatness because you can build a good course on crap land without it being considered a great golf course, or really anything all that noteworthy...although I think I understand what Tom means by "adding to the greatness of golf"...what's his course in Colorado that's promoting a unique caddy program? That could fit, as could the Old Macdonald concept...along with dozens of other projects from many other designers I'm sure.
-
Jim,
I agree that "making the most of the land" isn't enough without some qualifiers. Some land is so bad that trying to "make the most of it" by putting a golf course there is very bad idea and therefor bad architecture.
Since we seem to be working off of Tom Doak's statements, I once heard him say during a presentation that one couldn't build a world class golf course without a world class site.
So perhaps a great golf course is created by making the most of a world class site. (If the site is good enough, then perhaps making the most of the site is actually making the least out of it.)
-
David / Jim / et al.
I have exited this thread because I don't want it to be about what I think, as JC was setting it up. Great golf is not just about what I think. It is beyond what any one person thinks. So, feel free to add to the discussion ...
David, I don't remember ever saying exactly that a world-class golf course was only possible on a world-class site, though it's certainly far more likely if other constraints [budget, environmental, and architectural talent] are assumed to be a constant. If I'm going to go out and build five new courses in the next five years, wouldn't you assume that the best site will produce the best of them? [Perhaps not, though ... if Old Macdonald is really as good as some people say, then the result must be more about the client than the property.]
Interestingly, though, one of the keys to a great course is how the pieces fit together, and I have seen in the past that on some sites it is possible to fit the pieces together easily, and on other, equally beautiful sites, it is just impossible to do because one stretch of land limits your options.
-
Interestingly, though, one of the keys to a great course is how the pieces fit together, and I have seen in the past that on some sites it is possible to fit the pieces together easily, and on other, equally beautiful sites, it is just impossible to do because one stretch of land limits your options.
How tough is it to see this in advance?
How common is it that you play a course and see something connecting over difficult land and you are impressed with how well it was done?
Perhaps naively, I would assume almost every site would have a couple stretches of real difficulty, even the ones everyone (foolishly) assumes are "so easy, of course anyone could build a great course there".
-
Tom Doak,
I'm sorry if you think this thread (or my other one for that matter) are about you or what you think. Questions were directed at you only after you chose to engage; I therefore assumed we were in a discussion and it was ok to ask you your thoughts, specifically, on what you thought was great, or fun, or any of the other questions posed.
I also asked other people who engaged what their thoughts were so I am not sure how you got the impression the threads were about you and your thoughts. In any event, I apologize for the miscommunication. I have ideas based upon the many courses I have seen as to what is great, but I like to hear other people's thoughts as we'll as I don't think I am smart enough to come up with alll the answers on my own. Thankfully, others recognized the sincerity in my questions and have chosen to participate in, what I have found to be, a very interesting discussion.
With regrets,
Jason C. Jones
-
Tom,
Maybe I have it wrong. But whether or not you said it, I am sticking with it. I don't think one can have a world class golf course without a world class site. Or at least it makes it very unlikely. And much of the bad design out there is a result of designers and developers trying to get more out of a site than is there in the first place.
-
Tom,
Maybe I have it wrong. But whether or not you said it, I am sticking with it. I don't think one can have a world class golf course without a world class site. Or at least it makes it very unlikely. And much of the bad design out there is a result of designers and developers trying to get more out of a site than is there in the first place.
This comment, particularly the last sentence, deserves its own thread. And I mean that in a good way.
As for the earlier point you made, do you think most would call Merion's site world class? Or Oakmont's? I haven't seen the former in person (and I'd understand if you don't want to address it), but I have seen the latter many times. On each occasion, I think, why is Oakmont one of the world's greatest, while so many sit on similar land to far lesser effect? Is it my evaluation of site that is way off, or is Oakmont really a special course when it comes to its architecture? No surprises for guessing my answer...
I almost - almost, but not quite - think that every site has the potential to be world class (throw out the mountain course/canyon course outliers). But I think it takes someone really special to see what each site offers. I'll call this my "Michelangelo Big Hunk O Marble" theory...
-
Don't know Oakmont's site. Merion's could make for an interesting discussion, but disaster would likely ensue so I'll leave it alone.
Of the courses listed, Merion is the only one without sandy soil. Or am I wrong about this?
-
Oakmont's sure isn't, unless by sand you mean clay. :)
-
I didn't think Oakmont was on the list, but I see now that it is on the second list.
Any more without sandy soil?
-
Cypress Point is not all on sand, nor is Pebble Beach (assuming it was on the second list).
-
JC:
Apology accepted. Perhaps I misinterpreted your posts, but starting with my list of 10's, and then asking me specifically about my own criteria, made it more about me than I was comfortable with. And I still won't talk about everything I know, though I will talk about some of the less obvious parts as they came up.
George:
"How the pieces fit together" is one of the less obvious parts. Most people would walk a property and never pick up on it. A practiced golf architect would probably recognize pretty quickly that it's going to be a problem, but you never know if it's solvable until you have a solution in hand ... and sometimes one architect solves what another could not! [As an example, one of my associates walked the site for the second course at We-Ko-Pa and reported that he thought it had an unsolvable part ... but Bill Coore seems to have figured it out okay.]
I do think Merion was a world-class site. The stream, the quarry, the elevation changes are all excellent stuff. It's amazing that the architect managed to put it together in such a tight plan, and in fact it took a major modification for it to all come together, but it was a great site. Oakmont, as I recently opined on another thread, is more of an exception to the rule, though not as bad of a site as some make it out to be.
I also agree completely with David M's thought that "much of the bad design out there is a result of designers and developers trying to get more out of a site than is there in the first place." It comes into play especially when you are trying to solve the problem of a difficult stretch on an otherwise good piece of property ... because it's far easier to ruin a good property than a bad one.
-
Perhaps someone already said this but I'll jump in anyway.
In my opinion, to be great, a course must be unique. If it is unique it may or may not share a "common thread" with other great golf courses.
I understand that uniqueness alone does not make a course great.
I have my doubts that you can identify a single common thread ...because without being unique, I don't think we would agree that a course is great. The actual thing(s) that make(s) a great course unique is (are) often what makes it great.
Bart
-
No it really doesn't make sense and either does the person who was penalizing PV for forced carries! ;)
Tom,
It makes sense to me in the way I judge courses. For a course to be absolutely one of the best of the best, a 10 ranking on my scale, it has to be one where I could take my mum out for a game (and I am not talking about club politics here). I am sure from what I have read that Pine Valley is an absolutely wonderful course and a true marvel of architecture. But if I were to categorise the best of the best, it fails a crucial test in my opinion.
Barnbougle Dunes is a '10' in my mind. I am not sure I know anyone who rates it less than a nine. The architecture is fantastic and it is a true test. I have played there with pro golfers and they loved it. And i have also played it with a guy who had never played golf n his life before. He loved it. I may have mis-read Pine valley, but I don't think that it would offer the same sort of accommodation to the novice player. Royal Melbourne and St Andrews are two other courses that I would rate a 10 that, IMO would accommodate novice players.
Like I said, we are talking about the best of the best here. And imo Pine Valley's forced carries and penal nature for the less experienced player stands out against the course that i rate the best of the best.
-
JC…to get the ball rolling regarding finding an answer to your question;
Please tell me how you or anyone knows whether a course a) got the most out of the land or b) added to the greatness of golf (whatever that may mean)?
Let’s start with Tom Doak’s statement,
"my fundamental belief is that the greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list, but more a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."
“greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list” Right away, we need to get away from the notion that this is definable in a way that is easily understandable like mathematics or science. It isn’t simply 2+2=4. It isn’t water freezes at 32 degrees farenheit. Frankly, I think it is more akin to what I do for a living…making investment decisions. Stock X and Stock Y might both trade for a P/E multiple of 5, but one is cheap and a value and the other is going out of business. The trick is sorting through the rubbish to find the answers regarding why.
“greatness of a golf course is NOT a matter of ticking boxes off someone's list” George Pazin responded with this in regards to Tom’s answer…
“I think JC just wants something a little more specific - indeed, it seems to be the point of the thread.
As I said on the other thread, I've never been a fan of "I know it when I see it" type of definitions - a bit too egocentric for me, and it implies a lack of fleshed out thinking, imho.
I can accept it when Tom says a course adds to the greatness of golf, but I'd rather hear how…”
George, I don’t think you are going to get it. That is, something more specific. St. Andrews is great and it is links golf with massive double greens. Harbour Town is great with tight tree lined corridors and teeny-tiny greens. It isn’t a matter of ticking off boxes on a list. If it was, everyone would be making great courses.
So, where do we go next? Well, Mr. Doak says it is “a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."
Let’s take a pause here. This definition is based on what Tom Doak says. Why do we value what Tom Doak has to say? I’d argue it is two things. The first is his resume regarding building great golf courses. On the list I keep of “Unanimous Gems” (courses ranked by each and every major golf course rating entity as one of the greatest in the world), he has 3 courses, Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, and Barnbougle Dunes, second most of any living architect, behind only Pete Dye with 6 and tied with Jack Nicklaus. And frankly, Sebonack, Ballyneal, and Rock Creek Cattle just might make that list very soon. Regardless, his work is very good. The second is his resume of courses visited. I’ve done reading and researching and a little traveling and playing in my 3 years being involved with golf and thus far I’ve played something like 70 courses. However, Mr. Doak has seen many, many more than that. Therefore, the context in which he can place things is at an elite level. Furthermore, he has written some books on golf, which adds to his credibility…but so have others, so I don’t place this at as high a level as the other two.
Given this resume he has developed serious credibility, so we value his opinion. So, when he says things we listen. And he says that the greatness of a golf course is “a matter of getting the most out of a piece of property, and adding to the collective greatness of golf."
Let’s start with the easier one first…”adding to the collective greatness of golf.”
To look at this let’s rewind to the beginning, St. Andrews Old Course; The home of golf. This is where it all started. A land so perfectly suited for the game of golf that very little had to be done to it for people to begin playing on it for centuries. Huge greens, wide open fairways, crazy undulations, links land, windy, and great soil for golf. So, obviously this course added to the greatness of golf as it started it all.
NGLA…CBM, schooled in the greatness of a golf course at St. Andrews, returns to America to find not a single golf course worthy of the name. And after a period of time, he builds the ideal golf course. Since this is a watershed moment in American golf history, it added to the collective greatness of golf.
Oakmont, Pine Valley…I think I’ve got these courses right and there may be more. But in response to Bob Crosby’s “Joshua Crane” article, Tom Macwood wrote a reply. In that reply he discussed the battle of British vs. American golfers. At that time, the British were dominating the golfing scene. American’s wanting to gain dominance over the sport built more demanding and difficult golf courses. After the completion of these courses and after ample “practice” time on them, Americans began to dominate golfing competitions. This competitive/training ground style of golf course added to the collective greatness of golf.
Harbour Town…in contrast to the “bigness” of many of the courses (including St. Andrews) this course was tight and narrow with very small greens.
Sunningdale Old…Heathland golf, rather than links, a massive breakthrough at the time.
Hirono…greatness in Japan.
Sand Hills…wide open prairie golf, natural, minimalistic.
I think I could drone on and on and go course by course, but perhaps you all get the point.
The next point, “getting the most out of a piece of property,” to me is the routing of a course. Plain and simple. In a well routed course, you make the best use of the land the course in on, you take great advantage of natural green site, you open up strategic options, and you use natural hazards and strategically place man-made hazards. To me it all comes down to routing.
In fact, I just reviewed a section in Brad Klein’s book “Rough Mediations” entitled “Routing Is Destiny”. It is a quick read and is quite enlightening, but a bit brief. But perhaps being brief is all that you can do with being overly verbose and without having a specific piece of property to route.
Another great read regarding routing is CBM’s “Scotland’s Gift”. The chapter entitled “Architecture” is amazing. Here are a few snippets…
“Wind, I consider is the finest asset in golf”
“In designing a course try to lay out your holes so that they vary in direction.”
“There should be every variety of hazard."
“Diversity in nature is universal. Let your golf course architecture mirror it.”
“Paths and roads…should never be part of the course”
Frankly, on this chapter I could go on and on and on…it is fabulous. But on the whole, I think it touches on routing directly and indirectly and is vital to understand and comprehend.
George Thomas’ “Golf Architecture in America” has chapter called “The General Plan for the Property”, which I think takes routing even a step further. Placement of club house, privacy of the holes, and the quote of the chapter to me, “Don’t strive for length when you sacrifice character.”
And the last example I will use is “The Spirit of St. Andrews.” Chapter 2 lists the 13 general principles for a golf course. Apply them all for a well-routed course.
But going back to Brad Klein’s book, I think he hits on two of the most important points regarding routing. #1…”The most important rule of all is to keep the land interesting.” And #2…”there is nothing worse than a formula or cookie cutter program.”
So, for all you who want a list; check out Mackenzie’s general principles. But I think this is more of an art thing than a scientific thing. So simply applying all of his 13 principles might not yield a great course if they don’t fit the land.
Here is a quick list of some of the best routed courses I’ve seen and, therefore, examples of some places where I think the architect got the most out of the land.
Seminole…really this land isn’t great. It is right by the beach, so you’ve got the wind. But it just has one big dune. And the way Ross took the course up and down that dune is quite something.
Canterbury…I think this course is severely under-rated. It only has 146 acres and it has a club house in the middle, but Strong did a masterful job in my opinion. Short holes, long holes, sunken greens, elevated greens. In the end, this is routing.
Grandfather…this may not be the best course in the world because this mountainous land isn’t ideal for golf. But Maples strung together 18 holes in a magnificent manner making it walk-able with extreme variety.
Holston Hills…Simply superb. Perhaps the land is boring. Kind of a wide open field. No ocean. Not much going on. But Ross takes you up some hills, round a few bends, and to some excellent green sites.
Harbour Town…I LOVE this routing. In fact, I think “pacing” might be a better fit here. It starts out tight and narrow and almost makes the golfer claustrophobic, but gradually gets wider and more open. 16 almost opens totally up, but one tree sits right in the middle of the fairway. The par 3 17th finally takes you to the waterway and the opening up of the land is amazing…almost a liberating feeling. And the 18th is the widest fairway on the PGA Tour. It is an amazing feeling to finally be free.
Poorly routed courses and/instances where the architect didn’t get the most out of the land are…
Classic Club…Palm Springs course former PGA Tour stop. It seemed like every darn hole was a dogleg hole with water on the dogleg side of the hole and many of them had the fairways sloping into that water. Boring, monotonous, frustrating.
Cougar Point…the routing takes you over roads, bike paths, and right next to homes. Tee boxes are right by busy streets, busy bike paths are right by greens and tee boxes…you get no sense of privacy or intimacy. Is it poor land for golf? Maybe. But the routing simply isn’t good either.
I also think “greatness” will yield timeless entertainment and I said this on another thread and I believe Ben Sims said the same thing on this thread. Take a well routed course that adds a little bit to the collective greatness of the game and you’ve got a timeless gem. And you know what; from time to time these great courses are overlooked for a period of time. Crystal Downs was overlooked for years. NGLA sort of hung around in mild obscurity for some time. And right now, I believe Canterbury is getting overlooked. Another course that I have great interest in checking out is Kingsley. Is it a great timeless gem? I don’t know, but time will tell. (and for the record I have yet to play Kingsley).
Also from time to time courses are the flavor of the month, or the decade. For example, when I went to Champions Retreat with Mark Pritchett the cabin we stayed in had the Top 100 courses from 1983 (or something like that). There were tons of RTJ and Dick Wilson courses. Some are still ranked and regarded highly, while others have faded away. Are they great? Maybe. Maybe they will resurface. Or maybe they we overrated back then. Again, time will tell.
Check out the courses on the list Tom Macwood posted from 1939. If the courses on that list are still regarded as Top 100, they are great for some reason. No doubt about it.
Oh my God this is long. My apologies! But with such a long and complex topic I did my best. There is a million more things to talk about, but I really do think Tom Doak pretty much nailed it. As did CBM in Scotland’s Gift.
-
Mac,
Thanks vwery much for this enlightening post. Yes it is long but well worth the read. Your avid interest is marvellous. This sort of post helps me very much to crystallise elements of golf course architecture as you tie it back to the professional and historical points of view.
Cheers Colin
-
Very nicely done, Mac!
This thread is fascinating; the tip of some iceberg. I know that a number of you, many of you, including Tom, could look at a golf course and see much more than I could. What would you be seeing (and in seeing, appreciating)? Makes me think of a line I've quoted before: "What a man sees and hears has a lot to do with where he's standing, but even more to do with the kind of man he is." Makes me think of that great speech: "Brutus and Caesar. What should be in that 'Caesar'? Why should that name be sounded more than yours? Write them together, yours is as fair a name. Sound them, it doth become the mouth as well. Weigh them, it is as heavy; conjure with them, Brutus will start a spirit as soon as Caesar. Now, in the names of all the gods at once -- Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed rhat he is grown so great?" Fantastic stuff. And yet, I like King Lear better, messy though it is. It has that world-class, other-worldly, scene with Lear holding the dead Cordelia in his arms, adjusting her clothes so that she can breath better and then, realiing the truth, saying: "Never, never, never, never, never".
Oh goodness, I've lost it.
Peter
-
"My question is, what does it mean that they made the most of the property? I assume that it is not akin to Merion making a great course out of a small parcel.
Can you help me with your understanding of this sentence?"
Keith:
That statement or idea of "making the most of the land (for golf)" is pretty simple and basic really and it pretty much forms the essential ideas of what some refer to as "minimalism."
I've told this personal story about ten times on here over the last decade but I’ll tell it to you because judging from the small amount of posts you have it looks like you haven’t been on here long. To me it is a perfect example of what it means to get the most out of the land or out of a particular property.
I had gotten in touch with Coore and Crenshaw to come and look at a particular property known as Ardrossan Farm in Villanova, PA. Ardrossan had been an app 800 acre estate that was a replication of one of those massive English country estates sometimes referred to as a "park" complete with massive manor house, stables, diary area and a number of historic buildings and such. We were looking at it because the Montgomery/Scott family who owned it had made a proposal to my club---GMGC---that they take our land and give us a commensurate amount on Ardrossan.
So finally Coore came up and spent about five days with me on that land the first and second times. I think we had a topo map but he wasn't using it and I didn't even know how to. So the first day we just walked and looked and looked and walked all day long all over that property. I had never been with a golf architect on land before so I had no idea what to expect. After about 5-6 hours walking around without him saying hardly a word I just couldn't take it any more and so I just asked him what in the world he was actually doing.
What he said to me in the next 20-30 minutes was without question the best architectural education I ever got.
He said: "See that little bump on the ground in front of us? I'm looking for things like that and how it twists and turns with that other bump or contour out there about 20-30 yards and how that twists and turns with those others farther off and how they twist and turn with the ones on that top-line of land over there and how they twist and turn with the tree line way over there that may even be off the property and how that twists and turns against the sea of sky that essentially frames it as far as the eye can see. I'm looking for things like that while all the time trying to determine how they can be used for golf." (by that he essentially meant how the golf ball will react on them).
He then asked me if I saw what he meant. Then he said: "If we do this I will look at this entire property from every angle and every vantage point in the same manner of the perspective I just pointed out to try to determine if we can use this property and all its natural grades and landforms as they are and if we get to points where it isn't working for golf then we will need to enhance them for golf somehow." He then explained that this was his exercise for using the land as it is and getting the most out of it as it is but obviously always having to consider the balance and variety of a golf course and the holes on it and where they would best need to come (par 3s, 4s and 5s) and in consideration with some of the other ramifications of the property such as which building would become the clubhouse and such.
He also said that land like Ardrossan's that was rolling and beautiful with some streams and historic buildings and such is actually a whole lot more complicated in this process than something more bland or uninteresting because it creates some obstacles to the exigencies of golf in some difficult places.
So THAT was the best 20-30 minute education on golf architecture I ever had, and certainly the best I ever heard on what it means to try to get the most one can out of what a property offers before you put golf on it.
But then I realized I couldn't exactly go back to my board and tell them what he'd just told me. So eventually I asked him what I could tell them about the place. Frankly, he didn't really want to say because as he explained at that point he did not really want to get locked into something specific and he said he did not want to create plans at that point either. But eventually he said that in his opinion---this site, this place, Ardrossan Farm, probably had more of what he called "Instant Maturity" for a golf course and golf club than perhaps any site he had ever seen and that for that reason as well as others he would prefer to use it as much as it was before golf as he possibly could. So that's what I told my board.
Did Bill Coore really love Ardrossan Farm for a golf course? You know, I think he did but I'm still not sure how much. I learned later from him while doing the same thing on some other sites around here that sometimes he tends to feel that a site that has the kinds of big and broad and huge scale topographical contours that Ardrossan has can create some problems in the over-all in that he thinks (as he once said) that golf and golf holes can get kind of lost in them. I think he prefers the smaller type contours that really are undeniably the best for golf (viz. all those little rolling smaller contours all over TOC). But then again they did Kapalua that seems to have some immense contours of various types.
So THAT, Keith, is what I think "getting the most out of land or a property" means; essentially trying to use a piece of property for golf as much as you can the way it is before golf was put on it. I don't think there can be a better example of that term than what I just told you above, and if there is I've never heard it.
-
Tom Paul...awesome!!! Thanks for sharing.
I have heard that story before, but like any great book re-reading (re-hearing it in some cases) it often very worthwhile. And was very worthwhile.
Thanks!
-
TE Paul,
My GCA member card say "member since "2010", so you are right I had never heard that story.
I do appreciate it, and I understand what you are saying. That being said, I wonder how to reconcile that point of with view with praise for a course like Shadow Creek that seems to be valued precisely because the course was built on property that was not suited for golf.
-
"That being said, I wonder how to reconcile that point of with view with praise for a course like Shadow Creek that seems to be valued precisely because the course was built on property that was not suited for golf."
Keith:
I don't call that getting the most out of the land. Shadow Creek was just a massive amount of earth moving and shaping to create an interesting landscape for golf out of a flat desert area.
-
I've actually thought a lot about Shadow Creek. I had to play it, just to see it. And it is quite something. Over the top opulance and luxuary in every sense of the word. Amazingly lush grass, first class service, beautiful scenery, ultra privacy and seclusion. But I got a feeling that is what it was all about. Rather than a Pinehurst #2 which is all about the golf. I made a statement awhile ago and called Pinehurst #2 "pure golf" and I kind of got killed for it. But that is what I am getting at...Shadow Creek isn't all about the golf, it is about the pomp and circumstance. It is essentially the golf architect and land owners ultimate in self-indulgence. Let's create something out of nothing. And quite frankly, the course is something to behold. I really enjoyed it. Probably my favorite Tom Fazio course.
As far as getting the most out of the land, hell yes it did. But it cost 50 million gazillion kabillion dollars. Therefore, I don't really think it is practical over very useful to study it to get a sense of what getting the most out of the land is all about because how many times in the history of the golfing world are people going to do this type of thing? A handful?
But I do think it brought something new to the collective greatness of golf, especially since The Lido is no longer with us.
-
Mac:
You're right that Lido could probably be considered a former day Shadow Creek type golf course in that they got something reputedly really good (world-class) out of basically mostly a coastal tidal marsh. And the cost of it relative to that time must have been somewhat shocking to some. Macdonald seemed to play that up too, almost seemed to brag about the cost of it, even though in those days a lot of projects mentioned the phrase, "No expense spared." But with the Lido (1914-15) we pretty much know what it costed to create.
-
George Pazin:
Regarding your Post #81, you should start a thread on the subject you mentioned in that post; it could be an excellent subject and discussion. Using both Oakmont and Merion East would be using two very interesting examples. Don't worry about what Moriarty said that another disaster would ensue. There've been numerous threads on Merion on this website going back over ten years and the only ones that turned into disasters were the ones those two guys participated in.
The sites and land of Oakmont and Merion East both before golf on either site and after golf was created on them just are what they are, and certainly don't provide much opportunity for a disasterous thread, although obviously some on here know them a lot better than others do.
-
"I believe the real reason St.Andrews is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all...".
Dr. Mackenzie - 1920
A pithy line. Is it true?
Say 'yes' and I wonder: then what are we talking about?
Say "no" and I wonder: then why not talk about it forever?
Pete
-
the common thing of all the great courses...
a perfect blend between the ourse and the surrounding landscape, so they are interconnected.
the specificities of the site is integrated in the golf strategy so the course is unique and is a ture test of man vs nature.
-
"I believe the real reason St.Andrews is infinitely superior to anything else is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all...".
Dr. Mackenzie - 1920
A pithy line. Is it true?
Peter:
I've always taken that to mean that the best thing about St. Andrews is that nobody predetermined the "right" way to play it. It is up to the golfer to figure it out for himself, without the help of an architect who was trying to make it fair.
To be able to come up with anything similar DELIBERATELY would be the greatest achievement in golf architecture, but it is seldom accomplished, even on a single hole.
-
Philippe Binette...
Man, I think you've got a great point there. Perhaps this really dove tails with what Tom Paul said about the way Bill Coore went about getting to know a piece of property.
This would also dove tail into the idea that this whole idea of creating a great course isn't to be obtained by using something like Mackenzie general principles. You can use them as a founation to build off of, but then maybe you've got to go with the Bill Coore approach and get to know the land and then pick and choose how to use those principles to make the specific course you are working on the greatest it can be. Then you will have something truly unique and unable to be copied effectively.
This unique idea has been said before on this thread and these last few posts really seem to highlight why and how this unique aspect can be a common thread among great courses.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-
If Dr. Mac was formulaic, wouldn't it stand to reason that CBM was even more so? How are you making the best of the land and taking what the land gives you if you approach the project with a plan to build certain template holes (as opposed to the holes that are on the ground)?
-
If Dr. Mac was formulaic, wouldn't it stand to reason that CBM was even more so? How are you making the best of the land and taking what the land gives you if you approach the project with a plan to build certain template holes (as opposed to the holes that are on the ground)?
I am not sure what you mean by formulaic in either instance. MacKenzie doesn't seem formulaic to me. As for CBM, I think he was a lot less formulaic than people think. Yes, he felt that there were a few core strategic principles that made for great golf holes and that those principles could be applied on just about any land. But this wasn't necessarily "as opposed to the holes that are on the ground." I think he thought he could find spots for these holes on just about any site. Look at NGLA, there are only about four or five supposed copies from templates of great holes and that is stretching the term "copy" pretty far. None of the supposed copies is anywhere near an attempt at an exact copy, and all of the copies fit the land.
-
JC:
In my opinion, Mackenzie may've been one of the least formulaic architects if by formulaic one means doing holes that were to some degree replications of others he did or others that existed before him. Obviously Macdonald would be on the other end of that spectrum, as part of his model for his architetural style was doing replications of existing holes that were famous and time-tested.
I also think there is little question that to the eye, or the studied eye, Mackenzie's style and his holes, particularly his greens, are more sympathetic to pre-existing on-site natural landforms or at least look like they are than many of Macdonald's greens are.
I would use as the best example of Mackenzie's style the 9th hole of Cypress. One can see from before and after photos he did virtually nothing to that particular landform except clear it of brush and plant grass for golf on it as it pre-existed as a landform. I would use as the best example of Macdonald's model, style and look, the redan at Piping Rock. Certainly to the studied eye it looks anything but sympathetic to the pre-existing landform it's on (the massive cut and fill of it is actually an architectural case study for that kind of thing).
However, even if it surely doesn't look much of anything like a naturally occuring landform, I would note that in my opinion it may be the best playing redan I'm aware of.
-
I agree that Dr. Mac was anything but formulaic, I was using the term Mac P. provided when discussing Dr. Mac's 12 listed items. And that was my point, if Dr. Mac is formulaic (which he wasn't at all), then what does that say about CBM?
-
Perhaps they both were formulaic in that they had a notion of the elements they thought made up a good golf course, but I think the use of that term makes the mind think of scientific formulas and that is most likely not the case. As I said previously, it appears designing a great golf course is more art than science.
But here is something I've always wondered about CBM and especially Raynor. CBM developed these template holes, I think 22 in total, (but maybe it is 20 or 21...I could open up George B's book to get the information, but I am too lazy right now) regardless he used these concepts in his golf courses and Raynor took that ball and ran with it. So that is pretty darn formulaic. Nevertheless, it appears that most of their golf courses are very good, if not great. I believe it is the artistic application of these holes (formulas) that makes them so great. But the concepts behind the holes themselves, are they the perfect blend of variety relative to the game of golf? And if applied with common sense and artistic intelligence will you virtually be guaranteed, at least, a good golf course?
I guess somewhere in the back of my mind I think CBM stumbled across the "secret sauce" for a golf course. I've only played his NGLA and Raynor/Bank's Lookout Mountain, but I think you can see the application of these concepts on vastly different properties and they both yield highly enjoyable golf.
Thoughts?
-
;D :D ;) 8)
As to Pine Valley , one of the great things about it , which T Doak alluded to , it that lots of players play a lot of the holes well. They just don't play all of the holes welll on the same day !!!!!
-
Mac,
I think you have hit upon something key to CBM's approach that is often overlooked. A course like NGLA possesses incredible variety within the course itself, and that was by design. No two holes are alike. All present unique challenges. Likewise for the greens; each has a character all its own. This can rarely be said of courses where the architect is supposedly just find holes that are there. How often do we find courses with two or three par 3s that feel about like the same hole? Complain about this and you will invariably hear, that is what the land gave us. Maybe, or maybe they just didn't look hard enough.
As for the idea that CBM was simply applying templates, I've not so sure that is entirely accurate. Definitely certain holes showed up again and again, but other holes showed up as well, depending on what the land had to offer, and these holes aren't necessarily on George's list of templates. Even among the supposed templates, the variety is so great that one would be pressed to identify them if CBM had not. For example, look at the examples he have of the Redan in his and Whigham's article on the same in 1914 (my emphasis:)
There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.
Hardly seems the case that he believed in copying templates despite the land.
No matter how many hole types CBM actually built, that George Bahto or anyone could come up with 20 or 22 supposed templates is pretty remarkable in itself. Are there many architects who worked with 20 or 22 distinguishable themes in their golf courses. Or are other architects more likely to build similar variations on much fewer themes, "as the land dictates."
As for Raynor, I don't lump him in with Macdonald, because it doesn't seem fair to either.
-
David...
I think we are on the same page regarding CBM and the template holes. On a rudimentary level, one can say they are simply standard, run of the mill copies. And he just cut and pasted here and there and, voila, here is your course.
But as I tried to touch on, and as you did clearly explain, that is not what he did. He took the idea of the Redan and its playing principles and concepts and added it into the round at the appropriate time, in the appropriate place, to test a certain aspect of a golfers game. I think he did that with all his "templates" to completely test a golfers game. That is what I mean by the "secret sauce". Combine these templates in the ideal way and you get a course that will test each and every aspect of a golfers game.
I am not saying CBM was non-artistic, formula-centric, scientific architect. I am saying that I think he was a true artist. He took tried and true golfing concepts (the template holes) and applied them in an ideal manner in different ways on different courses to arrive at a great course. I think he truly understood the part science, part art aspect of golf course architecture.
Like I said, I have only played one CBM and one Raynor/Banks so far. So this is more about what I think rather than what I know. But I truly believe I just might have this one right.
Heck, the fact that Old MacDonald came out close to 100 years after NGLA says CBM did something right.
-
I realize we are on the same page, I just wanted to emphasize that there is something really fantastic about the variety presented at NGLA, and it is not found on many courses, even very good ones. Maybe there is something to finding four par threes all of different lengths and requirements, and a variety of par fours, and finding or building a large variety of green sites. Maybe otherwise it is too easy for the architect to use the land as an excuse for building a course with less variety and more redundancy.
As for Old Mac, I think the best thing about it may be the variety of fun shots and challenges it presents. I think any designer (including perhaps Tom Doak) might have considered the land there the least interesting and possibly the most problematic (except perhaps Trails, which is interesting but had some difficulties to overcome.) Yet the OM stands up well against any of them in part because of the terrific variety. But this took a design team that understood Macdonald enough to know to look for the strategic principles in the land, as opposed to forcing them onto the land. If one played the course without knowing its history, one might love it without even realizing these were so-called template holes. Yet with few exceptions, the concepts are all there. This to me seems like what CBM was about, and if so then they captured the essence perfectly.
-
David:
As far as Macdonald's work is concerned, I would agree with most of what you wrote. I've never thought too much about the fact that his rote four par-3's always accomplished a variety of length and shots, but you are right. And certainly, he managed to fit those holes to the land on most of his courses, although apart from National and perhaps a couple of other courses, I would question whether Macdonald was really as involved and as finicky about the details as Mac Plumart hopes.
My only fear in building Old Macdonald is that it would encourage other architects to follow the same formula without agonizing over the details so much, and just build a dumbed-down version of the same thing. I suppose if they were going to be that lazy, better they do it to Macdonald's formula than their own ideas; the Redan does have more going for it than that 185-yard par-3 over water that one modern architect built in 20 different locales. But we'd never get anything NEW. The only reason Old Macdonald works is that it IS new to most people.
But I still believe that there are more than 18 (or even 22) worthy ideas for golf holes in the world, so I don't want to keep repeating myself.
-
One of the interesting things about these references to CBM is that there are in fact other ways to create great courses. What I mean is: you'd almost think there shouldn't be other ways, i.e. that the best way to build a great course is to take the fundamental and time-tested concepts and then find a way to fit them onto the land as it presents itself. Except, as the list of Top 10 courses suggests, there are in fact other ways to build great golf courses. Which doesn't deny the validity of CBM's approach -- after all, the proof is in the pudding -- nor does it deny that these fundemantal concepts (as manifested most notably in the great GB&I courses) are in fact useful and true. But which does suggest that "the common thread in greatness" is not found in those concepts in and of themselves.
Peter
-
Peter
I disagree. Other designers may have a different process but (as far as I have seen) the end result is that great courses generally incorporate the same basic fundamental strategic principles into an interesting natural landscape. Sort of like a geometry of great golf holes. For example, as far as I have seen, CBM-like strategic concepts are all over George Thomas's best work, and Max Behr's, and Perry Maxwell's, and Alistair Mackenzie's, and probably many more. They are (or were) all over Merion as well. Not that these guys were necessarily copying; it is more just that certain core strategic concepts really can be used in an infinite variety of ways, depending upon the site, and great designers are applying the same concepts in unique ways to create a variety of great golf holes.
If you don't believe me dig through the archives and find Gib's riff on the "template holes" at Cypress. It is uncanny.
So while I agree with Tom Doak that there are many more than 18 or 22 worthy ideas for a golf hole, I'll bet that whatever he comes up with will be highly original, yet still share a certain geometry with other great golf holes, whether it be a diagonal carry, a hog's back fairway or green, a natural bottleneck, or even some or all of these combined (in fact I am thinking of a particular Doak hole that is extremely original yet applies all of these concepts in one way or another.)
-
"I guess somewhere in the back of my mind I think CBM stumbled across the "secret sauce" for a golf course."
Mac:
I don't.
If someone made the case that C.B. Macdonald, because of what he said and wrote or even despite what he said and wrote, created the first good golf course or the first really good golf architecture in America, I think they would be wrong. Macdonald most certainly went about his concept for a really good course (and architecture) in a slightly different manner by actually publicly stating he intended to utilize various holes abroad as some of his models that had been voted (abroad) the most respected and copying them or their architectural principles and using their actual names. For the rest (at NGLA) he apparently claimed he utilized individual features from abroad or time-tested architectural principles from abroad.
But he was not the first to create a first class course and first class architecture in America. Myopia and GCGC came before his NGLA and so did Oakmont which at least in its routing is largely the same as it was 3-5 years before NGLA was created. The other two are slightly older.
The fact is the architects of those just mentioned that came before NGLA were simply nowhere near as vocal and public about what they were doing as Macdonald was.
This is certainly not to take anything away from Macdonald and what he accomplished essentially with his NGLA project, and certainly including the publicity he generated for the benefit of American architecture by it; this is only to say that he was not the first here to create a really good golf course and really good architecture in America. He wasn't even the first from America to dedicatedly study the courses and holes and architectural principles abroad either.
-
Tom P...
I fear where this thread is going, so I think I will bow out.
I think CBM's "secret sauce" allowed Raynor to make quite a good living off of building golf courses. And I am aware of what courses CBM was heavily involved in and ones he was not. So, Tom D's comment about my "hopes" for CBM "apart from National and perhaps a couple of other courses" doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
But I don't think his "secret sauce" is the end all be all regarding golf course architecture in the least. I think applying these principles will yield, at the least, a good course due to the variety inherent in it. But from what I have seen (mostly in pictures and on tv) this doesn't mean the golf course architecture will blend in seemlessly to the natural environment of the land.
So, I don't think the common thread of greatness in a course begins and end with CBM's template holes. It is part of the history of the "collective greatness of golf" and still entertains golfers to this day. That can not be denied. But there is much more than came before and after his breakthrough.
Great thread JC!!
-
"Tom P...
I fear where this thread is going, so I think I will bow out."
Mac:
I'm not sure I know what you're fearful of unless all you'd like to see discussed on this thread is C.B. Macdonald's particular contribution to the evolution of golf architecture in America.
"So, I don't think the common thread of greatness in a course begins and end with CBM's template holes. It is part of the history of the "collective greatness of golf" and still entertains golfers to this day. That can not be denied. But there is much more than came before and after his breakthrough."
I'm happy to hear you say what you did in that first sentence, and I am happier still to hear you say what you did in the last sentence because it certainly is factual and accurate regarding the history and evolution of American golf architecture.
-
About greatness and being formulaic...
1) To apply a predetermined concept on a piece of property is probably not easy as we might think... finding a site for a redan, an Alps hole etc.. is easy, finding room on a site for all those concepts holes is a lot tougher... and finding a way to ring all those concept holes for an 18 hole golf course that work is surely a lot of work.
2) I think most architects become formulaic after a while... some find the good aspects of design to be formulaic... other the wrong ones...
Let's say architects like Tom Doak and Coore and Crenshaw... they understand that green contours, wide fairways, good tie-ins, asymetric bunkering, use of the existing landscape will produce solid courses,
I'm pretty sure they're not going to built a narrow course with flat greens and bunkers at 275 yards on each side of the fairway tommorow morning
Some think it's shot definition, lakes, big bunkers and containtment mounding that creates good courses and stay formulaic with that...
Greatness for a architect might come from being formuliac on the ideas, not the content of a course..
-
Time for me to bow out, too, when everyone starts agreeing that there is a "formula" or "secret sauce" to building a great course.
To me, it may be possible to build a very good course that way, but not a great one. A great course has to have something of its own. And that's what we'll be trying to do again soon, in Florida. In fact, I think I will try extra hard now not to build even one hole that looks anything like a Macdonald template -- although I am sure that someone will find something they can compare, if they try hard enough. >:(
-
TomD:
Good post!
-
I don't think there is a secret sauce.. or a formula
there are ideas, concept, technics to built stuff that remains from project to project for a given architect...
after that, it's all creativity and work, alot of work, and also a touch of chaos along the way.
-
TomD:
Good post!
I wonder if we will get a second encore on this thread ;) ;D ;D
-
And I am aware of what courses CBM was heavily involved in and ones he was not. So, Tom D's comment about my "hopes" for CBM "apart from National and perhaps a couple of other courses" doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
Mac, If you know at which courses CBM was heavily involved, I wish you'd clue me in. Because after NGLA it all gets very fuzzy to me, at least as far as CBM's onsite, detail oriented involvement goes.
_______________________________________________________
While Macdonald's approach might give courses the variety that most courses lack, I wouldn't say that there was a "formula" or "secret sauce" to great architecture. Despite legend to the contrary, Macdonald himself did not stick to templates at his masterpiece, NGLA, and the four or five templates at NGLA all depart from the originals. The course doesn't even have all four of his "rote" par threes! Whatever his original intent, he ended up piecing together the best course he could combining and applying all sorts of concepts from all sorts of holes, and even added a few original ideas of his own. So at least NGLA is inconsistent with the "formulaic" label we so often place on CBM.
I think we need to look at the supposed templates in the context of the time, when great strategic architecture was still foreign to most in America. The templates were exemplars of great architecture, used to teach America by showcasing the underlying concepts. The holes or templates themselves aren't all that important, but the underlying concepts are some of the most basic building blocks of quality golf courses. Obviously, CBM didn't cover them all, but he did cover a heck of a lot of ground.
As for the post above about what CBM did or didn't do first in America, I've no interest. Obviously, CBM didn't have a patent on diagonal carries, multiple routes to the green, offset greens, the strategic use of slope in fairways, the placement of hazards to to catch the "almost good" shot, etc. But it is undeniable that he did a heck of a lot to popularize strategic golf course design, modeled (if only loosely) after the great links holes and courses.
__________________________________________________
Tom D.
Far be it from me to tell you how to do your job, but I hope that you don't worry about whatever comparisons idiots like me might draw and just go about your business of building great golf courses.
-
"As for the post above about what CBM did or didn't do first in America, I've no interest."
That's understandable.
However, I am very interested in identifying what was perceived to be the first good courses and architecture in America, not the least reason being I'm most interested to know how the first to do those courses and develop that architecture arrived at their ideas that they put into practice on those courses before NGLA. To some extent, either before, during or just afterwards, it appears they made journeys abroad to study the best over there as Macdonald would do himself in 1902, 1904 and 1906.
"Obviously, CBM didn't have a patent on diagonal carries, multiple routes to the green, offset greens, the strategic use of slope in fairways, the placement of hazards to to catch the "almost good" shot, etc. But it is undeniable that he did a heck of a lot to popularize strategic golf course design, modeled (if only loosely) after the great links holes and courses."
No, Macdonald certainly did not have a patent on any of those ideas for good architecture; and I think it's also historically interesting for those who carefully study architecture, particularly the history and evolution of American Architecture, to know that he was not the first to originate those ideas over here as is sometimes supposed and believed.
There is no question, at least in my mind, however, that Macdonald did do more than any other in that early era (particularly the first decade of the 20th century and the first few years of the teens) to popularize those ideas and concepts from the best courses and holes abroad, simply because he was far more public about that interest than the other few who came before him, particularly Herbert C. Leeds (apparently a particularly private person).
-
Time for me to bow out, too, when everyone starts agreeing that there is a "formula" or "secret sauce" to building a great course.
Hey, Tom, would you say the secret sauce might be okay, as long as special orders don't upset us?
-
TEPaul,
You obviously have strong feelings about what you think happened early in the history of golf course design in America, and it is certainly a topic worth pursuing. But instead of repeatedly intimating how you think it all went down, why don't you write a IMO on the issue, and back up your feelings with some actual facts and analysis? That way we could all figure out whether what you think happened actually did happen.
Either way, this is probably not the thread to have such a discussion for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is way off topic.
-
David,
So which are you asking for? Actual Facts or Analysis? Around here, those are rarely the same thing.......
-
David,
So which are you asking for? Actual Facts or Analysis? Around here, those are rarely the same thing.......
Facts and analysis are never the same thing, anywhere. The former exists independently, but the latter is totally dependent upon the former. In other words, analysis is worthless without facts to back it up. Yet around here people tend to err toward analysis without facts (or despite facts.) This is really no analysis at all. Just story telling.
-
David,
Bingo. I think its even worse here in the fact that both sides of many arguments find facts and don't analyze them - they twist them to fit into a predisposed theory they arleady have....it is just story telling on both sides.
If anyone on this site thinks they are a great researcher or historian because of what they post here, I am of the opinion that they are sadly mistaken. The standards that exist for "real world" publication just don't exist here.
-
Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
Nine months ago Mac Plumart started a thread entitled "Ground-breaking and revolutionary courses." In his initial post he said:
« on: November 20, 2009, 05:22:42 AM »
"I've been studying golf courses and I am trying to get my arms around which courses truly brought something new to the table and were groundbreaking in some manner. Please review what I've got so far and add in any comments you might have. If I am wrong on a point, please let me know. If I've missed something or overlooked a course, let me know.
St. Andrews Old Course---first great golf course
Sunningdale (old)---first great heathlands course and first great non-links course for that matter
Myopia Hunt, Garden City, NGLA---first great American courses.........”
In Post #19 of that thread David Moriarty responded with:
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2009, 03:39:13 AM »
"It is all pretty subjective . . .
1. I don't think Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA should be lumped together. Garden City and Myopia were built pre-1900, and while they both reportedly morphed into very good courses, I am not so sure they started out this way. Plus, they were both very different types of courses. Even the changes and improvements at Garden City and Myopia focused on difficulty, whereas NGLA was the wholesale application of the fundamental links golf principles in America, and its impact was truly revolutionary (arguably, even on the two other courses you group with it.)
I would say that the first three good 18 hole course in America were Chicago Golf Club, Myopia, and Garden City. I think Chicago, Myopia, and Garden City were considered the best in America but they were not considered great on an international scale. In contrast, NGLA was considered World Class, America's first truly great golf course, and one on equal footing with great courses abroad.
If you want to avoid the good/great discussion, then I think it would be reasonable to say that NGLA was the first course in America wholely based on the underlying strategic principles of the great holes abroad.”
-
In the post above which refers to ground breaking and revolutionary architecture one could and probably should consider that those courses listed contributed to a common thread of greatness in architecture somehow; in the example above to a common thread of greatness in golf architecture in America.
In considering this question and subject is one necessarily in the realm of analysis? Of course they are. Is one also in the realm of fact? Not unless one considers opinion to be synonymous with fact.
David Moriarty seems to want to limit analysis and discussion of subjects on here to those that are supported by fact, apparently as in something akin to a case in a court of law. This website's DG is not a court of law, it's a discussion group not constrained by the same process and procedures as a court of law.
Is an opinion considered to be a fact? Not in a court of law it isn't! Opinion is just opinion and even in a court of law it is admissable in certain circumstances, even if not rising to the level of fact. Should an opinion on here be considered a fact? Obviously not. If someone such as Macdonald or Hutchinson expressed their opinion that NGLA was the first great architecture in America or the best architecture in America when it was opened should that be considered more of a fact than the opinion of say a Willie Dunne who earlier expressed his opinion that Myopia might be the best golf course in the world?
We deal in opinion and the analysis of opinion on this website, the opinions of contemporaneous people to our subjects and in the opinions and analysis of those here and today on this website. We do not need to have our opinions and our discussions and anaylses quashed or even limited by someone who tries to use the prospect of fact to limit and quash them.
And we do not need a Moriarty on here to suggest to us that if we want to offer an opinion or analysis of some subject that we must be shunted off to the IMO section of this website to do it. It looks to me like he must think that is the place where "Facts" MUST be presented. If he actually thinks that I would seriously question his opinion and suggestion on that be citing his own IMO piece on here entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." He may think he presented what passes for fact in that essay but in reality he only offered his own opinions and analyses of certain people and events------which apparently he thinks rises to the level of fact.
That is just not the case and we should all realize it.
-
Merion again? Give it a rest Tom. Like I said, if you want to discuss any of this stuff with me, put it in an IMO. I'll be glad to respond. But until then please quit ruining threads with your petty and pointless efforts to get a fight going.
-
"Merion again? Give it a rest Tom. Like I said, if you want to discuss any of this stuff with me, put it in an IMO. I'll be glad to respond. But until then please quit ruining threads with your petty and pointless efforts to get a fight going."
And like I said perhaps a dozen times heretofore, I'm not going to put anything into an IMO piece just because you ask for it. This website and its DG is a forum for the dissemination of opinion and analysis and the discussion of it, whether you agree with that process or not.
I think whenever you mention or suggest IMO pieces on this DG, no matter which thread, it is more than appropriate to remind you and everyone else on here of the occasional inadequacy of IMO pieces, and particularly the only one you put on here ("The Missing Faces of Merion") which is almost universally considered to be a transparent agenda-driven disaster, including in the realm of facts and analysis.
If an IMO piece from me is the only way you want to discuss any subject with me, including this one, that's your problem and certainly not mine.
-
Yawn.
-
Typical.
-
Bump...
I had a thought on the way home from golfing today concerning this thread.
I believe a common thread of greatness in a golf course is leadership.
Whether it is leadership of the owner/developer, manager, membership, or the committees of the club doesn't matter. In fact, maybe all need to be of the highest quality on the same sheet of music and committed to the course and seeing it flourish.
I believe this leadership needs to have competence in golf course architecture principals, but also adequately funded and with the power to get done what needs to be done.
Take any course that is great and has been great for years and years and years. Does it have effective and committed leadership? Everyone I am familiar with does.
-
Mac
Put away your books, take away all the quotes and look at what is left. If you see commitment to the game, a desire to reproduce golf course and not real estate playgrounds then you are looking in the right direction. Then take into account the region, climate and what Nature has to offer, then you have a chance of producing a natural golf course.
Cleaver words have little meaning when you see so many template or signature holes are being incorporated into the modern designs. It’s not down to coping great holes but the total lack of clarity as to what the client let alone the designer is after or seeking to achieve. Because the hole works well at its original site does not say it will work at the new intended site.
Nature still is able to outperform Man on all things on this Earth, but we seek to change the very nature of what attracted us to the site in the first place. Terra Forming golf courses is not feasible, certainly not financially nor do we need to rape every section of the land for drainage or water, again we need to understand and monitor Nature, learning while we do. By working with the land we start to see opportunities that with little work will give us land fit for the purpose.
Over complicated, over engineering is not the definition of good let alone great courses, we need to let the land help in the process as it will sustain the course for years to come.
Use your books but do not sway to their apparent collective wisdom, but as the basics to your own approach to course design. The secret of golf is not making it easy for the golfer but to test his resolve, his skill and his/her determination to finish. Add aids and you water down that commitment – ask yourself why courses like Machrie and Askernish which are very basic in modern terms of course construction, yet offer the opportunity for great golf.
The answers Mac do not always rest within a book, because not all put pen to paper, so don’t get bogged down.
Melvyn
-
Out of those courses, only Pine Valley has a water hazard without flowing water.
Which is why Pine Valley doesn't belong on a list of great courses.
How about Shinnecock?
Maybe I just don't understand what "a water hazard without flowing water" is...
Where's the "flowing" water at NGLA ?
-
Mac,
I didn't think this topic had one right answer until today. I watched a few sporting events on TV this weekend and I came to a forgone conclusion and that is the Common greatness to all golf courses are the Team of people who created them.
If you look at the list provided I can say without hesitation that each had a core group of people creating these golf courses.
I agree it took some leadership, Dick Youngscap at Sand Hills, Mike Keiser at Bandon Dunes, Herb Kohler at Whistling Straits to name a few of the new modern creations, But I am sure you could say the same for Samuel Morse, Marion Hollins or George A Crump on each of the clubs they founded.
If you ever consider a golf course to be great it will usually have three things in Common.
Good owner, Good land, Good people.
-
JC - thanks for starting this thread. I can't think of many subjects more relevant than this on a site dedicated to discussing great architecture. I have only played one Top 100 course, and it was a top 10 course. I liked the Par 3s on that course a lot - where/when the came in the routing, what they looked like, what they asked of me. Later I learned fom a much more experienced player (who is very familiar with that course) that folks rarely mention the Par 3s there. My point being that it was the whole of the course that made those Par 3s and the rest of the holes enjoyable. I do really believe that trying to deny any potential 'flaws' when talking about greatness is a mistake - in that those 'flaws' are part and parcel of the whole. Someone once told me that the word "art" comes from the German word for "trick" -- and I think the flaws on any great courses are part of what makes the trick/art work. Ever play a modern course that moves indistinguishably from one non-flawed hole to the next? Not that I want to criticize that - it takes a look of skill to create a good course; but a focus on something higher than just avoiding flaw to make a great one.
Peter
Pietro
I have heard this argument before and can see how it can stand and also how it can't stand. Could you please explain/show/demonstrate how the flaws of a course are a reason why it is great? To me, the question is not one of flaws, but more if the supposed flaw adds anything to the design - and I mean anything of a great course. It could be a break among a few very testing holes. It could be for the framed view or to gain some sort of special spot on the property. It could be to add an element of controversy - anything.
Ciao
-
Thanks for the bump, Mac. I still am seeking answers to these questions.
I wonder, what are the similarities among NGLA, Shinnecock, Pine Valley, Crystal Downs, Merion, Cypress Point, St. Andrews and Sand Hills?
(Note, this list is NOT exhaustive of the great courses, only illustrative.)
-
JC,
Why would there need to be similarities?
-
JC,
Why would there need to be similarities?
I didn't say there would need to be. It seems, however, that if they are all considered great (by the collective), that there would be.
-
JC: If you had read the foreword to The Confidential Guide more carefully, you would know the answer to your question.
I actually haven't read it at all. The blasted thing is too expensive for a teacher's salary ;)
Shame on you Jason. Haven't you heard of inter-library loan?
Now get serious and do some reading.
;)
Garland,
You'll be pleased to know my inter-library loan of the Confidential Guide showed up today. I am reading now.
-
From the words of Dr. Mackenzie circa 1930...
"It is impossible to lay too much stress on the importance of finality.
Every golfer knows examples of courses which have been constructed and re-arranged over and over again, and the fact that all over the country thousands of pounds are frittered away in doing bad work which will ultimately have to be scrapped...
In discussing the question of finality, it is well to inquire if there really are any really first-class courses in existence which have been unaltered for a considerable number of years, and still remain, not only a good test of golf, but a source of pleasure to all classes of players. Is there any existing course which not even the rubber cored ball has spoilt?"
This seems to add to the classic definition of a challenge for the scratch golfer and fun for the high handicapper with the concept of finality in the short and long term.
-
If I am repeating a prior post, please forgive me but this thread, while rewarding, is so very long.
I have played a limited number of courses that show up on "great course" lists. In thinking about the great courses that I have played, the one common thread that links them is quite simple, really. I felt that I was a better, more complete golfer for having played them.
-
George...
I read this post of yours awhile back and have been thinking about it ever since.
Can you think of a few aspects of the courses you are refering to that made you feel like a better more complete golfer after playing them?
-
Sorry that I have been "offline" for a week or more. Life gets in the way of golf from time to time.
Give me a day or so and I will do my best to come up with a good answer to a thoughtful question.
-
For me this means that the great courses provide more frequent opportunities to succeed...even if we fail in most of those opportunities we all typically remember our successes best.
It could be hitting a drive that provides a real advantage on the next shot.
It could be properly positioning a lay up on a par 4 out of the rough and then getting it up and down.
For me it's usually making the difficult, breaking 6 or 8 foot putt when I've missed several already.
Failure at any of these are not catastrophic, but succeeding sure makes you feel better about your game and the game.
-
For me it's usually making the difficult, breaking 6 or 8 foot putt when I've missed several already.
Yeah, after that third putt slides by the hole the 6-footer for double bogey is a killer!
-
I guess my point was that those are the shots that (when they happen...) make me feel better about the game and one characteristic of a great course to me is one that results in several difficult, yet makeable, putts...the more chances I have, the more likely one will bounce in...
-
I was just funnin' with you...your point is totally one I agree with. Any round of golf is likely to offer a couple of more interesting than usual shots. The very best courses can offer that many times per round.
For me it translates to interesting contoured green complexes because given my ballstriking non-ability the difference in "interesting" and "no chance to pull it off" is a very fine line from 150+ yards. But even the trickiest little double or triple breaking putt or shot around the green offers a 18-handicapper something to really engage with because there's no reason he can't (once in a great while) put it in the hole.
My second choice is an interesting Cape hole or a bonus if I can just skirt a fairway bunker or some other enticement on a tee shot. Same reasoning, for a player of my level at least with the ball teed up and a big old 450cc driver in my hands I can launch the ball out there and hope for the best. Approach shots from the fairway or rough, even if interesting, are too likely to be something I skip in favor of just making contact and trying to keep the ball between me and the hole.
So by my theory everyone ought to appreciate interesting greens, most people ought to appreciate interesting driving holes (at least if they're playing from tees that make the interesting part in play) and better players can best appreciate interesting "second shot" courses.
-
For me, the great courses ask questions beyond "What's my yardage?" and "Where do I drop?"...
They encourage thoughtful play by having favored avenues of approach, and they accommodate misses by offering challenging recovery shots.
And they tend to be pretty as well, even if it is ways not commonly accepted.
-
George
Is that not a game called Golf ;)
Melvyn
PS I agree with you 100%
-
George
Is that not a game called Golf ;)
Melvyn
PS I agree with you 100%
Indeed it is, and it is played too infrequently...
-
The only thing I'd add to this is something Brad klein said at the Mountain ridge outing, and Peter has touched on it a couple of times early in this thread.
"A sense of place"
-
George...
I read this post of yours awhile back and have been thinking about it ever since.
Can you think of a few aspects of the courses you are refering to that made you feel like a better more complete golfer after playing them?
I have poked around trying to give voice to the pictures I have in my brain of the great courses I have seen and played. I haven't found the words easy to come by. Like Potter Stewart, I could cop out by saying I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it but that is much too trite. The best my poor powers can conjure is to compare a great course with a great poem. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson's description of a poem, a great course unites pleasure with the truth. Seeing the truth about the dirt and learning the truth about oneself through the medium of 18 flags stuck in the ground must be the ultimate compliment that could be paid an architect.
Tha's the best I can do.
-
George...no worries. Perhaps Jeremy did it for you on another thread as he described Seminole...
To me, Seminole is an absolutely brilliant golf course. Seminole truly requires you to maintain razor sharp focus for every shot. I think this really is Donal Ross' masterpiece. The use of the dune that runs through the property is amazing in that it is was the primary feature with which Ross had to design around, and he did so brilliantly. With its location right on the ocean, the wind is as critical to the design as the layout itself. I love that they forgo lush conditioning in favor of firm and fast play. It is a little brown and that's exactly how they want it. The green complexes are genius in that they don't necessarily look at first to be very difficult, but require absolute precision. The routing is virtually perfect and it is a wonderfully natural walk. It is an understated golf course and it is easy to understand how it may not blow people away that are looking for more "wow" factor. To me, it has as much "wow" as anywhere i have ever played, but you need to allow yourself to see it. The subtleties make the golf experience at Seminole somewhat of a chess match. Add on the history and tradition of the club, and it ranks very high in my opinion.
Also, Mike Nuzzo's wonderful article fully supports your belief with his "Challenge-centric" golfer category.
http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf (http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/GAV5.pdf)
Clearly, your thoughts were spot on for at least a portion of the golfing world.
-
I've got another common thread that I'm pretty darn sure is a necessity for greatness.
DRAINAGE!!!
-
A quote from Ben Crenshaw regarding Bill Coore from Tony Dear's article on Cyber Golf.
"Bill is extremely well-versed in all aspects of golf course architecture," says Crenshaw, "but I would say his greatest asset is his ability to assess the raw land and find the best routing for the course. He studies the land from every possible angle and takes so many things into consideration, like drainage, wind, topography, land forms and foliage. It's a difficult task no matter how good the land. But Bill is one of the best, if not the best, at it."
I think this might related directly to what Tom Doak said about getting all you can from a piece of land.
-
Mac,
I think that certainly adds some clarity although I'm not any more satisfied with the phrase "getting all you can from a piece of land" now than I was back when I started this thread.
I'm still searching for the common thread but perhaps it is an endeavor without end. Sometimes they are great just because they are. As a professor of mine used to say, "it is like a fish in the milk."
-
I hear you JC, but I, respectfully, disagree. I think there are common threads.
I don't think a course can be great unless the land is great. And I don't mean ocean views. Rather I mean the opposite, in that you can't have a "great" course where the course isn't the primary focus. Think neighborhood golf courses where the housing and roads get all the good land and the golf course is left with garbage. I think a great architect can make something good out of this, but not great.
Also, I think you need a great team. From the owner, to the architect and his team, the club members, the greens committee, the super...all of them have to be focused with the same vision.
From there, I think you need to get the routing right. I think that is akin to getting the most out of the land. This is where every course will be different due to the obvious difference inherent in the land. But you need that thing to drain, you need to be aware of wind patterns, percipitation levels, soil types, etc.
I think there are more...but on those items I am certain they are key ingredients.
EDIT...I think these items can take years to get right. Think of CBM looking for the land to put the National on. Think C&C routing Sand Hills. Shoot, think how long it took for someone to pull the trigger on building a course in the Sand Hills. Mr. Dear's article said that he was aware of that area in the 70's, but it took to the late 90's to build Sand Hills.
-
JC
Tom Doak mentioned 50 or 60, and I'd guess that if you polled Ron Whitten or Brad Klein or any other critic of note you'd uncover a complex batch of criteria, some similar - some not, that they use to identify greatness. That gets me to thinking that a great course must be multi-faceted, and that complexity (not of "parts", but the whole) could be seen as the common thread that they possess. Without it a course would not be able to meet, or ideally, transcend, the various constructs of greatness by which it is identified, either in past, present, or future cultural climates.
-
Taking non-specific client briefs and no restrictions on the land parcel, I'll give a simplistic overarching view that 50% of greatness is down to the nature of the topography and the soil (i.e. the site - probably 25% each) and that 50% is down to the architect, the construction, the agronomy and the team.... Of that, maybe half is down to routing and half is down to detail, strategy and finishing of which half of the latter (i.e. 12.5%) is down to green design...
-
Perhaps another nuance imbedded in this common thread of greatness is a total commitment by owners and members to creating and maintaining greatness.
Previously, I mentioned, "Also, I think you need a great team. From the owner, to the architect and his team, the club members, the greens committee, the super...all of them have to be focused with the same vision."
But, I would add another nuance to that...total commitment of all those players to the course. Perhaps, especially the owner(s).
-
Perhaps another nuance imbedded in this common thread of greatness is a total commitment by owners and members to creating and maintaining greatness.
Previously, I mentioned, "Also, I think you need a great team. From the owner, to the architect and his team, the club members, the greens committee, the super...all of them have to be focused with the same vision."
But, I would add another nuance to that...total commitment of all those players to the course. Perhaps, especially the owner(s).
Scratch "Perhaps" in my first sentence. It should read like this...
Another nuance imbedded in this common thread of greatness is a total commitment by owners and members to creating and maintaining greatness.
-
I have been through the thread and can't find any mention of originality. Do folks think this is important that part of greatness is to see a course as distinctly apart from other courses? For instance, I think North Berwick gets called great because of its iconic holes. These holes are enough for most people to give a pass on the less than impressive aspects of the design.
Ciao
-
Diversity , flow and playing options. Add that to a membership that CARES and you get a 10. A little history and deserved aura doesn't hurt , either.
-
I remember when Mike Sweeney made this post…
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50207.msg1177366.html#msg1177366 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50207.msg1177366.html#msg1177366)
And it stuck with me.
I think that studying the great clubs and their history can give clues as to what it takes to become truly great. Sure, on this site we focus on golf course architecture…but I truly believe that is only a piece of the puzzle. And, perhaps, THE key component is a dedicated leadership (as I’ve previously mentioned).
I took Mike’s advice and got my hands on the Pine Valley history book. Of course, I studied their beginning BUT I really studied hard on how they handled The Great Depression. Interestingly enough, they discounted initiation fees (waived them in some instances), made deals on dues, offered lower dues for younger members, allowed guest play, and they fought as hard as they could (and looked into each members situation on a case by case basis) to keep as many members as they could. They basically did whatever it took to ensure the club survived.
The absolute kicker for me, which shows the pure dedication to the club was the fact that William deKrafft (the club’s Treasurer) PERSONALLY GUARANTEED a floating rate loan in 1930 to ensure the club’s viability!!!! In the words expressed in the book about Mr. deKrafft from the club’s members, “He saved us.”