Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ira Fishman on July 15, 2018, 04:40:51 PM
-
Chicago Golf is not built on sand. It is not within three hours of an Ocean nor one hour of a major body of water. It is flat, good old Midwestern farm land. It was not even convenient to Chicago. So why in the past 100+ years has no one built a course that approaches it in quality on similar land?
Ira
-
So why in the past 100+ years has no one built a course that approaches it in quality?
Bold statement within that question. You might get some argument. Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Shinnecock, Augusta National and Pebble all built in the last 100 years. Oh, and let’s not forget Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.
-
Lake Michigan isn’t a major body of water?
-
Lawsonia Links
-
So why in the past 100+ years has no one built a course that approaches it in quality?
Bold statement within that question. You might get some argument. Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Shinnecock, Augusta National and Pebble all built in the last 100 years. Oh, and let’s not forget Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.
Every one of those built on sand and/or the ocean except for Augusta which is hardly flat farm land.
Ira
-
Ira - like the wise old rabbi answered when a student asked why so few found God in modern times: "Because today no one is willing to stoop so low".
Peter
-
Ira - like the wise old rabbi answered when a student asked why so few found God in modern times: "Because today no one is willing to stoop so low".
Peter
Wonderful.
-
Hmm,
I will nominate Wine Valley.
- Mostly flat/gentle sloping
- Not built on sand.
- Not convenient to anywhere really
- No major body of water anywhere near it, unless you're counting the Columbia river at 20+ miles away
- Is typically farm land for either wheat or alcohol related plants.
-
Ira,
I had similar thoughts walking around at the tournament trying to figure out what made it so special. I came to the conclusion that its a large, almost perfectly square property that gave Raynor total flexibility to lay out whatever hole configuration he wanted and execute the templates perfectly. That piece of land could never be available in a major metropolitan area within the last 70 years. I would argue it is convenient to Chicago.
Another thought was - if you take away the allure of its history and exclusivity and someone built that exact same course on the same land, would we even give it a mention? Non golf course nerds have to see that course and think "whats the big deal?
-
Another thought was - if you take away the allure of its history and exclusivity and someone built that exact same course on the same land, would we even give it a mention? None golf course nerds have to see that course and think "whats the big deal?
Don't know what the last sentence means, but IMO, age, pedigree, the exclusivity of around 100 or so members with no unaccompanied play, just barely enough exposure to whet the appetite of the aficionados and opinion-makers, the highly uncommon, provocative shaping and presentation, and its location in one of the wealthiest areas for the better part of two centuries probably account for much of its standing.
Why has CGC not been duplicated? Maybe because gca has trended toward less contrived, more natural/"minimalist" construction and design? Fazio gets criticized here regularly because, allegedly, his courses all tend to look and play similarly. Yet Raynor lays out the templates repeatedly and he is a genius. Sure, there are many Fazio-like courses and comparatively few in the Raynor style, so though the latter's courses are very old, they are novel.
And perhaps the developer today has to be more concerned with filling the membership or customer base to support his financial structure. I see no reason why a CGC-like course could not be developed in any number of places, including Dallas. Perhaps a well-heeled enthusiast will come forward and make it happen. I wouldn't bet the farm that such a course would approach CGC's acclaim in his or hers lifetime.
-
Another thought was - if you take away the allure of its history and exclusivity and someone built that exact same course on the same land, would we even give it a mention? None golf course nerds have to see that course and think "whats the big deal?
Ah...yes... ;D
https://arcadiabluffs.com/the-south-course
and, uh, yes.... ::)
https://www.bandondunesgolf.com/golf/golf-courses/old-macdonald
-
Another thought was - if you take away the allure of its history and exclusivity and someone built that exact same course on the same land, would we even give it a mention? None golf course nerds have to see that course and think "whats the big deal?
Don't know what the last sentence means, but IMO, age, pedigree, the exclusivity of around 100 or so members with no unaccompanied play, just barely enough exposure to whet the appetite of the aficionados and opinion-makers, the highly uncommon, provocative shaping and presentation, and its location in one of the wealthiest areas for the better part of two centuries probably account for much of its standing.
Why has CGC not been duplicated? Maybe because gca has trended toward less contrived, more natural/"minimalist" construction and design? Fazio gets criticized here regularly because, allegedly, his courses all tend to look and play similarly. Yet Raynor lays out the templates repeatedly and he is a genius. Sure, there are many Fazio-like courses and comparatively few in the Raynor style, so though the latter's courses are very old, they are novel.
And perhaps the developer today has to be more concerned with filling the membership or customer base to support his financial structure. I see no reason why a CGC-like course could not be developed in any number of places, including Dallas. Perhaps a well-heeled enthusiast will come forward and make it happen. I wouldn't bet the farm that such a course would approach CGC's acclaim in his or hers lifetime.
Lou - meant to write "non" golf course nerds. And I think we are in agreement? The intangibles of Chicago Golf add to its lofty rankings.
Ian - both of those courses are aided by their location near Lake Michigan and the Pacific, to Ira's point. And I'd be shocked if the 2nd Arcadia Bluffs cracks a top 100 list. If Mike Keiser did it as a 100 member private club, maybe.
-
similar place is Mountain Lake, love that
-
if only Raynor was still alive ??? ???
-
Wow- those ground level pics from Arcadia South are looking really good.
It does seem to be the first course in a very long while (as far as I know) to copy that Raynor/ CBM style.
-
I am not sure that the reluctance among post-Golden Age architects to use templates fully answers the question. Oakmont seems (I am limited by seeing only on TV) to have more movement than Chicago Golf, but it essentially is farmland too and does not use templates. Perhaps the answer is a matter of available land, economics of course development, and taste, but I would have thought that someone in the last 100 years could have taken ordinary, non-dramatic, non-sand based land to create something truly special. Trinity Forest appears to be one attempt. Perhaps The Golf Club but it is difficult tell from photos what kind of land Mr. Dye had available.
Ira
-
Wow- those ground level pics from Arcadia South are looking really good.
It does seem to be the first course in a very long while (as far as I know) to copy that Raynor/ CBM style.
love it, will have to travel a bit for that, LOL
-
Wow- those ground level pics from Arcadia South are looking really good.
It does seem to be the first course in a very long while (as far as I know) to copy that Raynor/ CBM style.
love it, will have to travel a bit for that, LOL
These pix confirm my need to visit the Western Michigan neighborhood. Was at Dunes Club a couple weeks ago but didn’t have time to proceed North.
-
An I wrong, or was the first question mostly about building good courses on flat, non descript land, more than using templates, or whatever?
There have sure been many (too many, at least in my portfolio) built on flat land. My theory on why no more great ones?
This was the first 18 hole course in America. Maybe they didn't know better than to pick a property with some roll? Since then, I think most clubs aspiring to greatness have at least tried to find better property, since most of the GA guys wrote that it took good property to make a great course, albeit, not hard to build a good one on average property. The trend to great property may have abated for a while, but has been back in force for the last 20 years, no?
Not to mention, there aren't too many places quite as flat as Chicago! Florida, but all those courses were built to support residential first. Some are ranked quite high, like Indian Creek, no?
-
The Golf Club, New Albany, OH
-
The Golf Club, New Albany, OH
+1, great place
-
While I don't agree with all of Ira's requirements for this exercise, I do agree that it is a good question and it's worth pondering...
Food for thought:
Post 1960 courses in Golf Magazine's US Top 100 list below (listed in ranked order). I crossed out the ones that in my opinion don't fit Ira's requirements (including "farmland-ish" properties), based on playing experience and/or from pictures. I haven't played many of these, so feel free to correct or challenge this list. -
Sand Hills / Pacific Dunes / Friar's Head / Kiawah - Ocean / Whistling Straights / Muirfield Village / TPC Sawgrass / Bandon Dunes / The Golf Club / Ballyneal / Harbour Town / Streamsong Red / Old Macdonald / Old Sandwich / Bandon Trails / Wade Hampton / The Honors / Streamsong Blue / Spyglass / Sebonac / Rock Creek / Shadow Creek / Nanea / Chambers Bay / MPCC - Shore / Gozzer Ranch / Trump National Bedminster / Hazeltine / Boston GC / Calusa Pines / Trump Doral / Blackwolf Run / Crooked Stick
Based on my limited knowledge, there aren't many courses on that list situated on "good old Midwestern farmland."
-
My apologies for the silly formatting. For some reason it won't let me put those in list form...
-
[font=]Kiawah, Whistling Straits, TPC, Harbor Town, Streamsong and Shadow Creek were all definitely very flat sights and are arguably great courses, maybe even greater than CGC. They (mostly Pete Dye) just didn't leave them flat.[/font]
[font=]So, maybe one answer is "earthmoving". CGC was early in CBM's career. Later, he moved a lot of earth on certain projects, too.[/font]
-
Wolf Point 8)
-
Jeff - there was an interesting (if brief) thread recently discussing how bunkers were designed/play on Tom D's Common Ground - a flat site; and there have been many threads over the years on the bunkers and greens and strategies at the highly regarded Garden City - another flat site; and as you note, you've had your share of such flat sites to work with, so you will know/understand this topic better than most. From where I sit I think this:
if it was all about playing the game, if the quality of a golf course was measured solely in terms of how effectively it functioned as a field of play, if architects focused on (and were judged by their ability to make manifest) interesting and challenging and thought-provoking angles, over & around smartly-placed and genuine hazards, and to fun and nuanced green surfaces that were tied to the hole as a whole and gave meaning to those hazards and angles, then a flat site would not be any kind of negative at all, nor in any way a handicap to building an excellent golf course.
But the problem is that courses like Chicago and Garden City -- where it actually and truly *was* all about the playing of the game and creating a field of play, with the 3-4 areas of focus that goal entailed (as per above) and with no other 'factors' considered all that important -- have long been the exception and not the rule, then and now.
That's fine, I suppose, at least for most folks: almost everyone likes their golf served with big dollops of stunning scenery and seaside cliffs and vast vistas of undulating turf and majestic dunes; and those factors sure do seem to help ensure 'award winning courses'; but they sure aren't, it seems to me, essential to 'top flight golf course architecture', nor to providing an 'exemplary game of golf'.
That's what I meant by saying, in answer to Ira's original question, that nowadays (ie the last 80 or so years in America, and for varying reasons) few are willing to stoop so low, ie to humbly aim to serve -- and to gratefully accept -- 'merely' a top flight game of golf.
And that, kind sir, is the sum total of all that I think I know/have come to believe about gca after all these years -- my complaint and closing argument both.
I think it a shame, this love/demand for 'non essentials', and I think it both wasteful and at significant odds with the essence & purpose & ethos & spirit of the game as established/evidenced by its birthplace.
Others, of course, will have very differing views -- indeed, I've been told many times by the professionals here that you simply *can't* separate the 'golf architecture' from the 'golf course'. But I suppose I can *wish for* whatever I want, regardless of what they say! :)
Peter
-
Nice post Peter. I had some comments to add but after I read them I realized all they did was detract from your post.
-
Chicago Golf is not all that flat ... i am traveling so I don't have the topo handy, but I'd guess there is ~30 feet from high point to low, and more than ten feet of elevation on all but a couple of holes. Florida it ain't.
I can't think of anywhere in the USA I have seen someone develop a new course on 180 acres of farmland, with zero houses, anytime recently. Mike Clayton's course at Ranfurlie is the closest in terms of a starting point - and it's quite good. But it lacks the history of CGC, and CGC benefits from the old trees on property, too.
-
Chicago Golf is not all that flat ... i am traveling so I don't have the topo handy, but I'd guess there is ~30 feet from high point to low, and more than ten feet of elevation on all but a couple of holes. Florida it ain't.
I can't think of anywhere in the USA I have seen someone develop a new course on 180 acres of farmland, with zero houses, anytime recently. Mike Clayton's course at Ranfurlie is the closest in terms of a starting point - and it's quite good. But it lacks the history of CGC, and CGC benefits from the old trees on property, too.
Tom,
I don't we are looking for such a narrow definition, and thank you, but I could be wrong.
Cheers
-
Jeff - there was an interesting (if brief) thread recently discussing how bunkers were designed/play on Tom D's Common Ground - a flat site; and there have been many threads over the years on the bunkers and greens and strategies at the highly regarded Garden City - another flat site; and as you note, you've had your share of such flat sites to work with, so you will know/understand this topic better than most. From where I sit I think this:
if it was all about playing the game, if the quality of a golf course was measured solely in terms of how effectively it functioned as a field of play, if architects focused on (and were judged by their ability to make manifest) interesting and challenging and thought-provoking angles, over & around smartly-placed and genuine hazards, and to fun and nuanced green surfaces that were tied to the hole as a whole and gave meaning to those hazards and angles, then a flat site would not be any kind of negative at all, nor in any way a handicap to building an excellent golf course.
But the problem is that courses like Chicago and Garden City -- where it actually and truly *was* all about the playing of the game and creating a field of play, with the 3-4 areas of focus that goal entailed (as per above) and with no other 'factors' considered all that important -- have long been the exception and not the rule, then and now.
That's fine, I suppose, at least for most folks: almost everyone likes their golf served with big dollops of stunning scenery and seaside cliffs and vast vistas of undulating turf and majestic dunes; and those factors sure do seem to help ensure 'award winning courses'; but they sure aren't, it seems to me, essential to 'top flight golf course architecture', nor to providing an 'exemplary game of golf'.
That's what I meant by saying, in answer to Ira's original question, that nowadays (ie the last 80 or so years in America, and for varying reasons) few are willing to stoop so low, ie to humbly aim to serve -- and to gratefully accept -- 'merely' a top flight game of golf.
And that, kind sir, is the sum total of all that I think I know/have come to believe about gca after all these years -- my complaint and closing argument both.
I think it a shame, this love/demand for 'non essentials', and I think it both wasteful and at significant odds with the essence & purpose & ethos & spirit of the game as established/evidenced by its birthplace.
Others, of course, will have very differing views -- indeed, I've been told many times by the professionals here that you simply *can't* separate the 'golf architecture' from the 'golf course'. But I suppose I can *wish for* whatever I want, regardless of what they say! :)
Peter
Peter,
Your post captures much of what animated my OP. I had the same feeling/question when I played Woking on our recent trip. It is on sand and has trees, but it is relatively flat and the setting undramatic. I almost did not want to fall into the Woking fan club because it is so trendy to do so. But it embodies everything in your post—just pure stripped to the bones terrific golf. I do wish that modern economics and taste did not keep more Chicago Golf and Woking like courses from being built.
Ira