Mr. Sturges, The Emperor:
Many times, in fact too much time is spent on GCA discussing the classic courses but so little is really explored or known about the many first rate modern courses that have come forward. I'm not talking about Pacific Dunes or the other most favored new courses you see here on GCA.
People rarely talk about new courses such as Black Mesa, Paa-Ko Ridge, Olde Kinderhook, Arcadia Bluffs, Ocean Hammock, The Kingsley Club to name just these six that are first rate designs in my book. A number of the unheralded designers (Mike DeVries, Baxter Spann, Warren Henderson, Tim Liddy, etc, etc) are out there and if people took the time to trek across the United States you'd see what I am talking about. Many of the people who post are simply reginal in nature and when they do visit areas they only cherry pick the classic courses because of a limited schedule to see others.
I have huge respect for Maidstone -- but I have a much deeper appreciation on what it means to be a top 100 course. I have been stereotyped by people as the guy who only plays the 8,000+ yard courses with no real design aspects other than raw length and difficulty -- that is of course rubbish. I have mentioned such unknown courses as Forsgate / Banks Course as a wonderful layout that very few really see. Ditto the 18 at Montclair Golf Club in West Orange, NJ -- it's #2 & #4 nines are designed by Donald Ross and Charles Banks and are well done -- both courses in fact are not even 6,600 yards from the tippy tips! I just don't see how Shoreacres is thought of as a top 40 course (see GM ratings) and the biggest joke is that even Yale goes up even when the conditions and the nature of how the course plays now makes me shake my head and wonder what people are looking at.
Not all of modern golf is fast food crap -- plenty of it is darn good and I make it a point to bring forward their names to highlight that while certain courses of yesteryear are timeless (i.e. Shinnecock, CP, Oakmont, etc, etc) there are quite few from that time period that are more of the "used to be great" than "still are." Maidstone in my mind benefits from being thought of as in the same league as the other two members of the Hampton troika -- SH and NGLA. I will say this that my initial comment about Maidstone not being in the top 25 within New York was in error but I won't back off for a New York minute in arguing that placement of Maidstone within the top 50 in the USA is simply too amusing to consider. The qualities of golf in The Empire State are excellent -- likely the best for private golf in the USA -- and there are a number of courses (i.e. Olde Kinderhook, Fenway, Sleepy Hollow, Crag Burn, Century, Bethpage Red, to name just a few) that get pushed aside routinely because of ignorance by people who should know better IMHO.
Mr. Sturges, I would urge you to see a number of the superior efforts put forward by some of the names that are often dissed here on GCA. To wit Jack Nicklaus (Ocean Hammock), Rees Jones (Olde Kinderhook) and even heaven help us all -- Tom Fazio (Glenwild). There is this tired tendency that I see when people bring up these names you get the same reaction from the same people but the reality is that very few of these people have played more than a small sampling of the designers work.
Tommy, I quite agree with you about Sandpines but next time you come east stop by and play Ocean Forest, Olde Kinderhook and if you are really game even The Bridge. Rees has certainly evolved with a number of his most recent efforts. I have stated on this site when there have been turkeys but let's be honest -- some people think that if they've seen one design from a designer than the rest will likely mirror. Great homework!
I don't doubt that many of the classic courses married the "look" and "play" criteria that are crucial to at least me. But, there are too many people who are hooked on this "look" aspect that they fail to evaluate the nature of the type of shots you must play throughout the round. I am not advocating that modern golf is all first rate stuff -- hell, I just came back from deep in south central West Virginia and played a new course called Twisted Gun that has a site to die for but it's overall design is lite weight stuff.
Too many people here on GCA simply play the same tried and true courses and then regurgitate the same "isn't that great" stuff to the very same people who will regurgitate the same "isn't that great" stuff and so on and so forth it goes.
I am not out to be a contrarian and I am not out to highlight some schlock golf ocurse just for the sake of tweaking somebody. However, I travel quite often throughout the country and I have seen enough of the designs of the up and coming architects and the old timers. Many folks here on GCA simply convey knighthood only to those who are their "pet favorites." Look guys -- you may not want to hear that but to say otherwise is a statement of denial. You'd be surprised by the amount of e-mails I get offline from many people who consistently post here on GCA. The difference is that I come out and state my position and don't get all worked up if so and so will continue to like me or invite me to play at such and such club in the future.
Mr. Sturges -- you are right -- let's keep humor involved -- I don't know if it's best to favor classic style humor or the more modern variety type. Oh well -- what do I know -- I'm just some urban guy from Jersey!
Mr. MacWood:
As Reagan said to Carter int he '80 debates -- "there you go again."
I have made the case time after time after time. I get tired and frankly annoyed by people who lob in opinions from the cheap seats in left field with nothing more than aerial opinions. Look, we analyze things from different perspectives. Your thrust is whether Tillie meant for the bunker to have an especially high lip or did he tweak it one foot lower and other arcane aspects that you and those like you find appealing.
So be it. I'll catch a few winks while you guys discuss
such d-e-e-p issues.
Tom -- I have my opinions. If you don't like'm that's fine. But I won't let people weasel in with the same old tired baloney about such and such course from the time of Moses still being soooooooooooooo great when the reality is far different. People need to see what goes on through the entire country and while I don't doubt many of the great courses from yesteryear will hold their position there are quite a few that will go down and be replaced by others. I know the whole aspect of ratings and reviews is something that bores you so let's just say we have a different focus -- and interest in the game.
I play golf and want to see what the architect has done to imbue the course with strategic considerations not esoteric aspects that may "look" great but have little REAL consequence on how the hole plays. Clearly, there will be times when these esoteric features do have meaning and purpose but I have seen instances when people fawn over whether the bunker on the right, that has no real meaning to the playing of the hole, is flared high or low. Wow -- how compelling!
Tom -- when you decide to post your top 50 courses THAT YOU HAVE PLAYED I'd love to see it. I've jumped in the pool --how about leaving the diving board and showing people your stuff before you hit the water. Oh -- I forgot you're still on the couch! By the way my favorite program is Roseanne -- you know how it is for the meat and potato crowd!
