[John Connolly]

I've been watching replays of some decades old US Opens - Oakmont '94, Medinah '90 and now Cherry Hills '78. Oh how the mighty had fallen. Tree-choked fairways and featureless bunkering (save Oakmont) are a few of the maladies that stand out. When contrasted with where these courses are now (and likely were at their inception), it made me wonder. Was any well thought of golden age course better in the 70s/80s/90s than it was in its youth? Or before its inevitable restoration? Quite a bleak time for architecture it would seem. Surely Dutch Elm disease and the planting over rotation that ensued played a significant role but how had it gotten so far afield? 

[Tom_Doak]

I've been watching replays of some decades old US Opens - Oakmont '94, Medinah '90 and now Cherry Hills '78. Oh how the mighty had fallen. Tree-choked fairways and featureless bunkering (save Oakmont) are a few of the maladies that stand out. When contrasted with where these courses are now (and likely were at their inception), it made me wonder. Was any well thought of golden age course better in the 70s/80s/90s than it was in its youth? Or before its inevitable restoration? Quite a bleak time for architecture it would seem. Surely Dutch Elm disease and the planting over rotation that ensued played a significant role but how had it gotten so far afield?

IMHO it was the USGA's set-ups of U.S. Open courses in the 1950's [with Robert Trent Jones assisting] that led all of those courses to narrow the playing corridors too much.  They took the fairways down to 30-35 yards and grew the rough, and those events were televised, and then that's what everyone thought their own course should be like.


Crystal Downs was not much different in the 80s than it was in the 30s . . . possibly better.

[Thomas Dai]

IMHO it was the USGA's set-ups of U.S. Open courses in the 1950's [with Robert Trent Jones assisting] that led all of those courses to narrow the playing corridors too much.  They took the fairways down to 30-35 yards and grew the rough, and those events were televised, and then that's what everyone thought their own course should be like.
Crystal Downs was not much different in the 80s than it was in the 30s . . . possibly better.

Didn't a certain famous architect who may or may not have been mentioned in this thread own or part own some tree nurseries?
atb

[Tim Martin]

I've been watching replays of some decades old US Opens - Oakmont '94, Medinah '90 and now Cherry Hills '78. Oh how the mighty had fallen. Tree-choked fairways and featureless bunkering (save Oakmont) are a few of the maladies that stand out. When contrasted with where these courses are now (and likely were at their inception), it made me wonder. Was any well thought of golden age course better in the 70s/80s/90s than it was in its youth? Or before its inevitable restoration? Quite a bleak time for architecture it would seem. Surely Dutch Elm disease and the planting over rotation that ensued played a significant role but how had it gotten so far afield?

IMHO it was the USGA's set-ups of U.S. Open courses in the 1950's [with Robert Trent Jones assisting] that led all of those courses to narrow the playing corridors too much.  They took the fairways down to 30-35 yards and grew the rough, and those events were televised, and then that's what everyone thought their own course should be like.


Crystal Downs was not much different in the 80s than it was in the 30s . . . possibly better.

The first thing I thought of when I read the title and opening post was the RTJ effect.

[Bruce Katona]

Perceptions and reality of fact change over time, especially if backed by research and statistics.


Factor in what the players of that time period used for equipment and thus the resulting course challenges.  Go back to the late 19th or early 20th century where all types of vertical hazards, bumps & small hills were constructed for a player to overcome until equipment with grooves made it easier for players to gain height on a shot.


There was a time not so long ago where few scientists and even many medical professionals believed smoking did no harm to a user - research and scientific study proved this theory horribly incorrect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()