Stop Deifying Old Architects - George Peper

[darthweasel]

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Part of this is ego based because all three of you will play off the same tee box, which favours the +1 handicap far more than the 36 handicap who hits it 180.  Play off the tee boxes that suit you and courses become a lot easier and enjoyable.

I

wildly wrong. The plus 1 has never played with the other guys. Arguably I play off boxes too short for me most of the time when I play with the non-cap guys...I have worked hard to get them to stop using the "mens and womens" tees and use "hey, this yardage would be fun". Edgewood was a setback, because when I told the marshal "they would really enjoy something 56-5800 and slope in the 125-130 range" he literally laughed and said, "we have those boxes but you can't play them" inferring they were the ladies tees.

By contrast, my mid-cap buddy and I went 62-6400 at the various Bandon courses and weirdly I scored better.  When I play with the good crowd is the only time I feel like I play deeper than I would want but even then I have the length that I am generally only a few yards short of where even Taylor and Sean are...I just don't have their consistency or accuracy. 

I am all in on the "tee it forward" almost to the point I have people argue I should move back, but since I don't score all that well from closer, I feel no need to run deeper. 

[iacas]

Quote

My question is, why have we become so obsessed with those guys? Were they really that surpassingly brilliant? Were they any better than—or even as good as—the top golf architects today? I doubt it. Certainly, they were neither as well educated nor as comprehensively trained as our modern designers.

They didn't need to be "as well educated" because a lot of the "education" these days is about stuff that didn't exist back then, including regulations, equipment, dealing with members, social media/PR, etc.

Quote

Some of their efforts were more successful than others, but their best courses, fitting neatly and naturally into their parkland settings, have been extolled in some quarters as the inspiration for the current minimalist movement in golf architecture. That’s another misconception. Those guys weren’t minimalists. Their focus was not on preserving the land, protecting the environment, or creating a sustainable course. They just didn’t have bulldozers!

Nobody said they created "minimalist" courses because they couldn't, but the end result is that they did, and so in doing so, created courses that more naturally fit the land.

---

And… now I know what you guys were saying about how abruptly the article ends.

WTH was that?

 

[Shorty]

If a good golf course designer had an interesting piece of property they could create something truly wonderful without the use of bulldozers because they had to work with the terrain they had and exploit existing land formations rather than just bulldozing mounds on either side of the fairway and putting bunkers at 210m on the left and/or right of each fairway like you see at so many boring modern resort-style courses. But they had to have the good land.

A course in my town was designed by Eric Apperley, who implemented a lot of Alister MacKenzie's plans in Melbourne and Sydney. Mackenzie was only at Royal Melbourne for a couple of weeks, remember.

This course is an absolute masterpiece - "It has been rated “International Honourable Mention”, meaning that it has won sufficient points to be worthy of inclusion in the Top 100 courses outside the USA. As only a handful of the World Panel have played it, it speaks volumes that those who have played this hidden gem rate it so highly."

There are 14 holes on this course that would be the signature holes on 95% of golf courses anywhere. The 4th and 5th were described by Norman von Nida as the best consecutive par 4s in the world - over the top, but if you played the course you'd understand why he said it.

My point is that when you play this course, you marvel at how the course was routed with ponies and primitive tractors a hundred years ago. You just can not imagine how you could improve upon the way the course was laid out. Modern technology might have had a modern designer trying too hard to shape the course to fit his will. But..... this is why Bandon Dunes, Lost Farm and Barnbougle are great - because of the raw material  - and that architects like McLay-Kidd, Coore and Doak allow that to shine through and essentially see holes that were already there.

I don't think people deify the greats of course design, they appreciate great golf courses anywhere and admire how a "less is more" approach to earth moving is a good thing, as long as there's great land to start with.

[imsys0042]

About the only thing that struck me in the article is the paragraph about how people get over-the-top about playing/belonging to a course by some long gone famous architect.   Otherwise, I agree with the suggestion at the top of the article to possibly click elsewhere.

There is a place for thinking about the type of course based on who designed it, especially for how that relates to your own game.   But otherwise, it doesn't factor into where I would choose to play.

For a few years I did belong to a golf course in Western PA that was designed by Arnold Palmer and that was a trip.   it was very hard and most members struggled.  Generally it was a course where your handicap traveled really well.   So anyway, people were so incredibly high on Palmer it was ridiculous.   I know he's popular, but man did people put him on a pedestal.  I have nothing against Palmer, but with some people it was like he was god-like.  

When they had their 15 year anniversary, Palmer wouldn't even return the phone calls.   I doubt he played it after the opening day.

[mcanadiens]

I'll have to admit that when I first saw this thread I thought we were defiling old architects. 

Don't know why it seems so much funnier now. 

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

So anyway, people were so incredibly high on Palmer it was ridiculous.   I know he's popular, but man did people put him on a pedestal.  I have nothing against Palmer, but with some people it was like he was god-like.  

IMO few are genuine in their reverence though. For majority it's just the thing you do to be in the good graces of the in crowd. Ha.