Modern versus Classic
Time and time again I hear people talking about the “Classic” golf courses or the “Modern Era” of golf course
design. One magazine has even gone as far as having separate rankings for each of these genres. Golfweek has
a Top 100 list for the Classic and Modern Golf Courses, in which the Classic courses were built before 1960 and the
Modern courses built after 1960. However, all of the other major golf course raters have a single list in which they
rank the Top 100 Golf Courses. Without question, these lists always create some type of controversy. In my
opinion, many of these controversies arise due to the reader’s preferences toward one extreme or the
other…modern golf courses versus classic golf courses. In fact, throughout the last few days I have come face to
face with this very dilemma time and time again.
While playing the other day on a very good classic course, my playing partner, and member of this exclusive club,
made the comment that some of the club’s members wanted to hire an architect to lengthen the course. This
comment infuriated me for two main reasons. The first one is that AW Tillinghast worked on this course in 1935 and
his greens and green complexes are still in place. In my opinion, this makes the course a sublime joy and an honor
to play. The second reason is that this course is far from a short course. In fact, it measures 6,850 yards from the
tips. So adding length to the course seems to be an exercise in simply making the course long. Now, I’ve played
many long courses and I must say that simply being long doesn’t mean a course is good. In fact, I think one of Tilly’
s old quotes holds true here, “it ain’t how far, but how good”. Nevertheless, here I was face-to-face with the modern
versus classical argument. A few big hitting players from a prestigious and storied country club are pushing to
completely change a wonderfully designed piece of art in search of length.
Frankly, I thought about this length issue more and more throughout the following days and weeks. Interestingly
enough during this time frame, I had the opportunity to play the Country Club of Columbus in Columbus, Georgia.
The club was founded in 1909 and the golf course was originally designed by Donald Ross then renovated by Drew
Rogers of Arthur Hills in 2002. The renovations kept the integrity of the original Ross design, while adding some
outstanding features to the course. To be honest, I was really looking forward to playing it and contrasting it to the
other Donald Ross courses I’ve played; East Lake and Inverness.
Inverness and East Lake are ranked by the golf rating gurus as two of the best courses in the entire world.
Personally, I don’t disagree one bit. They are both fantastic golf courses and deserve all the praise and high
acclaim they get. However, the CCC is right there with them. The variety of challenges presented at the CCC is
superb. The greens are fantastic and they are very similar to Inverness’ greens. In fact, the greens at Inverness
are, arguably, the most noteworthy aspect of that course. Additionally, the holes at CCC are wonderful, memorable,
and beautiful in that very remarkable and unmistakable Donald Ross kind of way.
During my trek home from the CCC, I began to think about all three of these courses. Why were these other Ross
courses so highly regarded and the CCC not? I could come up with only two reasons:
#1---The history at both Inverness and East Lake can not be duplicated and, therefore, despite The Country Club
of Columbus’ own unique and storied history it ranks below Inverness and East Lake in that category.
#2---East Lake plays 7,374 yards from the tips; Inverness plays 7,255 from the Championship tees, while the CCC
plays only 6,500 yards from the tips.
Given this type of information, it appears to me that the golf course rating experts value history and they might have
a mandate that a course must be able to host a golf major and, therefore, the course must have ample room for
7,000+ playable yards.
After playing CCC, I began reading Geoff Shackelford’s “The Future of Golf.” In this book, Mr. Shackelford takes
the stance that modern technology is ruining the game of golf that he loves. That game is played on classic golf
courses and due to the layout and distance of those types of courses, a robust ground game was intended to come
into play often. However, it is his contention that modern technology and the distances players can now pound the
ball off the tee is rendering many of the old school golf courses defenseless. Since Mr. Shackelford loves these
classic courses and hates to see them being “tweaked” to accommodate the game that professional golfers play, he
hates this length enhancing technology.
In just a few short days, I came face to face with some young bucks who wanted to lengthen a classic golf course. I
played a small, but excellent, golf course that was ignored by the rating agencies due to its lack of length. And then
I read a book by a highly regarded golf writer who was expressing his disdain for length enhancing modern
technology which is rendering classic golf courses defenseless. Given that these instances present diametrically
opposed opinions, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong, right? Well, not exactly.
As I’ve written in many places on my website, the joy that comes from golf manifests itself in different ways for
different people. That is why the Top 100 lists rank a total of 218 courses as being in the Top 100. Golf Digest
seems to favor more modern courses and, in turn, they have a lot of Fazio and Nicklaus courses. Golf Magazine
seems to lean a little towards the classic golf courses and, therefore, you will see a lot more Seth Raynor courses
on their list. In fact, Golfweek is the only magazine that breaks out separate Top 100 lists for the modern and
classic courses.
These facts highlight a very important and crucial point. That point is that everyone values different things in life
and different things in golf. For instance, I had the privilege of playing Cascata in Las Vegas awhile back. Right
from the start of this adventure, I was BLOWN AWAY by the sheer beauty and pristine condition of the course. I
was so amazed, I played another 18 as soon as I finished my initial round. The thing about Cascata is that it is a
wildly luxurious and lush golf course. The scenery is mind-bendingly beautiful. The clubhouse is immaculate, the
fairways have no divots, and the greens are impeccable. It was an absolute experience in luxury and I really loved
playing it. However, many other golfers hate it. They think it doesn’t challenge their game enough, the holes are
too basic and don’t require much strategy to play. Frankly, they are correct. It is not a Kiawah Ocean Course
where every shot requires laser like focus and execution. Rather it is an extravagant journey along a wonderfully
beautiful golf course. Some people will love it, while others won’t like it at all.
Actually I discovered this fact quite some time ago when I wrote the article “Analysis of Golf Course Rankings.” The
crux of that article is that if you know what you are looking for in a golf course, you can then select the appropriate
Top 100 list to use as your guide. Some of these lists favor beautiful and playable courses, while others get deep
into the nuances of golf course architecture. But before you can utilize these lists for maximum utility, you must first
know what you like. To be honest, most people have a difficult time defining what they like in a golf course. And to
make matters worse, those likes and dislikes might change over time. For example, the beginning/high handicap
golfer might enjoy a Southshore in Vegas more than an Inverness in Toledo, while the opposite might be true of that
same golfer 5 years later when his/her handicap has dropped to scratch. You see, Southshore is more visually
stunning than Inverness and, although Southshore is a challenge, the greens at Inverness will generally present a
much more interesting round than the ones at Southshore will present for the low handicapper.
Given all this data and information, it is clear to me why there are so many different golf courses with so many
different key characteristics…people want different things from a golf course. You’ve got the ultra-private and
exclusive clubs for the people who enjoy being part of an elite group. You’ve got the ultra-challenging courses for
those excellent golfers looking to challenge themselves. You’ve got the luxurious resort courses where golfers can
go and enjoy themselves. There are also the “country club for a day” courses where the public can enjoy high
quality golf in an exclusive club type of atmosphere. And of course there are the local public courses. Maybe the
elitists thumb their noses at these courses, but many of them are quite good.
If we wanted to take this analysis a step further, we could break down the available golf courses by types. Links
courses, parkland golf, mountain golf, and desert courses are a few of the available types. But I won’t embark on
such an effort for this article and I will save it for another day.
So when all is said and done, are the big hitters at Tilly’s course right or is Mr. Shackelford right? Do we need to
preserve the integrity of our classic courses and not let technology make them obsolete? Or do we need to
embrace these technological advances and have our courses cater to the PGA type of player?
From my perspective, I think the answer is both. East Lake is a classic course and Donald Ross garners much of
the attention and admiration regarding the course’s layout and looks. However, it was Rees Jones’ renovation that
took East Lake out of the doldrums and onto the center stage of the PGA Tour Championship. When dealing with
classic courses, it is vital to have the renovations maintain the character and design aspects of the original course.
As I just mentioned, Rees Jones did a wonderful job at East Lake. Drew Rogers did an incredible job at the Country
Club of Columbus. Due to the lack of land surrounding the CCC and, therefore, the lack of Championship length,
the Country Club of Columbus may never have yardage adequate enough to be ranked in anyone’s Top 100.
However, that doesn’t preclude people from enjoying the heck out of that course.
In relation to the Modern Courses, I think all the cards are on the table. A designer can elect to go the PGA West
route and make an insurmountable beast of a course in which the PGA Pansies…uh…ugh…I mean…PGA Players
will boycott because it is too difficult. But adventurous golfers can still give the course their best shot! Or the
modern architect could go the Pacific Dunes route and set-up a modern version of a links golf course. Like I said,
all cards are on the table.
The issue regarding how these courses fit into a players golfing life is up to the player. If someone is adamant
against the desecration of a classic course, they can go the Donald Ross Society route and, essentially, set up an
entity to insure the original character of the classic courses remains intact. Frankly, I am all for this as I love playing
these timeless gems. However, if someone likes the modern beauties like Sand Hills, Shadow Creek, or Cascata,
more power to them. And that is just exactly the point…know what you like! If the players know the type of course
they like and they do adequate research regarding courses before they play them, they are almost guaranteed a
fun round. Assuming they play with the right people and they can keep their composure whether things are going
well or poorly.
However, if you are unsure whether you prefer the modern or classic golf course answer the following few questions:
Do you prefer playing? Or Do you prefer playing?
Pebble Beach
Pinehurst #2
St. Andrews
East Lake
Lawsonia
If you preferred the courses on the left, you are a classic golfer.
If you preferred the courses on the right, you are a modern golfer.
If you are like me and you like courses from both lists, you simply like to golf on a great course!!
8-31-2009
Time and time again I hear people talking about the “Classic” golf courses or the “Modern Era” of golf course
design. One magazine has even gone as far as having separate rankings for each of these genres. Golfweek has
a Top 100 list for the Classic and Modern Golf Courses, in which the Classic courses were built before 1960 and the
Modern courses built after 1960. However, all of the other major golf course raters have a single list in which they
rank the Top 100 Golf Courses. Without question, these lists always create some type of controversy. In my
opinion, many of these controversies arise due to the reader’s preferences toward one extreme or the
other…modern golf courses versus classic golf courses. In fact, throughout the last few days I have come face to
face with this very dilemma time and time again.
While playing the other day on a very good classic course, my playing partner, and member of this exclusive club,
made the comment that some of the club’s members wanted to hire an architect to lengthen the course. This
comment infuriated me for two main reasons. The first one is that AW Tillinghast worked on this course in 1935 and
his greens and green complexes are still in place. In my opinion, this makes the course a sublime joy and an honor
to play. The second reason is that this course is far from a short course. In fact, it measures 6,850 yards from the
tips. So adding length to the course seems to be an exercise in simply making the course long. Now, I’ve played
many long courses and I must say that simply being long doesn’t mean a course is good. In fact, I think one of Tilly’
s old quotes holds true here, “it ain’t how far, but how good”. Nevertheless, here I was face-to-face with the modern
versus classical argument. A few big hitting players from a prestigious and storied country club are pushing to
completely change a wonderfully designed piece of art in search of length.
Frankly, I thought about this length issue more and more throughout the following days and weeks. Interestingly
enough during this time frame, I had the opportunity to play the Country Club of Columbus in Columbus, Georgia.
The club was founded in 1909 and the golf course was originally designed by Donald Ross then renovated by Drew
Rogers of Arthur Hills in 2002. The renovations kept the integrity of the original Ross design, while adding some
outstanding features to the course. To be honest, I was really looking forward to playing it and contrasting it to the
other Donald Ross courses I’ve played; East Lake and Inverness.
Inverness and East Lake are ranked by the golf rating gurus as two of the best courses in the entire world.
Personally, I don’t disagree one bit. They are both fantastic golf courses and deserve all the praise and high
acclaim they get. However, the CCC is right there with them. The variety of challenges presented at the CCC is
superb. The greens are fantastic and they are very similar to Inverness’ greens. In fact, the greens at Inverness
are, arguably, the most noteworthy aspect of that course. Additionally, the holes at CCC are wonderful, memorable,
and beautiful in that very remarkable and unmistakable Donald Ross kind of way.
During my trek home from the CCC, I began to think about all three of these courses. Why were these other Ross
courses so highly regarded and the CCC not? I could come up with only two reasons:
#1---The history at both Inverness and East Lake can not be duplicated and, therefore, despite The Country Club
of Columbus’ own unique and storied history it ranks below Inverness and East Lake in that category.
#2---East Lake plays 7,374 yards from the tips; Inverness plays 7,255 from the Championship tees, while the CCC
plays only 6,500 yards from the tips.
Given this type of information, it appears to me that the golf course rating experts value history and they might have
a mandate that a course must be able to host a golf major and, therefore, the course must have ample room for
7,000+ playable yards.
After playing CCC, I began reading Geoff Shackelford’s “The Future of Golf.” In this book, Mr. Shackelford takes
the stance that modern technology is ruining the game of golf that he loves. That game is played on classic golf
courses and due to the layout and distance of those types of courses, a robust ground game was intended to come
into play often. However, it is his contention that modern technology and the distances players can now pound the
ball off the tee is rendering many of the old school golf courses defenseless. Since Mr. Shackelford loves these
classic courses and hates to see them being “tweaked” to accommodate the game that professional golfers play, he
hates this length enhancing technology.
In just a few short days, I came face to face with some young bucks who wanted to lengthen a classic golf course. I
played a small, but excellent, golf course that was ignored by the rating agencies due to its lack of length. And then
I read a book by a highly regarded golf writer who was expressing his disdain for length enhancing modern
technology which is rendering classic golf courses defenseless. Given that these instances present diametrically
opposed opinions, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong, right? Well, not exactly.
As I’ve written in many places on my website, the joy that comes from golf manifests itself in different ways for
different people. That is why the Top 100 lists rank a total of 218 courses as being in the Top 100. Golf Digest
seems to favor more modern courses and, in turn, they have a lot of Fazio and Nicklaus courses. Golf Magazine
seems to lean a little towards the classic golf courses and, therefore, you will see a lot more Seth Raynor courses
on their list. In fact, Golfweek is the only magazine that breaks out separate Top 100 lists for the modern and
classic courses.
These facts highlight a very important and crucial point. That point is that everyone values different things in life
and different things in golf. For instance, I had the privilege of playing Cascata in Las Vegas awhile back. Right
from the start of this adventure, I was BLOWN AWAY by the sheer beauty and pristine condition of the course. I
was so amazed, I played another 18 as soon as I finished my initial round. The thing about Cascata is that it is a
wildly luxurious and lush golf course. The scenery is mind-bendingly beautiful. The clubhouse is immaculate, the
fairways have no divots, and the greens are impeccable. It was an absolute experience in luxury and I really loved
playing it. However, many other golfers hate it. They think it doesn’t challenge their game enough, the holes are
too basic and don’t require much strategy to play. Frankly, they are correct. It is not a Kiawah Ocean Course
where every shot requires laser like focus and execution. Rather it is an extravagant journey along a wonderfully
beautiful golf course. Some people will love it, while others won’t like it at all.
Actually I discovered this fact quite some time ago when I wrote the article “Analysis of Golf Course Rankings.” The
crux of that article is that if you know what you are looking for in a golf course, you can then select the appropriate
Top 100 list to use as your guide. Some of these lists favor beautiful and playable courses, while others get deep
into the nuances of golf course architecture. But before you can utilize these lists for maximum utility, you must first
know what you like. To be honest, most people have a difficult time defining what they like in a golf course. And to
make matters worse, those likes and dislikes might change over time. For example, the beginning/high handicap
golfer might enjoy a Southshore in Vegas more than an Inverness in Toledo, while the opposite might be true of that
same golfer 5 years later when his/her handicap has dropped to scratch. You see, Southshore is more visually
stunning than Inverness and, although Southshore is a challenge, the greens at Inverness will generally present a
much more interesting round than the ones at Southshore will present for the low handicapper.
Given all this data and information, it is clear to me why there are so many different golf courses with so many
different key characteristics…people want different things from a golf course. You’ve got the ultra-private and
exclusive clubs for the people who enjoy being part of an elite group. You’ve got the ultra-challenging courses for
those excellent golfers looking to challenge themselves. You’ve got the luxurious resort courses where golfers can
go and enjoy themselves. There are also the “country club for a day” courses where the public can enjoy high
quality golf in an exclusive club type of atmosphere. And of course there are the local public courses. Maybe the
elitists thumb their noses at these courses, but many of them are quite good.
If we wanted to take this analysis a step further, we could break down the available golf courses by types. Links
courses, parkland golf, mountain golf, and desert courses are a few of the available types. But I won’t embark on
such an effort for this article and I will save it for another day.
So when all is said and done, are the big hitters at Tilly’s course right or is Mr. Shackelford right? Do we need to
preserve the integrity of our classic courses and not let technology make them obsolete? Or do we need to
embrace these technological advances and have our courses cater to the PGA type of player?
From my perspective, I think the answer is both. East Lake is a classic course and Donald Ross garners much of
the attention and admiration regarding the course’s layout and looks. However, it was Rees Jones’ renovation that
took East Lake out of the doldrums and onto the center stage of the PGA Tour Championship. When dealing with
classic courses, it is vital to have the renovations maintain the character and design aspects of the original course.
As I just mentioned, Rees Jones did a wonderful job at East Lake. Drew Rogers did an incredible job at the Country
Club of Columbus. Due to the lack of land surrounding the CCC and, therefore, the lack of Championship length,
the Country Club of Columbus may never have yardage adequate enough to be ranked in anyone’s Top 100.
However, that doesn’t preclude people from enjoying the heck out of that course.
In relation to the Modern Courses, I think all the cards are on the table. A designer can elect to go the PGA West
route and make an insurmountable beast of a course in which the PGA Pansies…uh…ugh…I mean…PGA Players
will boycott because it is too difficult. But adventurous golfers can still give the course their best shot! Or the
modern architect could go the Pacific Dunes route and set-up a modern version of a links golf course. Like I said,
all cards are on the table.
The issue regarding how these courses fit into a players golfing life is up to the player. If someone is adamant
against the desecration of a classic course, they can go the Donald Ross Society route and, essentially, set up an
entity to insure the original character of the classic courses remains intact. Frankly, I am all for this as I love playing
these timeless gems. However, if someone likes the modern beauties like Sand Hills, Shadow Creek, or Cascata,
more power to them. And that is just exactly the point…know what you like! If the players know the type of course
they like and they do adequate research regarding courses before they play them, they are almost guaranteed a
fun round. Assuming they play with the right people and they can keep their composure whether things are going
well or poorly.
However, if you are unsure whether you prefer the modern or classic golf course answer the following few questions:
Do you prefer playing? Or Do you prefer playing?
Pebble Beach
Pinehurst #2
St. Andrews
East Lake
Lawsonia
If you preferred the courses on the left, you are a classic golfer.
If you preferred the courses on the right, you are a modern golfer.
If you are like me and you like courses from both lists, you simply like to golf on a great course!!
8-31-2009
The approach to the 11th at the offending course
East Lake approaching the 5th hole
The historic tee shot from #18 at Inverness
The approach to #10 at The Country Club of Columbus
Pacific Dunes
Shadow Creek
Kiawah Ocean Course
Loch Lomond
Cascata
Shadow Creek
Kiawah Ocean Course
Loch Lomond
Cascata
The 14th tee box at The Ocean Course
