Default User Avatar

Great article. Totally agree.! There are some really good "Dark Age" courses. So much of a course's strategy depends on playing conditions. Over-watered, soft, and slow courses are dull regardless of the design philosophy. Unfortunately, a lot of courses built in the "Dark Ages" have employed these soft maintenance strategies out of fear that if it is not all emerald green, it is bad. Soft fairways, greens, and approaches make for really boring golf and total loss of strategy.

Default User Avatar

First off Tim, let me remind you many "noted abstract painters" were essentially minimalists and those whose careers flourished and defined the period were far more spartan than not. Your analogy is better served by comparing "constructionists" to the "Dark Age" architects.

My problem with so many of theses architects is the complete lack of imagination and redundant reliance on pure difficulty to challenge the average recreational golfer. Very little thought went into how to best use the existing land forms or slight derivation to create strategic choice or mentally challenge the player.

Pine Tree is indeed a gem but one that has been carefully restored and dare I say, improved by smart membership. It is very likely Wilson's best and reflects that.

In terms of quantity, the time between WWII and 1995 saw more golf courses built in the U.S. than any other period, so for many golfers, these courses from the "Dark Ages" are all around them (MOST of these courses also fall in the category of "Parkland" design style). To even suggest to a golfer that they should not play a particular course because of it's "design era" is foolish. In addition, many of the properties originally purchased to build these courses are now surrounded by developments that leave no room for alterations like lengthening or re-routing a course. Also, geographical features vary from region to region and DO play into the flexibility allowed in design. This planet only has a very limited amount of REAL LINKSLAND, or unusually large areas of sandy terrain left behind by the glaciers (Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, North & South Carolina and some others), where a course can thrive in normal conditions (Left out Las Vegas & Palm Desert because the unnatural effort and cost for upkeep make them the most artificial of all). Enjoy every course that you play, because even though design is repetitive and derivative these days (How many downhill, 397 yard, dogleg right, traps on the inner corner, trees on the outer corner, green guarded by 2-3 bunkers holes are already on this planet?) Like Music, every note has been played before our time, it is the arrangement of those notes that makes a song different.

Default User Avatar

I don't even like the term "dark age" golf course. These courses were built when golf was becoming much more popular and used land that often wasn't particularly interesting. Many of the so-called artificial topographic additions were an attempt to force course management shots. I for one am glad these courses were built. I have some place to play! Jim Swanson

Default User Avatar

I grew up & was introduced to golf on a course designed, owned, built & lived on by Stanley Thompson who believed a course should be designed on the land 'as you found it'. I caddied, worked ground's keeping, played as a junior on this course. I find many of the contemporary courses to be artificial and 'tricked up', not pleasing to the eye, and not much fun to play. Also, having played true links courses in Ireland as well as the UK, I have come to firmly believe that this is the venue upon which golf was meant to be played. Many amateurs, to say nothing of some professionals, are incapable of adapting to the required play of such courses. Golf and golf courses have in many respects lost their way. Unfortunate.

Default User Avatar

If most Florida courses were not mounded, they would be perfly flat...and totally boring.

Default User Avatar

Good article Tim Gavrich. In my opinion, of the close to 800 courses played, there are great courses from every one of the last 14 or so decades. So many of the recently smart golf experts diss the Dick Wilson, Trent Jones, Fazio(s) , Hills. So wrong. Core and Crenshaw and Doak and Kidd and Hanse have “found” some great holes, but they’ve also found some clunkers.
Too many of their holes employ blown out bunkers with “natural” edges. So many “options” off the tee is dumb, they don’t understand that most of their golfers have no idea where their tee shot is going, options start with their second shot imho. The best new course that I have played is Kananaskis. Originally designed by Trent Jones Sr’s team in the early 1980s they were lost to floods and rebuilt by Gary Browning, most holes are close to the original routings, bunkers have been modernized but still crisply edged, greens have a few more pin placements, great looking holes, wider and fewer trees but still great individual holes. Mountain golf at its best, altho raters give ocean views more marks than deserved. No buildings to be hit by errant shots.

Default User Avatar

I am a Supervisor at a course built in 1962 by George Fazio in 1962 at the Jersey Shore. I'm very proud of its history and its future!

I'm a Super at a course built in 1962 by George Fazio at the Jersey Shore. Very proud of its history, and its future!

Default User Avatar

Jack Nicklaus firm has built many golf courses-Are these "Dark age" courses-are any very good?
With small, raised greens, bunkers protecting the greens, and tree lined faiways they would seem to be " Dark Age" examples but what about quality ?