[Mike Hendren]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Thanks in advance.

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

Country Club of Troy is a cool course, but there are lots of cool old courses.  Did you like it better than Glens Falls and Teugega?  I just pick those two because they're more comparable in terms of their present ranking.

Cypress Point is a lot prettier and has the most famous golf hole in the world.

[Ben Sims]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Thanks in advance.

Bogey

Bogey,

Ocean, exclusivity, aesthetics. In that order.

In my personal opinion, there isn't enough difference between individual shots on golf courses to warrant a ratings difference of a Doak 10 to Doak 5. Or in this case, #2 vs. #192 on a magazine list. Aesthetical and location differences, however, more than warrant that difference. Don't confuse that to mean that ground contours are irrelevant.

I could write a paragraph or two on this very subject, as I think the nebulous "shot values" quotient used by some lists is ridiculous. A high fade hit around a tree on a mom and pop farm course is the same high fade used to get to the back right pin on #14 at Augusta.

[Mark Pearce]

Cypress Point is a lot prettier and has the most famous golf hole in the world.

Really?  In a poll of golfers almost anywhere in the world one of the 17th at Sawgrass, the 12th at Augusta or the Road Hole is going to beat it in a poll, surely?

[Mike Schott]

Cypress Point is a lot prettier and has the most famous golf hole in the world.

Really?  In a poll of golfers almost anywhere in the world one of the 17th at Sawgrass, the 12th at Augusta or the Road Hole is going to beat it in a poll, surely?

Not an answer to your question but if the Crosby Clambake (ATT) still used CPC, it might be.

[Sean_A]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Thanks in advance.

Bogey

Bogey,

Ocean, exclusivity, aesthetics. In that order.

In my personal opinion, there isn't enough difference between individual shots on golf courses to warrant a ratings difference of a Doak 10 to Doak 5. Or in this case, #2 vs. #192 on a magazine list. Aesthetical and location differences, however, more than warrant that difference. Don't confuse that to mean that ground contours are irrelevant.

I could write a paragraph or two on this very subject, as I think the nebulous "shot values" quotient used by some lists is ridiculous. A high fade hit around a tree on a mom and pop farm course is the same high fade used to get to the back right pin on #14 at Augusta.

Ben

In general, I agree with you.  Often times, the main difference between good and great is a sense of place or grandeur with nuts and bolts hole quality taking a back seat.  I would say reputation, exclusivity and setting can easily make up 3 of five points between courses.  But then, it must be remembered that the D Scale is meant to be a sliding scale for recommending courses to see so why shouldn't reputation, setting and exclusivity make up a big reason to see a course?  

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Is it too much to expect compelling and objective reasons why courses are separated by 190 slots?  I'm disappointed so far but who among us thought Doak was that funny.

Bogey

[Ben Sims]

Is it too much to expect compelling and objective reasons why courses are separated by 190 slots?  I'm disappointed so far but who among us thought Doak was that funny.

Bogey

Whether a course has an ocean nearby or not is pretty stinking objective. 

[Mike Hendren]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Thanks in advance.

Bogey

Bogey,

Ocean, exclusivity, aesthetics. In that order.

In my personal opinion, there isn't enough difference between individual shots on golf courses to warrant a ratings difference of a Doak 10 to Doak 5. Or in this case, #2 vs. #192 on a magazine list. Aesthetical and location differences, however, more than warrant that difference. Don't confuse that to mean that ground contours are irrelevant.

I could write a paragraph or two on this very subject, as I think the nebulous "shot values" quotient used by some lists is ridiculous. A high fade hit around a tree on a mom and pop farm course is the same high fade used to get to the back right pin on #14 at Augusta.

Ben

In general, I agree with you.  Often times, the main difference between good and great is a sense of place or grandeur with nuts and bolts hole quality taking a back seat.  I would say reputation, exclusivity and setting can easily make up 3 of five points between courses.  But then, kit must be remembered that the D Scale is meant to be  a sliding scale for recommending courses to see so why shouldn't reputation, setting and exclusivity make up a big reason to see a course?  

Ciao

Sean, I fear you have been spending too much time with Sheehy.   What's next - photographs of your lunch?

Responses to this thread continue to blow me away and fly in the face of long-standing conventional wisdon on GCA.  I thought it was all about the architecture.   Dang it - 14 years down the drain.

Bogey

[Ben Sims]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Thanks in advance.

Bogey

Bogey,

Ocean, exclusivity, aesthetics. In that order.

In my personal opinion, there isn't enough difference between individual shots on golf courses to warrant a ratings difference of a Doak 10 to Doak 5. Or in this case, #2 vs. #192 on a magazine list. Aesthetical and location differences, however, more than warrant that difference. Don't confuse that to mean that ground contours are irrelevant.

I could write a paragraph or two on this very subject, as I think the nebulous "shot values" quotient used by some lists is ridiculous. A high fade hit around a tree on a mom and pop farm course is the same high fade used to get to the back right pin on #14 at Augusta.

Ben

In general, I agree with you.  Often times, the main difference between good and great is a sense of place or grandeur with nuts and bolts hole quality taking a back seat.  I would say reputation, exclusivity and setting can easily make up 3 of five points between courses.  But then, kit must be remembered that the D Scale is meant to be  a sliding scale for recommending courses to see so why shouldn't reputation, setting and exclusivity make up a big reason to see a course?  

Ciao

Sean,

Indeed, I think Doak scale itself isn't a rating criteria in the same way that a collection of numbered scores in a magazine is a rating criteria. It's a scale created by a person to highlight--or not--those courses that are architecturally significant and worth one's time. When viewed in that light there are some aspects other than strategy and the movement of the ground that will merit consideration. In Tom's case, I'm sure he still considers the aforementioned aspects more highly than most, but even the Doak scale isn't immune to a view like those found on the inward one-shotters at Cypress.

That said, this thread's premise isn't about the Doak scale and I made a mistake in mentioning it in my earlier response to Bogey. What I should have said is that on the particular rating in question (#2 vs. #192 GW Classic), the difference in my mind is probably 90% attributable to the ocean, exclusivity, and aesthetics (of a sand-based seaside course). I don't think the ratings system used to determine those rankings can distinctly identify just the differences in the shots/strategy between the two courses.

I feel like Bogey has fooled us all and we're making his point for him.

[K Rafkin]

Ultimately you're not really asking for a comparison between Cypress Point and CC of Troy, but rather a commentary on the rating system. 

Every subjective list of course rankings fails to mention their "secret criteria" for ranking a course.  The overall design of the course becomes perhaps the third most important element in ranking tailing the courses fame level, and exclusivity.  I've never seen an objective list that simply ranks courses based of their overall design and how they play.  To give an example I'dm sure we can all agree that Pacific Dunes is an amazing course, but it will never get to ranked on the top of the list with Pine Valley, Augusta, and cypress point simply because it allows access to the public.  If Pacific Dunes was an ultra exclusive private club that "regular" people would never of gotten the chance to see i'm confident that it would be on the first page with the clubs previously mentioned.  Wether these course rankers know it or not they are allowing themselves to be influenced by a "secret criteria" for ranking a course which leads to tainted lists year after year. 

Country Club of Troy is a cool course, but there are lots of cool old courses.  Did you like it better than Glens Falls and Teugega?  I just pick those two because they're more comparable in terms of their present ranking.

Cypress Point is a lot prettier and has the most famous golf hole in the world.

I assume you're talking about 16 which may very well be one of the most awesome holes ever created, but must assuredly not the most famous...

[Jason Thurman]

Mike, I think what you note may simply prove that courses listed rightfully in the top 200 are really, really good.

I haven't played Cypress Point or CC of Troy to know how I would compare them. However, I would probably split 10 rounds 5-5 between Pinehurst No. 2 and Pine Needles. I accept that the former is a considerably "better" course architecturally, and I can accept if someone ranks it 190 spots higher on some ranking list. However, the latter still feels like a special place to me and is one that I wouldn't want to forego the opportunity to play.

Personally, I'm reaching a point where I don't care how much "architectural merit" a course has. All that I really care about is whether I personally like it, and whether I enjoy playing it and want to return. Should I infer from your 5-5 split between the two that you think CC of Troy may have as much "architectural merit" as Cypress Point, or just that you enjoy them both almost equally regardless of architectural merit?

[DMoriarty]

I know nothing about Country Club of Troy and I don't care about the ratings, but I do have some thoughts on why Cypress Point is a much better golf course than all but a relatively small number of golf courses anywhere.  

1. The setting.   Others have mentioned aesthetics, and the aesthetics are unparalleled, and that certainly matters.  But focusing solely on the aesthetics sells CPC short.  To mention just a few examples, the course is seaside, and so it is subjected to seaside winds and weather, and that is a huge plus for golf in my book.  The setting also insures that the course will seldom play the same for day to day or even hour to hour. The course is built on and around sand dunes, the proper setting for golf, so proper turf conditions can be somewhat replicated.  The ground itself is interesting and provides plenty of opportunities for exciting golf course architecture.

2.  The architecture. The course flows over and through these dunes smoothly and seemlessly, so one gets the sense going on an adventure through nature, another big plus by me. The walk is intuitive, easy, and possibly the one of the most most visually spectacular in the world.  The routing takes full advantage of the natural features, creating the type of memorable, exciting and unforgettable shots.  The holes and the greens present tremendous variety.  Every hole has its own distinctive personality, and all present a variety of challenges depending upon the conditions at the time.  The holes fit together cohesively.  Etc.

Is Country Club of Troy seaside?  Is it built on or around giant seaside sand dunes?  Are there constantly changing seaside conditions?  Is the walk one of the most spectacular anywhere?  Does the course offer tremendous variety where each of the holes (and greens) have their own character?  Does the course present shot after shot that the golfer will remember forever?

In short, Cypress is a combination of great golf course architecture in an ideal setting for golf, but the ideal setting goes well beyond the aesthetics.  Some courses built in nice settings don't match it in terms of architecture.   Other courses with great architecture don't match it in terms of the ideal setting for golf.

As for your 5-5 split, if you find ever yourself in a position to pass up 5 rounds at CPC, please send them my way.  

[Brent Hutto]

I think Moriarty has it about right.

I don't know what sort of place CC of Troy might be but if it were exactly like Cypress Point except without the ocean views and the exclusivity it would be one hell of a golf course. Which is another way of saying that hole for hole, shot for shot, I thought Cypress Point held it own with just about any course I've seen. Add in the spectacular setting and CPC is in its own category of excellence but the "shot values" and routing are outstanding on their own merits.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Cypress Point is a lot prettier and has the most famous golf hole in the world.

Really?  In a poll of golfers almost anywhere in the world one of the 17th at Sawgrass, the 12th at Augusta or the Road Hole is going to beat it in a poll, surely?

If you've ever been stuck in an office environment with those lame Successory motivation posters everywhere, you would no doubt agree that #16 at Cypress Point is the most famous hole in the world.

Can't say I've ever seen one with the Road Hole. Maybe one that reads: Anger - "realizing you just put your last ball through the window of a hotel"

[Jason Thurman]

Ultimately you're not really asking for a comparison between Cypress Point and CC of Troy, but rather a commentary on the rating system. 

Every subjective list of course rankings fails to mention their "secret criteria" for ranking a course.  The overall design of the course becomes perhaps the third most important element in ranking tailing the courses fame level, and exclusivity.  I've never seen an objective list that simply ranks courses based of their overall design and how they play.  To give an example I'dm sure we can all agree that Pacific Dunes is an amazing course, but it will never get to ranked on the top of the list with Pine Valley, Augusta, and cypress point simply because it allows access to the public.  If Pacific Dunes was an ultra exclusive private club that "regular" people would never of gotten the chance to see i'm confident that it would be on the first page with the clubs previously mentioned.  Wether these course rankers know it or not they are allowing themselves to be influenced by a "secret criteria" for ranking a course which leads to tainted lists year after year.   

This is a fair criticism of magazine ratings. However, I haven't met a great many individuals, regardless of magazine ratings, who put Pacific Dunes in the Pine Valley and Cypress class either. This includes self-proclaimed "architecturally enlightened" GCA posters. Maybe it's still a 10/10, but how many people who ranked all three in the Whip it Out thread have Pacific Dunes ahead of the other two? I'm guessing it's not a lot of them.

I don't know which of those courses is the best. I just know that the magazine panels aren't any worse at evaluating architecture than anyone else. A quick read through that same Whip it Out thread shows how sadly infrequent it is for a GCAer to rank a course unexpectedly high or low. I don't think most rankings - whether from a magazine or an individual - are driven by architectural merit or even exclusivity at all. They're driven by fame level and reputation. Most of us just rehash slightly different versions of the same list when we rank courses that others have ranked before us. Sometimes I think everyone who loves golf courses must also drive around listening to "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" all the time.

What would an "objective" ranking list even look like? Isn't it impossible to objectively rank an art form?

[DMoriarty]

If you've ever been stuck in an office environment with those lame Successory motivation posters everywhere, you would no doubt agree that #16 at Cypress Point is the most famous hole in the world.

Can't say I've ever seen one with the Road Hole. Maybe one that reads: Anger - "realizing you just put your last ball through the window of a hotel"

Adversity.  Sometimes you just have to say, "WTF? There is a Hotel directly in my line of play."

[Mike Hendren]

Should I infer from your 5-5 split between the two that you think CC of Troy may have as much "architectural merit" as Cypress Point, or just that you enjoy them both almost equally regardless of architectural merit?

Excellent question.  I dunno.  How about this - I simply can't enjoy a course more than I enjoyed Troy, or Teugega, or Glens Falls, or Onondaga or The Yahnandasis, or Fenway - the 6 I played last month.  I wouldn't even begin to argue that they are in the same league with Cypress Point, Shinnecock Hills of The National Golf Links of America, however.   

I appreciate David Moriarty's post above - that's what I was fishing for.  Then again, I think my litmus rebuttal would be a few photographs of the beautiful, simple and hard-to-hit 1st green at Troy. Two possible theories explain my thinking - great golf courses are somehow more difficult for me to love, yet I'm a sucker for the Troy's and Lulu's of the world (I hate to say it but Troy, Teugega and Glens Falls blow Lulu away).  This might be a reflection of my poor to modest game.  Second, and I think this has more merit -  the law of diminishing returns applies to golf courses - a 6 blows away a 3 but some 9's aren't that much better than some 6's.

Also, this is random, but there is a big difference between a Fazio 6 and a Travis 6. 

Now I'm totally confused.

Bogey

[Chris DeToro]

Interesting thread...so if you had one round to play and these were your two choices and you had to draw out of a hat, you would be perfectly satisfied with either one?

[Mike Hendren]

Chris, I'd consider either a treat.  We both know I'm not going to wow anyone in the office, on this website or at a cocktail party with stories of my round at CC of Troy, however. 

Cheers.

Bogey

[Mark Bourgeois]

What ranking are you using? On the 2014 list CC Troy is 164.

But that's neither here nor there as using ordinal numbers to make comparisons is a mug's game. Almost all readers infer a standard allocation of values to lists or rankings, such that gaps in quality from one course to the next one down are standard and unvarying. For example, CPC is 162 units of something better than CC of Troy.

This generally is what magazines want readers to believe because it gives readers a false sense of daylight across courses, which in turn gives readers the illusion that the exercise is justified, that producing the rankings produces meaningful distinctions among the courses ranked. Also, by using ordinal numbers magazines will see changes of magnitued in where courses are positioned in the lists — and if such leaps and drops do not occur to the magazine's satisfaction the criteria can be changed. (Some magazines change the criteria periodically for this or that reason but the result is to create churn and therefore increase interest.)

The cardinal numbers attached to the courses are a much better indicator of what a magazine's panelists think of courses.

Using the 2014 rankings, by the cardinal numbers CPC is 54.18006 percent better than CC of Troy. That IS a significant difference but it's nowhere near as grand as 162 somethings better. 162 sounds like a big number, implying a massive gap of quality; 54.18006 percent...not so much.

Cardinal numbers in rankings have their own issues, namely the criteria used to produce them plus the people applying the criteria, which I suspect is what you're getting at. In which case you should be asking, why is CPC 54.180064 percent better than CC of Troy.

[Chris DeToro]

I've been interested in CC of Troy for some time as well, but definitely would take a round at CPC over it.  There are a ton of cool older courses, but CPC is epic

[Mark Pavy]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Because Golfweek published the list!

Whether you agree or not with Golfweek and the methodology behind the rating is your choice.

@Jason Thurman...I like your question,"Isn't it impossible to objectively rank an art form?".

I do however see merit in understanding how the vast majority of golfers, as a collective, rate holes and courses. Surely this information would be beneficial to course architects and the prosperity of golf.

[MClutterbuck]

You just feel CPC is different. Maybe because I had not seen it on TV other than the odd clip, I have never been more excited in my life about getting to the next tee and discovering what is out there, while enjoying a fair test of golf. Even before you get to see the ocean, the incredible dunes, every bunker, the shaping of each green gets your heart racing. You could eliminate #16 and #17 and still have a top 5 course. Unlike other greats, you can play it year round. Also unlike other greats, a 12 handicapper would enjoy playing CPC every day for the rest of his life.

[Garland Bayley]

Excellent question.  I dunno.  How about this - I simply can't enjoy a course more than I enjoyed Troy, or Teugega, or Glens Falls, or Onondaga or The Yahnandasis, or Fenway - the 6 I played last month. 

Did you feel you were walking on air while playing those? If not, then I suspect there are courses you can enjoy more. Some courses bring an extra dimension of enjoyment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()