Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mike Hendren on October 20, 2014, 11:29:31 AM
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.0.html) 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?
-
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."
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Doesn't 16 truly send it to another level? I would be interested to hear what others think about your contention that it retains top five status without 16 and 17. I won't render an opinion because I haven't played it.
-
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.
Doesn't 16 truly send it to another level? I would be interested to hear what others think about your contention that it retains top five status without 16 and 17. I won't render an opinion because I haven't played it.
Let me add to the discussion then. I dont think 16 is in my top 5 holes of the course. It is fun to play a few times. But if I was a member, and played CPC every day, I think 16 would probably be one of my least favorite holes. I cant be adamant about it because I do not play it every day, but it is not the fairest test out there. I prefer 15 to 16 without any question.
-
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
Bogey, why should I change my stripes now? Its never all about architecture for me. If it was, I would never pay to play great courses. I have forever said declaring courses as good, better, best is a mugs game. Just stick with what makes you happy and all will end well. There isn't enough architecture to separate the vast majority of fine courses. It comes down to what people like and people seem to like CPC an awful lot.
Ciao
-
Here ya go, lads: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53009.0.html
You need to get down to Reply #38, the one with the dog's crotch, to get to the actual photo tour. The first tharty-seven are pre-game.
I know where Boges is coming from and I can't wait to see where he's headed. His voice is refreshing and should be held in great regard on this here site.
-
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
Why is it "epic?"
Respectfully,
Bogey
-
Bogey:
Hopefully this is not off topic. I think it relates to the general topic of the gap between the very top courses and those held at the next level.
I thought about this issue in a different context after playing Lawsonia Links yesterday which reminded me a bit of Crystal Downs. Why is Crystal Downs considered one of the best courses in the country while Lawsonia has fallen out of Golfweek's Top 100 classic courses?
The easy answer involves, exclusivity and views. If I were to make the case for architecture based criteria for differentiating between the two, I would come up with the following:
- Par 4 variety - Lawsonia's par 4's are quite good but does not have the variety and quality of short par fours that exist at Crystal Downs.
- Wow Factor - the striking aspect of Lawsonia consists of the bunkers and sharp slopes off the greens. Crystal Downs includes a number of truly unique holes I have not seen elsewhere.
- Bunkers - The bunkers at both places are very unique but I find the Crystal Downs bunkers to provide more varied and interesting choices of recovery shots. The sloped scabs at Crystal Downs are very interesting hazards with opportunities for glory and doom. Lawsonie's bunkers offer more doom than glory.
- Fairway contours - the fairways at Lawsonia are rolling with plenty of interest but do not compare to the humps and bumps on some of the holes at Crystal Downs.
- Head to head - while a subjective and artificial exercise, I do find that head to head counting of preferred holes acts as a check on overall impressions and biases. I came up with an 11-7 count in favor of CD:
1- CD; 2 LL; 3.CD; 4. CD; 5. CD; 6. LL; 7 CD; 8 CD; 9 LL; 10 LL; 11 CD; 12 CD; 13 CD; 14 LL; 15 CD; 16 LL; 17 CD; 18 LL
Many of these choices are close. I would consider holes 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 18 to all be very close choices . 8 of those went to CD meaning that the tally is within the margin of error for a reverse result.
I do not think any of these factors can justify such a wide disparity in course rankings. In fact, I could argue for a reverse result based on the landscape, which at Lawsonia involves terrain that provides plenty of interest yet is more pleasant to walk than that at Crystal Downs. I could argue that I prefer Lawsonia's greens which provide plenty of interest and challenge with less severity than than those at Crystal Downs.
Maybe it is arbitrary.
CD from the air http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/crystaldownscc/aerial.htm#
LL from the air http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lawsonialinkscourse/aerial.htm#
-
To piggyback off of Jason's post I would offer the disparity in GW's most current Top 100 rankings between #10 Fishers Island and #38 Yale. Although the difference in ranking is less than either example and only twenty eight slots I think without LI Sound as a backdrop Yale and Fishers are neck and neck. Both courses are comprised of templates and neither is short on scale or dramatic shots. The OCEAN and the wind clearly land the knockout punch for Fishers.
-
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
+1
100% agreed about the two "6" s comment, but then many wouldn't give them both "6"s
One of my criticisms of the CG was the amazing # of "6"s given to very ordinary (though expensive) modern golf courses by signature architects
-
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.
Doesn't 16 truly send it to another level? I would be interested to hear what others think about your contention that it retains top five status without 16 and 17. I won't render an opinion because I haven't played it.
Let me add to the discussion then. I dont think 16 is in my top 5 holes of the course. It is fun to play a few times. But if I was a member, and played CPC every day, I think 16 would probably be one of my least favorite holes. I cant be adamant about it because I do not play it every day, but it is not the fairest test out there. I prefer 15 to 16 without any question.
M:
I think I agree with your observation about #16 at Cypress with one build: it might not be the hole one would enjoy playing everyday, but it is the hole one would always enjoy bringing guests to play.
-
Troy I'm sure was docked 50 spots for historical inaccuracy, noting on their website that the place was designed by noted American architect Walter Travis, who of course was not American.
-
Jason,
I realize your analysis is more than HTH but your margin of victory, in percentage terms, actually is wider than the gap between GW's scores for the two courses*. My point being, the GW score gap between those courses is not as wide as many seem to infer from the difference in their rankings, as is also the case for CPC v the Trojan.
*GW's 2014 rankings do not publish scores for the second hundred so I took the score of the 104th-ranked course in the 2013 rankings.
-
Mark
It doesn't matter as to Jason's point....I think. We are all saying the same thing, there are 250 courses in top 100.
Ciao
-
Mostly yes. A finer point is that people wrongly ascribe legitimacy to the "ranking numbers". Much confusion results.
-
Mark, yes of course, the numbers are meaningless, maybe worse, idiotic.
Ciao
-
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
Why is it "epic?"
Respectfully,
Bogey
this isn't a slight on Troy at all, but CP is a perfect 10. The terrain, the routing, the playability and then layer on the dramatic views with the cliffs and the ocean.
I agree with the premise of your argument and think that had you picked a lesser course than CPC that the point would have been blurred a bit
-
Jason,
I realize your analysis is more than HTH but your margin of victory, in percentage terms, actually is wider than the gap between GW's scores for the two courses*. My point being, the GW score gap between those courses is not as wide as many seem to infer from the difference in their rankings, as is also the case for CPC v the Trojan.
*GW's 2014 rankings do not publish scores for the second hundred so I took the score of the 104th-ranked course in the 2013 rankings.
I think you misinterpret the numbers in the GW rankings Mark. The numbers in the golf week system, while not exactly the Doak scale, do follow a somewhat analogous pattern. There are almost no 10s, a few 9's a few more 8's and lots of 7's. LL would be in the 7 range (of which there are probably 100 courses fairly close to that number) and Crystal Downs would be closer to a 9 (of which there are very few) so the rankings differ very significantly I would guess that LL is ranked more closely to the 500th ranked course than it is to Crystal Downs.
-
My personal assessment of playing a course is to ask myself if the course would still be special if it was maintained and accessible like an average or above average muni. There are many really nice private clubs that I have played that would be nothing more than a decent and fun muni given that criteria. Exclusivity and conditioning goes a long way in the way people rate courses. There also seems to be a branding effect that goes on once a course gets locked in the upper echelon.
-
Troy I'm sure was docked 50 spots for historical inaccuracy, noting on their website that the place was designed by noted American architect Walter Travis, who of course was not American.
Tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure. Although Travis was Australian, he became a US citizen, right? That would make him an American.
-
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.
I am in complete agreement. Have never played CCoT, but I'd gladly take one round at CPC over five at the former (sorry, I've played a bunch of excellent courses and if I miss one more, my life is still pretty good; it would be a tragedy to miss one opportunity to play CPC, feeling strongly that the title "The Sistine Chapel of Golf" might understate its standing).
Inscribed on a plaque near the 17th tee is a quote from former member Clarke W. Bearden (died in 1998) "Gentlemen, I suggest that we pause for a moment, admire the beautiful view, count our blessings. Very few of us are privileged to pass this way."). I've experienced several moments in my life which aroused these sentiments, but in golf, never stronger than at CPC.
As David articulates well, CPC is an ideal, so rare in that it was somehow executed. It is a near-perfect club course, not of "championship" caliber necessarily as is PBGL nearby. It is not nearly as "private" as many much lesser courses (some limited unaccompanied play is allowed, at least at one time) and doesn't seem to have the affectations or pretenses of any number of upscale clubs in the U.S. In many regards it reminds me of some of the clubs around London, very comfortable in its own skin and welcoming of strangers who appreciate its special place.
BTW, I prefer 15 to 16, the latter which would be much improved IMO if the club would follow the USGA guidelines on marking boundaries. The only weak hole in the course is #10; I have no issues with #18, the superb green complex on high ground by the clubhouse more than overcoming a restricted driving area (which can be negotiated with a long iron or fairway metal).
-
Mark
It doesn't matter as to Jason's point....I think. We are all saying the same thing, there are 250 courses in top 100.
Ciao
200 of which were designed by Tom Fazio.
-
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
Why is it "epic?"
Respectfully,
Bogey
this isn't a slight on Troy at all, but CP is a perfect 10. The terrain, the routing, the playability and then layer on the dramatic views with the cliffs and the ocean.
I agree with the premise of your argument and think that had you picked a lesser course than CPC that the point would have been blurred a bit
Chris
Does a "10" have a 1st hole where you hit a blind shot over a hedge 50 yards in front of you, and a 17th and 18th where you drive into a forest of trees, and greens that are, on average, only average in terms of interest and quality?
Rich
PS--great experiences, though!
Rich
-
I've also not played Country Club of Troy however, I would probably agree with David as well and on top of that add to what makes Cypress special.
1. Mackenzie's artistic hand.
2. Perfect ground and turf.
3. 3 distinctly different environments to work with. First 6 holes being forest/parkland type holes, second 6 being links (links like) running through the open dunes and last 6 being ocean or cliff courses.
4. 18 memorable holes all completely different, no two tee shots alike.
5. Historical significance.
6. Location, location, location.
I personally think there is a huge gap between the top courses and the rest. In most cases this does also have to do with things like turf, whether they had sand based ground to work with and settings. I also believe that architects probably feel the same way although there is always an exception to the rule. You don't often hear about Doak, Coore Crenshaw, etc all vying for that one course located in the midwest flatlands on a swampy site. They are holding out for the best properties where they can make the greatest impact. I don't really buy into it even being realistic to think anyone will ever judge 100% purely on architecture because the playing field will never be perfectly fair given the variation in quality of land to build on.
If we move this to include the world top rather than the US alone. My argument would be that 95% of all parkland, clay based ground courses would drop in the rankings below the Top 100 UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia etc courses build in the dunes on sand based ground. That would really turn everything upside down.
-
greens that are, on average, only average in terms of interest and quality?
Rich
I always wanted to understand this - given the greatness of the course how great are the greens themselves? An if they are not - how much of a detractor is it?
A few of those at CC of T are out of this world.
In the end, the experience at CPC is tough to beat for any course let alone a little old CC in the rolling hills of upstate New Your on a glorious clear fall day!!
-
Travis didn't do bunkers with an artistic flair. If you had given Travis the property on which CPC rests, we would not be talking about the bunkering. Likewise, if AlMac or Strantz had been given the CCT property, we would be talking about the bunkering.
This I will say about Troy, in a non-golf way: It has the best, serpentine entrance road I've ever seen. It is as extensive as Dunes Club (New Buffalo) is brief.
-
Jason,
I realize your analysis is more than HTH but your margin of victory, in percentage terms, actually is wider than the gap between GW's scores for the two courses*. My point being, the GW score gap between those courses is not as wide as many seem to infer from the difference in their rankings, as is also the case for CPC v the Trojan.
*GW's 2014 rankings do not publish scores for the second hundred so I took the score of the 104th-ranked course in the 2013 rankings.
I think you misinterpret the numbers in the GW rankings Mark. The numbers in the golf week system, while not exactly the Doak scale, do follow a somewhat analogous pattern. There are almost no 10s, a few 9's a few more 8's and lots of 7's. LL would be in the 7 range (of which there are probably 100 courses fairly close to that number) and Crystal Downs would be closer to a 9 (of which there are very few) so the rankings differ very significantly I would guess that LL is ranked more closely to the 500th ranked course than it is to Crystal Downs.
Jason, just because there are fewer courses in one category than the next one(s) down does not mean the scale employed is nonlinear. Do you know if GW defines their scale as logarithmic or otherwise states that an 8, for example, is 3x or 10x or 100x etc better than a 7? If so, then you have a point.
If not, and I suspect this is the likely case, then the magazine is just "forcing" a statistical distribution of some kind onto the results. Simply because there are fewer 9s than 7s does not mean the scale is nonlinear. If this explanation is the correct one then one can compare scores directly without resorting to a transformation or an added interpretation.
-
It was inevitable that this thread evolve into a ranking discussion - that's fine and to be expected. David's post #12 got me to thinking. As I understand it Golfweek has defined criteria for rating courses with each assigned a rating of 1 to 10. The fact of the matter is that Cypress Point Club could well warrant the assignment of a "20" for such criteria as: 1) walk in the park; 2) routing; 3) conditioning and, more importantly ecology; and 4) variety and memorability of par 3's.
Arguably, a quick look at the other criteria might yield a push with the likes of CC of Troy, but the off-the-charts superlatives of a Cypress Point Club carry the day and warrant the premium.
I do like Sean's Top 250 theory (provided Lederach isn't in it ;)). IMHO #250 is plenty good enough. Anything better is just an embarrassment of riches.
Bogey