Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JC Jones on October 24, 2018, 08:38:09 PM
-
Every generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fishers Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
-
From a distant outsider, I believe the architect of Ballyneal may have had some serious influence on this evolution...
-
Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
Jason, do you think that maybe Fishers did not have enough ballots until 2000? I get your point though.
Tastes have sure changed in the last twenty years. I know mine have. I think we have become more discerning.
-
From a distant outsider, I believe the architect of Ballyneal may have had some serious influence on this evolution...
Is it really evolution?
-
Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
Jason, do you think that maybe Fishers did not have enough ballots until 2000? I get your point though.
Tastes have sure changed in the last twenty years. I know mine have. I think we have become more discerning.
Or, less discerning? Conformity doesn’t necessarily equal discerning...
-
A Jones thread, as opposed to a Jones made it dead thread.
I guess tastes HAVE changed. Never say never, I guess! 😷
-
A Jones thread, as opposed to a Jones made it dead thread.
I guess tastes HAVE changed. Never say never, I guess! 😷
;D :-*
-
Could it be so easy as to answer your question by asking another?; Which generation planted the most trees, and which generation removed the most? Some are enlightened, while others were in the shadows.
-
Edit: on second thought.
P
-
From a distant outsider, I believe the architect of Ballyneal may have had some serious influence on this evolution...
Is it really evolution?
Absolutely!
What courses have been bumped for those that have come in? Can you make a case for their return?
-
Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
Jason:
I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you.
So, let me explain. :D ;)
The two courses that best fit your question are Fishers Island and Crystal Downs. In both cases, the key to their meteoric rise is the same as it is for many new courses: small sample size.
With a new course, the first panelists to visit are those who are that architect's biggest fans. So, the first time the course has enough votes to be ranked, it achieves its peak ranking; then the naysayers come in, and the ranking falls over time. This is the fate of nearly all modern courses in the rankings.
The same thing has happened for Fishers Island and Crystal Downs. For years, they were ignored completely in the rankings. Fishers was very private and didn't welcome panelists at all; they asked GOLF DIGEST not to include them. Crystal Downs was just way off the beaten track, and nobody had told anyone they thought it was great, so panelists didn't go. [The typical scouting report I heard at the best clubs in Detroit on my way there, in 1982: "I've heard it's good."] So none of the two-handicap, tough-but-fair crowd of GOLF DIGEST voters had weighed in and voted against them for being short and/or quirky.
Then, suddenly, both shot into the other golf magazine's ranking with its much smaller committee. And who went to them first to see if they belonged? The Raynor fans and the MacKenzie fans. The typical 2-handicap GOLF DIGEST panelist didn't go until the point they were ranked very highly, at which point he's less likely to stick his neck out and disagree, for fear of being judged "outside the normal range" and dropped from the panel.
Small sample size gets you the high ranking.
There are courses in the other magazine's rankings that manage all of this to the nth degree ... they won't let a panelist even stop by unless the place is looking perfect and they can wine and dine them. But beyond that, they are paying someone $$$ to advise them which panelists will be amenable to giving their course a favorable rating. That's too sleazy for me, which is why I'm not involved in the rankings anymore.
-
Could it be so easy as to answer your question by asking another?; Which generation planted the most trees, and which generation removed the most? Some are enlightened, while others were in the shadows.
You answered a question about generational taste with the answer of generational taste. #failsauce
-
Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
Jason:
I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you.
So, let me explain. :D ;)
The two courses that best fit your question are Fishers Island and Crystal Downs. In both cases, the key to their meteoric rise is the same as it is for many new courses: small sample size.
With a new course, the first panelists to visit are those who are that architect's biggest fans. So, the first time the course has enough votes to be ranked, it achieves its peak ranking; then the naysayers come in, and the ranking falls over time. This is the fate of nearly all modern courses in the rankings.
The same thing has happened for Fishers Island and Crystal Downs. For years, they were ignored completely in the rankings. Fishers was very private and didn't welcome panelists at all; they asked GOLF DIGEST not to include them. Crystal Downs was just way off the beaten track, and nobody had told anyone they thought it was great, so panelists didn't go. [The typical scouting report I heard at the best clubs in Detroit on my way there, in 1982: "I've heard it's good."] So none of the two-handicap, tough-but-fair crowd of GOLF DIGEST voters had weighed in and voted against them for being short and/or quirky.
Then, suddenly, both shot into the other golf magazine's ranking with its much smaller committee. And who went to them first to see if they belonged? The Raynor fans and the MacKenzie fans. The typical 2-handicap GOLF DIGEST panelist didn't go until the point they were ranked very highly, at which point he's less likely to stick his neck out and disagree, for fear of being judged "outside the normal range" and dropped from the panel.
Small sample size gets you the high ranking.
There are courses in the other magazine's rankings that manage all of this to the nth degree ... they won't let a panelist even stop by unless the place is looking perfect and they can wine and dine them. But beyond that, they are paying someone $$$ to advise them which panelists will be amenable to giving their course a favorable rating. That's too sleazy for me, which is why I'm not involved in the rankings anymore.
The problem is that your explanation doesn’t work because there were other Mackenzie and MacRaynor courses rated highly before Fishers and the Downs (unrelatedly the latter has gotten much better due to recently implemented maintenance practices ;) ) so I doubt those fans just started traveling in the late 90s...(esp the Mackenzie folks)
In addition, the anti-golf digest narrative is played out as all rankings (including your own in your books) have head scratchers.
Lastly, I can think of one modern that has climbed the rankings each year (didn’t peak in its first year) and has done so largely by engaging in a sleazy Rater vetting process.
In sum, I don’t buy your answer and I don’t buy that there is 1, let alone 30 courses in any top 100 ranking better than a couple of the courses that were in the rankings for 40 years and have recently been bounced.
-
The high-flying 2-handicap-tough- but-fair-crowd just got older, and now as 12 handicappers are all about fun. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But no one has noticed because, as Arbs would say: the retail golfer votes with his pocketbook -- and the very epitome of modern tastes, Mammoth Dunes, has been a smashing success.
P
-
The high-flying 2-handicap-tough- but-fair-crowd just got older, and now as 12 handicappers are all about fun. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But no one has noticed because, as Arbs would say: the retail golfer votes with his pocketbook -- and the very epitome of modern tastes, Mammoth Dunes, has been a smashing success.
P
Huh? Mammoth Dunes is a smashing success insomuch as the whole resort is. Most prefer SV to MD. But, I know that crushes your whole narrative lately so keep on banging the (perceived) anti-trend drum....
-
Stop being so silly, will ya? And maybe drop the smartest guy in the room BS too. Mammoth Dunes, Sand Valley, same thing - and to your point, they debuted on the modern top 100 lists for exactly the same reasons and through exactly the same mechanisms that explain & drive the courses you're crowing about jumping up in the rankings. And you of all people should understand that, playing nothing but the best/top lists, including SV.
You asked a question, posters like me are tossing out possible answers (including aging rating panelists going for something different as their skills deteriorate). But if you're already *sure* of the answer, ie *your* answer/agenda, then stop wasting everyone's time.
P
-
Stop being so silly, will ya? And maybe drop the smartest guy in the room BS too. Mammoth Dunes, Sand Valley, same thing - and to your point, they debuted on the modern top 100 lists for exactly the same reasons and through exactly the same mechanisms that explain & drive the courses you're crowing about jumping up in the rankings. And you of all people should understand that, playing nothing but the best/top lists, including SV.
P
Mammoth Dunes and Sand Valley are not the same thing but you’d have to play them to know that. Speaking of, I play and love several courses not in the top 100 but most importantly, I play outside of my own zip code and don’t just spend my time posting on every thread on GCA despite knowledge or real curiosity.
You haven’t really provided an answer or any real value. Doak’s answer was interesting but not unworthy of challenge.
-
We all know the reasons why several courses were non-existent on the top 100 lists until GCA came into existence. It's been addressed here many times, by posters much more knowledgeable than me, from a variety of angles over dozens of threads (including my own, wondering & worrying about the modern day power of consensus/uniformity of opinion). And since you're smart and well read, you know those 'answers' better than I do. So what are you actually 'asking'. Sure, I'm banging a drum - because as I often make explicit, I don't like the current (seeming) trend in gca, for a variety of reasons. But you've been beating a drum too lately, and hard, for reasons that I can't make out.
P
-
The problem is the your explanation doesn’t work because there were other Mackenzie and MacRaynor courses rated highly before Fishers and the Downs (unrelatedly the latter has gotten much better due to recently implemented maintenance practices ;) ) so I doubt those fans just started traveling in the late 90s...(esp the Mackenzie folks)
In addition, the anti-golf digest narrative is played out as all rankings (including your own in your books) have head scratchers.
In sum, I don’t buy your answer and I don’t buy that there is 1, let alone 30 courses in any top 100 ranking better than a couple of the courses that were in the rankings for 40 years and have recently been bounced.
I have no idea what courses you are talking about in your last paragraph and I won't try to guess.
I don't think you're understanding my response in your first paragraph. Sure, there were plenty of Raynor and MacKenzie fans before 1990. Plus a lot of guys who didn't like their work, because most of those courses are only 6500 yards, and some have crazy greens or blind shots.
Some of the latter had gone to Camargo and Shoreacres and The Valley Club and Pasatiempo before 1990, but none of them had gone to Fishers or to Crystal Downs. When those courses appeared on the GM list and some GD raters decided to go there, it was the Raynor and MacKenzie fans first, so their average vote was much higher than Shoreacres or The Valley Club where the votes from the non-fans dragged down the averages. And it's the average vote that counts. The Raynor fan might be rating Fishers and Shoreacres equal, but if Shoreacres also has some bad votes from non-fans, it doesn't place nearly as high.
I agree with you that all lists have head-scratchers ... probably yours too, except you don't publish it and nobody would read it anyway. But I do think the GOLF Magazine list when it went to 100 courses had a lot of influence on the GOLF DIGEST list by the mechanism described above. Before that there was no way a course was going to rise from nowhere to the top 50 ... their system wouldn't allow it, because they weren't even putting numbers on ballots until 1985.
-
In sum, I don’t buy your answer and I don’t buy that there is 1, let alone 30 courses in any top 100 ranking better than a couple of the courses that were in the rankings for 40 years and have recently been bounced.
Which courses do you have in mind, i.e. courses that used to sit in the top 100, got bounced recently, but deserve to still be there?
-
Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
A. In general, the golfers of today are right.
1. Raters are more widely traveled.
2. Raters are more sophisticated and knowledgeable.
3. Larger sample size of raters suggests a better overall ranking.
B. Modern conditioning affects the ratings. Thoughtful restorations and renovations increases competition for the top 100 spots.
1. I played Shoreacres last fall. I had a wonderful time. The golf course was in spectacular condition, with greens rolling at 13 feet. The course is built on a flat plain, with some interesting "internal contouring" that is well used in the course design. However, I am not convinced that Shoreacres would be ranked in the top 30 in the U.S. (on most or all lists) had it not been for the expensive and exquisite conditioning. If the greens rolled at 9 feet, it wouldn't be as popular. By the way, I pulled my November 1993 Golf Digest out in case I needed to use it. Shoreacres is not in the GD top 100 in 1987, 1989, 1991 or 1993. And there probably goes my chances to ever play there again.
C. There are a lot of appealing new golf courses. Many are built in pristine native environments and give the player the elation of playing in the great outdoors.
D. The principles that we as a group generally embrace — ample width, challenging green sites, strategic bunker placement, minimalist construction, the lack of artificial water hazards (especially ponds), few if any planted trees — in essence, a return to Golden Age construction methods, still apply. The standard argument that golf course architecture and construction lost its way for decades, perhaps in an effort to create something new, or to maximize profitability, is a legitimate argument that has yet to be seriously refuted.
I'll close with a funny scene from the movie "A Hard Day's Night", in which George Harrison visits a "taste maker" who wants his opinion about his newest clothing line. To the best of my knowledge, Roger Ebert and I are the only two people who think "A Hard Day's Night" is one of the greatest movies every made. It probably wouldn't even make the GD Top 100. Huge oversight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREeweMWTZk&t
"The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."
-
I have no idea what courses you are talking about in your last paragraph and I won't try to guess.
I don't think you're understanding my response in your first paragraph. Sure, there were plenty of Raynor and MacKenzie fans before 1990. Plus a lot of guys who didn't like their work, because most of those courses are only 6500 yards, and some have crazy greens or blind shots.
Some of the latter had gone to Camargo and Shoreacres and The Valley Club and Pasatiempo before 1990, but none of them had gone to Fishers or to Crystal Downs. When those courses appeared on the GM list and some GD raters decided to go there, it was the Raynor and MacKenzie fans first, so their average vote was much higher than Shoreacres or The Valley Club where the votes from the non-fans dragged down the averages. And it's the average vote that counts. The Raynor fan might be rating Fishers and Shoreacres equal, but if Shoreacres also has some bad votes from non-fans, it doesn't place nearly as high.
I agree with you that all lists have head-scratchers ... probably yours too, except you don't publish it and nobody would read it anyway. But I do think the GOLF Magazine list when it went to 100 courses had a lot of influence on the GOLF DIGEST list by the mechanism described above. Before that there was no way a course was going to rise from nowhere to the top 50 ... their system wouldn't allow it, because they weren't even putting numbers on ballots until 1985.
I think there can be more reasons why a place like Shoreacres (both prior to and after the recent work and change in maintenance practices, though it is much better since as certain architectural aspects are highlighted by its current state) could be outside the Top 100 than just the total yardage of the course.
In any event, for a guy who claims the rankings of today aren’t as good as some of the rankings of the past (mainly GM) you sure sound like you like the rankings of today quite a bit and even sound like you think they are closer to getting it right than before.
Nonetheless, since nobody cares about my rankings, can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.
-
Everg generation fancies itself the enlightened one. Looking at the top 100 rankings, several courses were non existent until (incidentally) after GCA came to existence. The most striking example is Fisher’s Island, which didn’t appear in the Golf Digest Top 100 until 2000 and has acheived top 10 status in meteoric fashion.
So, who is right? The golfers of the 60s-90s, or the golfers of today? How could previous generations have been so wrong as to miss a seemingly clear top 10 course?
A. In general, the golfers of today are right.
1. Raters are more widely traveled.
2. Raters are more sophisticated and knowledgeable.
3. Larger sample size of raters suggests a better overall ranking.
B. Modern conditioning affects the ratings. Thoughtful restorations and renovations increases competition for the top 100 spots.
1. I played Shoreacres last fall. I had a wonderful time. The golf course was in spectacular condition, with greens rolling at 13 feet. The course is built on a flat plain, with some interesting "internal contouring" that is well used in the course design. However, I am not convinced that Shoreacres would be ranked in the top 30 in the U.S. (on most or all lists) had it not been for the expensive and exquisite conditioning. If the greens rolled at 9 feet, it wouldn't be as popular. By the way, I pulled my November 1993 Golf Digest out in case I needed to use it. Shoreacres is not in the GD top 100 in 1987, 1989, 1991 or 1993. And there probably goes my chances to ever play there again.
C. There are a lot of appealing new golf courses. Many are built in pristine native environments and give the player the elation of playing in the great outdoors.
D. The principles that we as a group generally embrace — ample width, challenging green sites, strategic bunker placement, minimalist construction, the lack of artificial water hazards (especially ponds), few if any planted trees — in essence, a return to Golden Age construction methods, still apply. The standard argument that golf course architecture and construction lost its way for decades, perhaps in an effort to create something new, or to maximize profitability, is a legitimate argument that has yet to be seriously refuted.
I'll close with a funny scene from the movie "A Hard Day's Night", in which George Harrison visits a "taste maker" who wants his opinion about his newest clothing line. To the best of my knowledge, Roger Ebert and I are the only two people who think "A Hard Day's Night" is one of the greatest movies every made. It probably wouldn't even make the GD Top 100. Huge oversight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREeweMWTZk&t (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QREeweMWTZk&t)
"The new thing is to care passionately and be right wing."
I think those are interesting points and I agree that the current state of Shoreacres makes it more fun to play. Much more so than prior conditions. But, and perhaps a little to your point, that doesn’t make the relatively uninteresting land more interesting.
I think the assumption here is that I’m trying to rally for the Nicklaus and Fazio and Jones courses of the dark ages. I’m actually more interested in the golden age courses that stuck out in those years as shining examples of consistency and undeniable greatness that are no longer regarded as such.
-
JC
Generational taste is just that. What comes around, goes around. I fully expect to see a backlash against the current trends in my life time....its natural. Its all well and good for these far flung courses in beautiful settings which cost a bomb to play, get there and stay there, I can't help thinking that its a very wrong PR turn for golf in these times of carbon footprints and energy conservation. As renovations of old line "city" clubs continue by the same guys building these all world masterpieces, I expect to see these places become more liked and respected; enough to replace some of what currently sits in the top 100. Not that it matters because I think the top 100 will become top 250. There is nowhere near enough quality differential between a huge percentage of clubs to bother with 100 cut off. We are already seeing this happen as more and more forgotten courses are rediscovered and properly appreciated.
Ciao
-
I’m actually more interested in the golden age courses that stuck out in those years as shining examples of consistency and undeniable greatness that are no longer regarded as such.
Specifically which courses?
-
can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.
I honestly don't pay that much attention to exactly what has happened in the rankings over the past 5-10 years. In general, championship courses like Baltusrol and Olympic and Oak Hill and Inverness and Cherry Hills, and even Oakland Hills slip down the list when they're not hosting championships, and at some point they panic that they're no longer in the discussion and do a major facelift. But they were all somewhat overrated because they WERE championship sites, so I think they're just finding their true place without that attention.
By the same token, I don't think that there should be ten Raynor courses ranked ahead of them. The panels today are more skewed toward "panelists" and great players who would tell us whether those older championship sites still possess something special and should still be included. (I used to get ballots from Nicklaus, Norman, Crenshaw, Player and Ballesteros, not to mention guys like Jay Siegel and John Harris; they're mostly gone now in favor of Bill Schulz's posse.)
Just as with championship pedigree, there are way too many panelists who are impressed by the designer label, and that tends to hurt Ross courses (because there are so many of them) and those with a more complicated design origin (like Medinah or Olympic).
-
I’m actually more interested in the golden age courses that stuck out in those years as shining examples of consistency and undeniable greatness that are no longer regarded as such.
Specifically which courses?
Some of the biggest sliders over the last 20 years include Canterbury, Colonial, and Baltimore.
-
Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers. Five Farms, I can't explain.
-
can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.
I honestly don't pay that much attention to exactly what has happened in the rankings over the past 5-10 years. In general, championship courses like Baltusrol and Olympic and Oak Hill and Inverness and Cherry Hills, and even Oakland Hills slip down the list when they're not hosting championships, and at some point they panic that they're no longer in the discussion and do a major facelift. But they were all somewhat overrated because they WERE championship sites, so I think they're just finding their true place without that attention.
By the same token, I don't think that there should be ten Raynor courses ranked ahead of them. The panels today are more skewed toward "panelists" and great players who would tell us whether those older championship sites still possess something special and should still be included. (I used to get ballots from Nicklaus, Norman, Crenshaw, Player and Ballesteros, not to mention guys like Jay Siegel and John Harris; they're mostly gone now in favor of Bill Schulz's posse.)
Just as with championship pedigree, there are way too many panelists who are impressed by the designer label, and that tends to hurt Ross courses (because there are so many of them) and those with a more complicated design origin (like Medinah or Olympic).
I couldn't agree more that the branding is huge with this generation of raters. Just because Yale and Chicago are amazing doesn't mean Fairfield or worse yet, Midland Hills, belong in any discussion.
-
can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.
I honestly don't pay that much attention to exactly what has happened in the rankings over the past 5-10 years. In general, championship courses like Baltusrol and Olympic and Oak Hill and Inverness and Cherry Hills, and even Oakland Hills slip down the list when they're not hosting championships, and at some point they panic that they're no longer in the discussion and do a major facelift. But they were all somewhat overrated because they WERE championship sites, so I think they're just finding their true place without that attention.
By the same token, I don't think that there should be ten Raynor courses ranked ahead of them. The panels today are more skewed toward "panelists" and great players who would tell us whether those older championship sites still possess something special and should still be included. (I used to get ballots from Nicklaus, Norman, Crenshaw, Player and Ballesteros, not to mention guys like Jay Siegel and John Harris; they're mostly gone now in favor of Bill Schulz's posse.)
Just as with championship pedigree, there are way too many panelists who are impressed by the designer label, and that tends to hurt Ross courses (because there are so many of them) and those with a more complicated design origin (like Medinah or Olympic).
I couldn't agree more that the branding is huge with this generation of raters. Just because Yale and Chicago are amazing doesn't mean Fairfield or worse yet, Midland Hills, belong in any discussion.
JC & Tom,
Those are interesting points. I do think there is something in the 'branding' as you say. My guess is that courses with a name brand architect are seeing rises because there is more discussion/information/content about the merits of these courses. Everyone knows what makes a Raynor course interesting, so they are able to stand on the tee and without hesitation say which template they are playing and judge it against the land it's on / other versions.
With other non-name brand courses, because there is less pre-existing knowledge for what makes it great, my guess is panellists will default to a few other criteria: visual appeal and conditioning.
Just a thought.
-
If gca is an art as much as it is a science, and if our experience and subsequent judgement/rating of a course is more subjective than it is objective, and when many of the very top new-builds are public (not private) resorts and '2nd tier' privates are scrambling to stay relevant & viable, and if the ultimate measuring stick of the success of such golf facilities is a full tee-sheet or healthy members roll, then all the dynamics of copy-cat creativity and consensus opinion come forcefully into play -- especially in a time when the print & online social media environment is so tenuous that it is in absolutely no one's self interest to challenge the dominant trend/status quo or to risk writing reasoned critiques & criticisms instead of people-and-client-pleasing PR.
I can't imagine anyone writing 'The Confidential Guide' these days.
P
-
I can't imagine anyone writing 'The Confidential Guide' these days.
P
Huh?
https://www.renaissancegolf.com/203/toms-books (https://www.renaissancegolf.com/203/toms-books)
-
I took a brief tour through the GD Top 100 history.
Golden Age Courses That Fell Off and Now Back On:
Camargo
Golden Age That Were On At Least A Few Times and Fell Off:
Baltimore
Bel Air
Bob O Link
California Golf
Canterbury
Colonial
Holston Hills
Cascades
North Shore
Pasatiempo
Ridgewood
Salem
Sea Island
Wannamoisett
Yale
Modern That Fell Off and Now Back On:
Oak Tree
Moderns On for At Least A Few Times and Now Off (not a comprehensive list because starting noting halfway through):
Kemper Lakes
La Costa
Mauna Kea
Meadow Brook
NCR
Old Warson
Pine Tree
Cog Hill
Point of Woods
Sage Valley
Sand Ridge
Sycamore Hills
Torrey Pines South
Wild Dunes
Wilmington
Some facts:
Fishers Island was on early: from 1969 to 1975 and then off for 15 years.
NGLA did not appear until 1985.
Shoreacres did not appear until 2001
The Valley Club first appeared in 1995 and has been off on on since then.
It will be interesting to see if some of the Golden Age that fell off re-appear following relatively recent renovations. I have not played most of these courses, but the observation that conditioning has a big impact seems right.
Can always count on a rankings thread to prompt a lot of discussion even though a lot of us (me included) profess to not pay attention to them.
Ira
-
I agree with Sean A's earlier post that IF there is a future reexamination of this generations GCA tastes and decision making, the trend most exposed to second guessing will be the explosion of remote destination golf resorts. If oil hits $500 a barrel two decades from now, and flying to Barnbougle or Bandon Dunes costs 10x what it does today, I could see my sons generation tearing us up on their message boards for building such unsustainable playgrounds.
A somewhat similar historical marker (I think) were the Estate courses that were wiped out by the great depression.
Switching to a separate line of thinking - as an accountant, I'd be more interested in the pricing of greens fees over long periods of time, rather than the subjective nature of ratings panelists, as a measure of a courses popularity. Particularly in Scotland, where many of the new courses are purposely being built near hubs of already existing popular tourist courses, it seems like the paying customer will tell us over the long term which are the better courses. Will Trump Aberdeen be able to sustain a greens fee that's 2x Royal Aberdeen and 3x Cruden Bay? Will Castle Stuart be able to command 3x Boat of Garden or Nairn?
My final point, on social media's influence: the last few years have been disappointing to me that in most cases social media has increased the group think on a select few "darlings" , rather than provide better leads on undiscovered or forgotten gems. I don't really feel like I need any more drone flyovers of Elie, Sweetens Cove or The Cradle at this point. But maybe that's as much my own fault for who I've chosen to follow or not follow for new info. I do think lots of GCA posters, and Tom's updated CD's, are still among my best resources for good leads on new things to go see.
Michael
-
1. I played Shoreacres last fall. I had a wonderful time. The golf course was in spectacular condition, with greens rolling at 13 feet. The course is built on a flat plain, with some interesting "internal contouring" that is well used in the course design. However, I am not convinced that Shoreacres would be ranked in the top 30 in the U.S. (on most or all lists) had it not been for the expensive and exquisite conditioning. If the greens rolled at 9 feet, it wouldn't be as popular. By the way, I pulled my November 1993 Golf Digest out in case I needed to use it. Shoreacres is not in the GD top 100 in 1987, 1989, 1991 or 1993. And there probably goes my chances to ever play there again.
John, I also agreed with most of what you said. However, just to touch on your Shoreacres comments, you suggested it was exquisite conditioning and fast greens. While I can't read into what you mean when you say exquisite conditions I would only ad that what has really made Shoreacres great again and immensely increased the level of fun to be had there is the fact that Brian their SI together with TD's advice did several basic things to bring back the strategy and angles. This included increases in width by like 15 yds on either side of the fairways. 30 yds more width!!! On top of that they changed the lush conditions and firmed everything up. This brought back the ground game which really didn't exist there. They also greatly increased the amount of short grass and I believe reclaimed some of the greens back. Yes the club likes the greens rolling fast. Though that's not IMO what accounted for the improvements and return to Golden Age principles. I think the course would be awesome at 9 stimp. I just brought a group of 5 really good friends of mine, all Shoreacres members to Ireland on a trip and to a man these guys would also love the course rolling at 9 if all other things would be the same as now.
I'm sure there is a faction that want it running too fast...ie 12-13.
-
JC:
Here's your answer.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/A1%20Album/Screen%20Shot%202018-10-25%20at%208.19.31%20AM_zpsphat8qkh.png)
Sven
-
Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers. Five Farms, I can't explain.
Tom, do any of these courses make your top 100 (or so) list? You can probably back in to the answer by using your Doak scores for each one.
-
If oil hits $500 a barrel two decades from now, and flying to Barnbougle or Bandon Dunes costs 10x what it does today, I could see my sons generation tearing us up on their message boards for building such unsustainable playgrounds.
Michael
Barnbougle was built for golfers in Melbourne and Sydney; it's a one-hour flight and a drive for them. It's completely unsustainable for Americans to go there, but less than 1,000/yr do so.
-
then all the dynamics of copy-cat creativity and consensus opinion come forcefully into play --
I can't imagine anyone writing 'The Confidential Guide' these days.
P
Well someone's gotta build some things worth copy-catting, and somebody's gotta tell everyone what to think.
-
JC,
In the spirit of Terry's post, let me also congratulate on taking things a different direction! ;D
As to your OP, there is no right and wrong for this stuff. There are only trends, tastes, and the soup of the day kinds of things going on. Think about how many top notch courses existed before 1990, (in thier various forms restored or not), and then think about how many exceptional courses have been built in the last 3 decades. They can't all be in the top 100...some really really good to great courses are naturally going to find themselves on the outside looking in.
-
Golden Age That Were On At Least A Few Times and Fell Off:
Baltimore
Bel Air
Bob O Link
California Golf
Canterbury
Colonial
Holston Hills
Cascades
North Shore
Pasatiempo
Ridgewood
Salem
Sea Island
Wannamoisett
Yale
Key fact: only one or two of these have done a highly-visible restoration in recent years. The courses that have passed them by all have done so.
Other key fact: who does the restoration has a lot of impact on the panelists. To take just one example, I've heard nothing but good things about Keith Foster's work at Five Farms and Moraine, but it didn't move the needle with panelists as much as renovations by Gil or by me. Whether that says anything about the quality of the work, or just the place we were doing them, I can't say.
I do think the architects who are moving bunkers around in their so-called restorations are tainting the original brand, and of course that's a negative if the original brand is much stronger than the restorer's.
P.S. If you had to bet on one from the above list re-emerging in 2019, would you bet against George Thomas and me?
-
P.S. If you had to bet on one from the above list re-emerging in 2019, would you bet against George Thomas and me?
Nope.
-
Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers. Five Farms, I can't explain.
Tom, do any of these courses make your top 100 (or so) list? You can probably back in to the answer by using your Doak scores for each one.
Places like HarbourTown certainly did in the past but I’m not sure where he stands on them now. And, it doesn’t really fit the idea of not having a named designer.
-
Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers. Five Farms, I can't explain.
I think Herbert Strong has an interesting enough body of work not to be deemed a “no name”. Places like Engineers, Inwood, Metropolis as well as Canterbury and some others should have him in the mix. You can say some of his work might have been too severe but never boring or unoriginal.
-
...except you don't publish it and nobody would read it anyway. ...
;D
-
Golden Age That Were On At Least A Few Times and Fell Off:
Baltimore
Bel Air
Bob O Link
California Golf
Canterbury
Colonial
Holston Hills
Cascades
North Shore
Pasatiempo
Ridgewood
Salem
Sea Island
Wannamoisett
Yale
Key fact: only one or two of these have done a highly-visible restoration in recent years. The courses that have passed them by all have done so.
Other key fact: who does the restoration has a lot of impact on the panelists. To take just one example, I've heard nothing but good things about Keith Foster's work at Five Farms and Moraine, but it didn't move the needle with panelists as much as renovations by Gil or by me. Whether that says anything about the quality of the work, or just the place we were doing them, I can't say.
I do think the architects who are moving bunkers around in their so-called restorations are tainting the original brand, and of course that's a negative if the original brand is much stronger than the restorer's.
P.S. If you had to bet on one from the above list re-emerging in 2019, would you bet against George Thomas and me?
I have seen Foster's work at Philadelphia Cricket; it is terrific. Neither there nor Moraine were on any but the really old GD Toughest Lists so they have a long way to climb. Baltimore Five Farms was a mainstay until 2005 so there could be a lot to your point about the "fame" of who does the restoration.
By the way, I would not have bet against MacKenzie and you, but Pasatiempo has not made it back into the Top 100 although it is coming real close. :)
Ira
-
"Well someone's gotta build some things worth copy-catting, and somebody's gotta tell everyone what to think."
Yes - and in any generation (and any industry) the former are rare and the latter are legion - but it does seem that in the
current media environment few are taking the Woodward & Berstein approach and many more are going the Robin Leach 'Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous' route.
P
-
it does seem that in the current media environment few are taking the Woodward & Bernstein approach and many more are going the Robin Leach 'Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous' route.
Even Woodward, sadly :P
-
Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers. Five Farms, I can't explain.
I think Herbert Strong has an interesting enough body of work not to be deemed a “no name”. Places like Engineers, Inwood, Metropolis as well as Canterbury and some others should have him in the mix. You can say some of his work might have been too severe but never boring or unoriginal.
I agree. Actually, I just finished writing a piece for The Met Golfer on Herbert Strong, which will be in their next issue. It follows up my pieces on Emmet and Travis as "overlooked" designers. Willie Park, Jr. will be next. But, gut check, how many courses do those guys have in the GOLF DIGEST list??
To me it would make a lot more sense if more designers were represented in the lists, providing more variety, but it's been going the opposite direction since the courses started being ranked in order. Panelists vote for name brands, and few want to risk being the guy to stick his neck out for Herbert Strong. Especially since they can't tell familiar stories about this templates and his career path and look knowledgable about the subject, which is after all the main point for many panelists.
-
Tom, do any of these courses make your top 100 (or so) list? You can probably back in to the answer by using your Doak scores for each one.
Places like HarbourTown certainly did in the past but I’m not sure where he stands on them now. And, it doesn’t really fit the idea of not having a named designer.
I have not rated it quite as highly as I used to, ever since I listened to Mr. Dye's inside-baseball critiques of his own work there and how impractical some of it was. But I still love it, because it's so different.
I never really thought Canterbury or Colonial was a top-100 course. Not because of the designers ... I just thought both courses were too straightforward, and resting too much on their tournament history. It really set back Colonial's reputation when Annika Sorenstam decided that was the course that gave her the best chance of competing with the guys. That should have been a point in its favor, really, but for most people it emphasized how its reputation for difficulty had evaporated.
Now that I think about Five Farms, really, it's just been crowded out by the people who insist on having both courses at Winged Foot and both courses at Baltusrol rated highly, and by Somerset Hills overtaking it in the pantheon of Tillinghast's best work. In too many panelists' minds, there's sort of an unofficial quota of how many courses each of us can have out of the 100, so they start making sub-lists of the five best Tillinghast courses and the eight best Ross courses and so on. [And of course everyone gets one or two favorite designers who are exempt from quotas and can keep adding to their list, like Bill Coore for Mr. Schulz.] Tillie's quota has probably had to give up a spot to all the new courses that have been built in recent years.
-
Doesn't the branding argument skew the rankings from both directions?
i.e., not only are the in vogue architects (C&C, Doak, Hanse, as well as ODGs like Raynor) getting the benefit of their reputation, but courses by certain other architects/firms (Nicklaus, Palmer, RTJ, Fazio) are downgraded just because it's become fashionable to dismiss their work as boring and uninspired. It sometimes seems as if praising a course designed by one of them puts you at risk of losing your respected status.
Personally, I do think C&C and Doak (not to mention people like Ross) tend to build more interesting courses on average than people like Nicklaus and Palmer. But I also think that there are courses out there by the latter that could be exactly the same and would get more praise if raters thought they were designed by one of the former, and vice versa.
-
Personally, I do think C&C and Doak (not to mention people like Ross) tend to build more interesting courses on average than people like Nicklaus and Palmer. But I also think that there are courses out there by the latter that could be exactly the same and would get more praise if raters thought they were designed by one of the former, and vice versa.
I think your first case is absolutely true ... if someone said I had designed the original course at Dismal River, instead of Jack, the reception for it would probably have been different. [Starting with the fact that I might have gagged to death.] It might not have gotten ranked higher - it might have even gotten ranked lower with people insisting I had gone crazy and too far, which they'll never say about Jack. But the conversation would definitely have been different.
I'm not so sure about the flip side. Arnold Palmer's company gets to take credit for which of my courses, and it slips in the rankings as a result?
-
I have unfortunately never had the pleasure of playing one of your courses, so as far as your designs are concerned I'm only making judgments off photos and impressions. I'm hoping I'll get to Streamsong at some point, since it's the only one remotely near me (other than Heathland at Myrtle Beach, which is about an hour from a family beach house -- but I'm sure you wouldn't consider that course a shining example of your work). Regardless, it means I can't really use any of your courses in a comparison.
I could use Dormie Club as an example, though (although I don't think it's ranked in the top 100 in any magazines). I love that course, but I don't think it would be discussed nearly as much here or in general if it was a Palmer or Fazio design. There are people who would dismiss it out of hand just because of the name on the scorecard. I suppose that may only work on some of the lesser known designs, because I'm not sure a course like Pacific Dunes would drop significantly in the rankings if Nicklaus' name was on it.
-
John, I also agreed with most of what you said. However, just to touch on your Shoreacres comments, you suggested it was exquisite conditioning and fast greens. While I can't read into what you mean when you say exquisite conditions I would only and that what has really made Shoreacres great again and immensely increased the level of fun to be had there is the fact that Brian their SI together with TD's advice did several basic things to bring back the strategy and angles. This included increases in width by like 15 yds on either side of the fairways. 30 yds more width!!! On top of that they changed the lush conditions and firmed everything up. This brought back the ground game which really didn't exist there. They also greatly increased the amount of short grass and I believe reclaimed some of the greens back. Yes the club likes the greens rolling fast. Though that's not IMO what accounted for the improvements and return to Golden Age principles. I think the course would be awesome at 9 stimp. I just brought a group of 5 really good friends of mine, all Shoreacres members to Ireland on a trip and to a man these guys would also love the course rolling at 9 if all other things would be the same as now.
I'm sure there is a faction that want it running too fast...ie 12-13.
I thought the extremely fast playing conditions (especially early in the morning) were compelling. The 2nd hole is a short par 4, with a burn-type creek immediately behind the green. For me it was a unique design, and attempting to get my wedge approach close to a back pin was one of the most intriguing shots of the day. Even putting to the back pin from the middle of the green was kind of scary.
Course conditioning was superb in all regards, with wide fairways and short rough that provided a variety of lies, but rarely if ever requiring an overly defensive play such as a pitchout. Fairways were running hot, too. Bunkering was distinctive and very strategic.
I'm not sure it deserves to be a top 30 or top 40 U.S. course. Maybe; it was a wonderful day. It's hard to judge with only one round. In addition to a brand name architect, the course may also benefit from exclusivity bias. For me it would rate either 8 or 9 on the Doak scale, but my preferences might favor Bandon Trails, a more beautiful nature walk with excellent variety.
Mostly I wanted to acknowledge and appreciate your response, David. Thanks for the comments. Nice to have 5 close friends who are members at this fine club. While playing Shoreacres, one can hear recruits going through basic training at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station across the street. My Dad went through boot camp at Great Lakes starting in either August or September, 1945, fortunate to graduate from high school in 1945 and enlist shortly after V-J Day.
A few more thoughts tomorrow. It's a good thread for me.