Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: PCCraig on October 12, 2020, 05:48:53 PM

Title: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: PCCraig on October 12, 2020, 05:48:53 PM
Anyone know when the 2020/2021 list is scheduled to be released?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Adam G on October 12, 2020, 09:16:35 PM
On one of the golf.com podcasts released September 1, Ran said "60 days." So I am guessing close to the beginning of next month.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 13, 2020, 01:16:23 AM
Any day now, I think, since it's been final for more than a month.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jeff Schley on October 18, 2020, 12:35:31 PM
Don't see it on GM website but saw a copy of the list. As with the world list contains some of the big risers and some surprises.
Big risersSurprisesQuite a few new additions which signifies the shift in the panel makeup.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Daryl David on October 18, 2020, 07:35:44 PM
Don't see it on GM website but saw a copy of the list. As with the world list contains some of the big risers and some surprises.
Big risers
  • 23 Somerset Hills up 15 spots
  • 36 Sleepy Hollow up 60 spots!!!!!
  • 43 Myopia Hunt up 20 spots
  • 63 The Creek up 28 spots
  • 65 Moraine up 24 spots
  • 70 Gozzer Ranch up 25 spots
Surprises
  • Ohoopee debuting at 32!  Haven't been but pretty high debut for sure.
  • Valley Club at Montecito dropping 7 spots to 55? ??? ?
  • Sand Valley dropping 39 spots to 91. People change their minds or what?
  • Love Lawsonia Links debuts at 87
  • Bel Air moves up to 68 which is 12 spots. Finally getting enough ratings to move post reno.
  • Calusa Pines drops to 98, I think this course is underrated big time per these rankings, same for Plainfield at 57
  • Both Streamsongs drop 30 plus spots.
  • Omissions: Olympia Fields, Beverly in future years, Dismal River (red), Austin GC (all my opinion obviously)
Quite a few new additions which signifies the shift in the panel makeup.


Some huge movements. Will be interesting to compare to the GolfWeek list. I suspect they are moving closer to alignment.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 18, 2020, 08:58:23 PM
Sleepy Hollow makes a huge move and well deserved. Does it slip in ahead of Winged Foot East on the new list? :o
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 18, 2020, 10:04:33 PM
No Olympia Fields  ???  I will say though that the list is starting to look more like my own Top 100 “favorites” list but what is it that GM is striving to identify?



Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 18, 2020, 10:59:45 PM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Drew Harvie on October 18, 2020, 11:15:22 PM
I don't have the magazine but I managed to get most of the list jotted down from screenshots. Not sure on 94, 99 and a bit shaky if 100 is Cherry Hills or not... screenshot got blurry


1. Pine Valley
2. Cypress Point
3. Shinnecock Hills
4. National Golf Links
5. Oakmont
6. Augusta National
7. Sand Hills
8. Merion
9. Fishers Island
10. Pebble
11. No. 2
12. LACC
13. Friar’s Head
14. Chicago
15. Winged Foot (West)
16. Crystal Downs
17. Riv
18. Prairie Dunes
19. Pacific Dunes
20. Seminole
21. SFGC
22. Brookline
23. Somerset
24. Shoreacres
25. Garden City
26. Camargo
27. Cal Club
28. Southern Hills
29. Maidstone
30. Bethpage
31. Ocean Course
32. Ohoopee
33. Inverness
34. Ballyneal
35. Oakland Hills
36. Sleepy Hollow
37. Peachtree
38. Bandon Trails
39. Quaker
40. Oak Hill (East)
41. Old Town
42. The Golf Club
43. Myopia
44. Bandon
45. Sawgrass
46. Winged Foot (East)
47. Yeamans Hall
48. Cattle Company
49. Whistling Straits
50. Wade Hampton
51. Muirfield Village
52. Old Sandwich
53. Eastward Ho!
54. Olympic Club
55. Valley Club
56. Piping Rock
57. Plainfield
58. Kittansett
59. Pasatiempo
60. Pikewood
61. Gamble Sands
62. The Creek
63. Honours
64. Essex County
65. Moraine
66. Old Mac
67. Monterey Peninsula (Shore)
68. Bel-Air
69. Baltusrol (Lower)
70. Gozzer
71. Milwaukee
72. Congaree
73. Harbour Town
74. Ridgewood
75. Five Farms
76. White Bear
77. Streamsong Red
78. Saint Louis
79. Kingsley Club
80. Sheep Ranch
81. Shadow Creek
82. Prairie Club (Dunes)
83. Hollywood
84. Newport
85. Monterey Peninsula (Dunes)
86. Glen Falls
87. Lawsonia
88. Wolf Point Ranch
89. Aronimink
90. Mountain Ridge
91. Sand Valley
92. No. 4
93. Palmetto
94. ?
95. Streamsong Blue
96. Mammoth Dunes
97. Sebonack
98. Calusa Pines
99. ?
100. Cherry Hills (I think)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: John Kirk on October 18, 2020, 11:54:16 PM
Bandon Dunes has five courses in the top 100 in the country.

Regarding Sleepy Hollow, I've only played SH and WF-E once each, but I think it's fair to say I liked Sleepy Hollow better.  The course takes you on a very interesting journey around its property.  Maybe WF-E has better "shot values" but I didn't see it in one round of play.

Cal Club now at #27.  I thought it was a bit too highly ranked when it was forty-something the last time.  Maybe my personal bias, but the Cattle Company is way more beautiful and dramatic, and fun to be on and play.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on October 19, 2020, 02:09:37 AM
Boston GC always seems to miss out. I haven’t seen enough on this list to know better but it still surprises me.


Is it just one of those clubs that flys below the radar? I’d be surprised if the golf course isn’t better than 20 or 30 on here.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Gallant on October 19, 2020, 06:12:08 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Tom,


Why silly? In 1991 Baltusrol Lower was ranked 15 while NGLA was ranked 26 on the same list. Surely lists are nothing more than a reflection of tastes of the moment? Not sure any list from the major publications are inherently any more or less silly than another, unless there are other motives for constructing the lists.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Michael Pelliccione on October 19, 2020, 06:46:48 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.




Tom, why do you think SHCC isn't worthy of its spot?  1980 isn't 2020.  Find me another course that should replace it...   I think you may be the first person to every tell me that SHCC isn't deserving of top 25 consideration.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Steve Lapper on October 19, 2020, 07:29:56 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Tom,


  Please do tell us what is silly about this particular list! Give us details. Inquiring minds want to know.


  Is it that quite a few great golden age designs have been wonderfully restored (many by you and your talented associates) and received elevated recognition, thus eclipsing yours or other's original modern designs?


  What you once described as "Shabby Chic" is finally near perfectly presented and meticulously maintained and it's a shock to you to have received a higher level of recognition??


   All lists are subjective and flawed, and this one is no exception, but maybe...just maybe, the current composition of panelists believed it was the architectural gem you yourself have described it as.


   Don't you keep "Top Ten" and "Best Holes" lists on your own web site? Would a client who doesn't have a course or a hole listed think these are silly lists?  Who knows, but singling out a single course that is universally recognized as a brilliant and daring golden age design seems sillier to me (and apparently a few others here as well).
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 19, 2020, 07:40:49 AM
Bandon Dunes has five courses in the top 100 in the country.

Regarding Sleepy Hollow, I've only played SH and WF-E once each, but I think it's fair to say I liked Sleepy Hollow better.  The course takes you on a very interesting journey around its property.  Maybe WF-E has better "shot values" but I didn't see it in one round of play.

Cal Club now at #27.  I thought it was a bit too highly ranked when it was forty-something the last time.  Maybe my personal bias, but the Cattle Company is way more beautiful and dramatic, and fun to be on and play.


If I only had one play in Westchester County it would be Sleepy Hollow.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 19, 2020, 08:54:04 AM
Bandon Dunes has five courses in the top 100 in the country.

Regarding Sleepy Hollow, I've only played SH and WF-E once each, but I think it's fair to say I liked Sleepy Hollow better.  The course takes you on a very interesting journey around its property.  Maybe WF-E has better "shot values" but I didn't see it in one round of play.


If I only had one play in Westchester County it would be Sleepy Hollow.


No Yale love on this list?
Yale>>>>SH
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Eric LeFante on October 19, 2020, 08:54:24 AM


1. Pine Valley
2. Cypress Point
3. Shinnecock Hills
4. National Golf Links
5. Oakmont
6. Augusta National
7. Sand Hills
8. Merion
9. Fishers Island
10. Pebble
11. No. 2
12. LACC
13. Friar’s Head
14. Chicago
15. Winged Foot (West)
16. Crystal Downs
17. Riv
18. Prairie Dunes
19. Pacific Dunes
20. Seminole
21. SFGC
22. Brookline
23. Somerset
24. Shoreacres
25. Garden City
26. Camargo
27. Cal Club
28. Southern Hills
29. Maidstone
30. Bethpage
31. Ocean Course
32. Ohoopee
33. Inverness
34. Ballyneal
35. Oakland Hills
36. Sleepy Hollow
37. Peachtree
38. Bandon Trails
39. Quaker
40. Oak Hill (East)
41. Old Town
42. The Golf Club
43. Myopia
44. Bandon
45. Sawgrass
46. Winged Foot (East)
47. Yeamans Hall
48. Cattle Company
49. Whistling Straits
50. Wade Hampton
51. Muirfield Village
52. Old Sandwich
53. Eastward Ho!
54. Olympic Club
55. Valley Club
56. Piping Rock
57. Plainfield
58. Kittansett
59. Pasatiempo
60. Pikewood
61. Gamble Sands
62. The Creek
63. Honours
64. Essex County
65. Moraine
66. Old Mac
67. Monterey Peninsula (Shore)
68. Bel-Air
69. Baltusrol (Lower)
70. Gozzer
71. Milwaukee
72. Congaree
73. Harbour Town
74. Ridgewood
75. Five Farms
76. White Bear
77. Streamsong Red
78. Saint Louis
79. Kingsley Club
80. Sheep Ranch
81. Shadow Creek
82. Prairie Club (Dunes)
83. Hollywood
84. Newport
85. Monterey Peninsula (Dunes)
86. Glen Falls
87. Lawsonia
88. Wolf Point Ranch
89. Aronimink
90. Mountain Ridge
91. Sand Valley
92. No. 4
93. Palmetto
94. Nanea
95. Streamsong Blue
96. Mammoth Dunes
97. Sebonack
98. Calusa Pines
99. Baltusrol Upper
100. Cherry Hills




I added 94 and 99 to the above list.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 19, 2020, 09:08:39 AM
Bandon Dunes has five courses in the top 100 in the country.

Regarding Sleepy Hollow, I've only played SH and WF-E once each, but I think it's fair to say I liked Sleepy Hollow better.  The course takes you on a very interesting journey around its property.  Maybe WF-E has better "shot values" but I didn't see it in one round of play.


If I only had one play in Westchester County it would be Sleepy Hollow.


No Yale love on this list?
Yale>>>>SH


 :o :o :o
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 19, 2020, 09:11:10 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Interesting that 2 new members to the panel and one longtime member who is a NJ person would take issue with your comment as if you arent permitted to have your own subjective opinion on the course, its ranking, and the list, generally.


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jimmy Muratt on October 19, 2020, 09:23:10 AM

No Yale love on this list?
Yale>>>>SH

Perhaps the university should realize what an architectural gem they have and actually take some of their $30 billion endowment to take care of the course.  Having just reopened from nearly a year being closed doesn't leave it in the best spot to make a case to be in the top 100.   Go play Yale in it's current state and play Sleepy Hollow and let's then see if you feel the same.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Gallant on October 19, 2020, 09:25:23 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Interesting that 2 new members to the panel and one longtime member who is a NJ person would take issue with your comment as if you arent permitted to have your own subjective opinion on the course, its ranking, and the list, generally.


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


JC,


No issue with his comments on the ranking - more on the ‘starting’ to get silly as if this list is inherently more or less silly than any other. Curious if he thinks the lists are getting more silly - why. That’s all. I’m all for differing opinions.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 19, 2020, 09:29:09 AM

No Yale love on this list?
Yale>>>>SH

Perhaps the university should realize what an architectural gem they have and actually take some of their $30 billion endowment to take care of the course.  Having just reopened from nearly a year being closed doesn't leave it in the best spot to make a case to be in the top 100.   Go play Yale in it's current state and play Sleepy Hollow and let's then see if you feel the same.


The course was in the best shape in years prior to the pandemic. The “bones” of Yale are the equal or better of Sleepy Hollow.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Cal Seifert on October 19, 2020, 09:35:15 AM
Didn't the same magazine recently rank Yale as top 100 in the world?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jimmy Muratt on October 19, 2020, 09:39:34 AM
The course was in the best shape in years prior to the pandemic. The “bones” of Yale are the equal or better of Sleepy Hollow.

Rankings aren't created based on "bones" or potential.  That would make for an interesting list, however.   Courses like Sleepy Hollow and Old Town always had great potential but weren't ranked in the top 50 until they were meticulously restored to highlight their original architecture.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 19, 2020, 09:41:01 AM
The course was in the best shape in years prior to the pandemic. The “bones” of Yale are the equal or better of Sleepy Hollow.

Rankings aren't created based on "bones" or potential.  That would make for an interesting list, however.   Courses like Sleepy Hollow and Old Town always had great potential but weren't ranked in the top 50 until they were meticulously restored to highlight their original architecture.


When is the last time you played?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joel_Stewart on October 19, 2020, 09:46:39 AM
Olympic Club hits a new low falling to 54.


St Louis CC is a new addition at 78. The club hasn't addressed its tree problem and it's rough lines are terrible so it's a bit of a surprise.


Glad to see Hollywood make the list at 83.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 19, 2020, 09:48:31 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Interesting that 2 new members to the panel and one longtime member who is a NJ person would take issue with your comment as if you arent permitted to have your own subjective opinion on the course, its ranking, and the list, generally.


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


JC,


No issue with his comments on the ranking - more on the ‘starting’ to get silly as if this list is inherently more or less silly than any other. Curious if he thinks the lists are getting more silly - why. That’s all. I’m all for differing opinions.


I agree.  They are ALL silly!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan_Callahan on October 19, 2020, 09:59:02 AM
I think Old Sandwich is a great course. Absolutely one of the best in New England. However, I would not rank it higher than Kittansett, Essex and Newport. I wouldn't rank it higher than Boston Golf Club, which didn't even make the list.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Michael Pelliccione on October 19, 2020, 10:18:23 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Interesting that 2 new members to the panel and one longtime member who is a NJ person would take issue with your comment as if you arent permitted to have your own subjective opinion on the course, its ranking, and the list, generally.


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.



JC, being "new" doesn't make us less qualified to point out a flaw statement.  I don't take offense to when people back up their comments with valid reasoning.  Golf rankings are subjective as can be.   To "laugh" at some clubs hard work, dedication and desire to get better over +40 year period only get to rewarded at #23 isn’t “silly.”   Would expect better that’s all! 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 19, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
How can the list be credible if Lehigh CC isn’t on it  ;D


Maybe they should list the courses alphabetically?  But then there would be less to argue about and that would defeat one of the main purposes of these rankings!


Use them to learn about a few courses you might not have played and then go play them and see what you think.  That is what I do. 


And by the way, even someone like Ron Whitten would tell you that his own Top 100 list is very different from Golf Digest’s.  He would also probably tell you that is own list is the best  ;D   Of course he would be wrong because my list is the correct one  ;)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jimmy Muratt on October 19, 2020, 10:26:59 AM
I think Old Sandwich is a great course. Absolutely one of the best in New England. However, I would not rank it higher than Kittansett, Essex and Newport. I wouldn't rank it higher than Boston Golf Club, which didn't even make the list.

The Old Sandwich vs Boston GC is an interesting debate which has gone on since they both opened.   I'm a big fan of both courses and think they are both worthy of top 100 status.   They are quite different, however.   I find the greens and green surrounds at Old Sandwich to be some of C&C's best.   The greens are the true defense of the course as it's pretty open off of the tee.   In my opinion, Boston GC is definitely more demanding.   You can easily make a big number on a number of holes.  I enjoy that test and sense of reward when you play well there.   Some knock the 18th hole as a par 3 finisher but I have no issue with that, especially for a private club.

I would give the edge to OS but BGC is certainly deserving to be in the top 100.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 19, 2020, 10:42:48 AM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.


Interesting that 2 new members to the panel and one longtime member who is a NJ person would take issue with your comment as if you arent permitted to have your own subjective opinion on the course, its ranking, and the list, generally.


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.



JC, being "new" doesn't make us less qualified to point out a flaw statement.  I don't take offense to when people back up their comments with valid reasoning.  Golf rankings are subjective as can be.   To "laugh" at some clubs hard work, dedication and desire to get better over +40 year period only get to rewarded at #23 isn’t “silly.”   Would expect better that’s all! 


I absolutely was not talking about your qualifications.  You've seen a bunch, no doubt youre qualified.  I was speaking more to the palace intrigue.


All accounts have Somerset Hills as fantastic.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 19, 2020, 11:15:01 AM

No Yale love on this list?
Yale>>>>SH

Perhaps the university should realize what an architectural gem they have and actually take some of their $30 billion endowment to take care of the course.  Having just reopened from nearly a year being closed doesn't leave it in the best spot to make a case to be in the top 100.   Go play Yale in it's current state and play Sleepy Hollow and let's then see if you feel the same.


conditioning eh?
down that hole again
nice Estate/Clubhouse at SH for sure
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 19, 2020, 12:10:54 PM
The primary problem with the GOLF Magazine US Top 100 is that it is NOT a collection of the 100 best courses in the United States.  Much of that has to do with systemic issues that can be classified as both unique and not unique to the GOLF magazine panel.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 19, 2020, 12:15:40 PM
JC,
What does the list represent?  I think it is a nice list of exceptional golf courses.  I don't particularly care about the order they are placed in. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kyle Casella on October 19, 2020, 12:22:59 PM
I think Old Sandwich is a great course. Absolutely one of the best in New England. However, I would not rank it higher than Kittansett, Essex and Newport. I wouldn't rank it higher than Boston Golf Club, which didn't even make the list.


The "order" in which the New England courses fall is quite interesting to me. Possibly worth it's own thread, but I agree with you. I love Eastward Ho!...it's one of the most fun golf courses I have ever seen and the setting is otherworldly but I am scratching my head a little bit here with how it falls in relation to the other courses in the region. The absence of BGC is criminal.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Drew Harvie on October 19, 2020, 12:40:32 PM
Nothing against Pinehurst No. 4 but it's not a Top 100 golf course in the US.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 19, 2020, 12:43:58 PM
JC,
What does the list represent?  I think it is a nice list of exceptional golf courses.  I don't particularly care about the order they are placed in.


Its a list generated by a primarily closed and myopic feedback loop with very few disruptions, even fewer of which (due to its construct) that can be internalized.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 19, 2020, 12:50:49 PM
Nothing against Pinehurst No. 4 but it's not a Top 100 golf course in the US.


no doubt
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Adam G on October 19, 2020, 01:18:00 PM

Could not agree more. It's my favorite in New England. I get that people can disagree about the ordering -- but having TCC, Myopia, Old Sandwich, Eastward Ho, Kittanesett, and Essex all above 64 and BGC nowhere to be found is totally baffling.

The absence of BGC is criminal.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Sean Leary on October 19, 2020, 01:52:44 PM
Gamble Sands making it is a surprise to me, despite being a huge fan...Just don't think there is enough interest in and around the greens to make a list like this, but that's just me..


I'm trying to figure out which old stand bys didn't make the list....
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: George Smiltins on October 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

The panel for the world top 100 is listed here. Is this the same group doing the top 100 USA? Maybe they added some more US based individuals and took out the non-US folks?

https://golf.com/travel/meet-golfs-top-100-course-raters/ (https://golf.com/travel/meet-golfs-top-100-course-raters/)


Either way, with such a small number of panelists (and not all of them are on the road actively seeing courses the majority of the year) there are certainly going to be a few that slip through the cracks. According to his IG account, Lukas Michel is currently tearing through the US in his gap between the US open and the Masters but I don't think this is the norm. I'm going to guess and say there is a chance Ashley Mayo and Chick Wagner haven't played Boston Golf Club.   
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Brent Carlson on October 19, 2020, 02:01:29 PM
That's a nice jump for Inverness, all the way up to #33.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 19, 2020, 02:09:37 PM
love Gamble Sands, great job by DMK
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 19, 2020, 02:41:45 PM
George,
I know Chick Wagner well, played a far amount of golf with him.  He has played everywhere.  I would be surprised if he didn't play BGC. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ryan Hillenbrand on October 19, 2020, 03:41:52 PM
Nothing against Pinehurst No. 4 but it's not a Top 100 golf course in the US.


no doubt


I third.


Nice move by St. Louis CC. I was there last week and they've cleared out a lot of treed areas. Not sure how recently Joel was there but its getting better, though more could be removed. Other than Greenbrier, is there another American CB MacDonald original left off the list? Cant think of one


I'm surprised Cedar Rapids didn't make the cut
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 19, 2020, 04:04:37 PM
I am not sure who is on the panel for the US rankings, but it would be fun to see each panelist's rankings. It would not tax the website in the least.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: corey miller on October 19, 2020, 04:05:43 PM



Rankings and Club Affiliations.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joe Zucker on October 19, 2020, 04:22:01 PM
I'll agree with the comments for Pinehurst #4 and Gamble Sands.  Both great courses, but hard to see them as top 100.  The one that stands out for me is Moraine.  It is a great course and looks beautiful, but I found the greens to lack interest and internal contours to be considered this great. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 19, 2020, 05:04:35 PM
I'll agree with the comments for Pinehurst #4 and Gamble Sands.  Both great courses, but hard to see them as top 100.  The one that stands out for me is Moraine.  It is a great course and looks beautiful, but I found the greens to lack interest and internal contours to be considered this great.


If PH4 were not located at Pinehurst, it would be viewed as a very good but not great resort course.


Ira



Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Hendren on October 19, 2020, 05:52:18 PM
Is there more than one Mountain Ridge? Heck! Tegugea’s better in my book much less Holston Hills.  Surely Pat’s arms are getting weary from pulling those strings.


I must be a dolt as I will never understand The Ocean Course, Brandon Dunes and Peachtree being top 50, though all are excellent.


Surely Doak got Glens Falls on the list by sheer force of personality. ;)


The biggest indictment of the list?  Even I have played 31 of them!


Bogues
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Rob Marshall on October 19, 2020, 06:09:33 PM
I was shocked to see Glens Falls. Good for them. Nice to see a small town “local” club make the list.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Matt MacIver on October 19, 2020, 09:09:58 PM
Hot take: #2 stinks compared to new #4. At least #4 has elevation change and water hazards, and I don’t find the greens on #2 all that interesting. No (material) wind in PH. #2 greens, hard and fast, yes. I would play 4v2 probably 7/3 or maybe 6/4 but it’s not overweighted materially to #2 based on Majors. I get bummed out thinking the courses listed below #2 are worse than it and I’ll like them less. Give me OTC all week.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joel_Stewart on October 19, 2020, 09:56:59 PM
Nothing against Pinehurst No. 4 but it's not a Top 100 golf course in the US.

Nice move by St. Louis CC. I was there last week and they've cleared out a lot of treed areas. Not sure how recently Joel was there but its getting better, though more could be removed.


I was there August 2019. St Louis is a really interesting course with some great features but the trees just overwhelm the architecture.  I felt claustrophobic at times.  They have such an old school membership its been a tough sell for removing trees.  I'd be happy if they just cut back the rough especially between the fairways and bunkers.  I talked with a member today and it seems they are doubling down on thick Kentucky bluegrass rough? 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jason Thurman on October 19, 2020, 11:13:56 PM
Honestly, the list has a lot of courses I really like on it. I've played about 20 of these, and most of the ones I've played are in my top 25 or so personally.


My hottest take is that I'd flip the rankings of Prairie Dunes and Prairie Club (Dunes). I'd also flip Old Mac and Bandon Dunes. And I'd bump Trails higher.


The rest doesn't all exactly match my preferences but I have no feelings of outrage. It's nice to see Cherry Hills in the 100 spot.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 20, 2020, 07:49:00 AM
Honestly, the list has a lot of courses I really like on it. I've played about 20 of these, and most of the ones I've played are in my top 25 or so personally.


My hottest take is that I'd flip the rankings of Prairie Dunes and Prairie Club (Dunes). I'd also flip Old Mac and Bandon Dunes. And I'd bump Trails higher.



Prairie Club, LOL



played 60 of those listed


love Trails!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: corey miller on October 20, 2020, 08:34:00 AM



Love when we get a Macdonald course with irrigated high Kentucky Bluegrass rough.   ???


I do wonder of the 100 how many are presented in less than ideal states that are not appropriate for the architecture. 

[/size][size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jimmy Muratt on October 20, 2020, 09:38:01 AM
I would certainly remove Prairie Club Dunes and replace with Dismal River Red.   Dismal Red is vastly underrated and I'm not sure why.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tommy Williamsen on October 20, 2020, 09:52:27 AM
Let's face it. Most of the top fifty are in all the lists. There might be 200 that can legitimately vie for the next fifty. All lists indicate are preferences of the constituted panelists at the moment. Tastes change. I have played 75 of the 100 and feel there are 20 or so that I think could be replaced by other courses.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Anthony_Nysse on October 20, 2020, 09:56:20 AM
Hot take: #2 stinks compared to new #4. At least #4 has elevation change and water hazards, and I don’t find the greens on #2 all that interesting. No (material) wind in PH. #2 greens, hard and fast, yes. I would play 4v2 probably 7/3 or maybe 6/4 but it’s not overweighted materially to #2 based on Majors. I get bummed out thinking the courses listed below #2 are worse than it and I’ll like them less. Give me OTC all week.


There are few top courses that have been as vanilla to me at #2. I struggle to remember all the homes & struggle to understand all the hype.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan Boerger on October 20, 2020, 10:43:02 AM
Michael H. - I played Teugega a few weeks ago. Just a tremendous layout and some very interesting holes on the back 9. Perhaps not a top 100 course, but I'll be back there.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jim Hoak on October 20, 2020, 10:53:36 AM
Wolf Point is the only/the best course in Texas?  Sad, but maybe true.  One of the best golf states in the country--and too few great courses.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jimmy Muratt on October 20, 2020, 10:57:21 AM
Wolf Point is the only/the best course in Texas?  Sad, but maybe true.  One of the best golf states in the country--and too few great courses.

Jim, I feel your pain...I'm in Virginia and the lack of good/great courses here is very sad.   
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Roman Schwarz on October 20, 2020, 11:07:59 AM
Don't see it on GM website but saw a copy of the list. As with the world list contains some of the big risers and some surprises.
Big risers
  • 23 Somerset Hills up 15 spots
  • 36 Sleepy Hollow up 60 spots!!!!!
  • 43 Myopia Hunt up 20 spots
  • 63 The Creek up 28 spots
  • 65 Moraine up 24 spots
  • 70 Gozzer Ranch up 25 spots
Surprises
  • Ohoopee debuting at 32!  Haven't been but pretty high debut for sure.
  • Valley Club at Montecito dropping 7 spots to 55? ??? ?
  • Sand Valley dropping 39 spots to 91. People change their minds or what?
  • Love Lawsonia Links debuts at 87
  • Bel Air moves up to 68 which is 12 spots. Finally getting enough ratings to move post reno.
  • Calusa Pines drops to 98, I think this course is underrated big time per these rankings, same for Plainfield at 57
  • Both Streamsongs drop 30 plus spots.
  • Omissions: Olympia Fields, Beverly in future years, Dismal River (red), Austin GC (all my opinion obviously)
Quite a few new additions which signifies the shift in the panel makeup.


I had my popcorn ready to hear others chime in about Sand Valley.  I played it the year it opened and got a chance to play Mammoth this past year, but to this point haven't talked to anybody else that has played either one.  I love both CC and DMK, but neither struck me as Top 100.  I thoroughly enjoyed SV, but have it as the lowest public CC I've played that isn't on dead flat land.  I wouldn't have put Mammoth in the same class as Streamsong Black and marked it as a 6 on the Doak scale.  For something with Mammoth in the name, I expected something a little bolder on and around the greens (except for the back left of 13, which seems unpinnable).  Also, with the number of multiple elevation "split" fairways, rarely did I find either option to yield a significantly better approach.  It's a fun course, but Top 100 only allows 100 guests to the party.


I don't mean it to be a takedown of the resort.  They have a lot going for them, including the youth tees.  It'll be the first place I take my son on a golf trip when he's old enough.  If we're talking about the creme of US courses, though, I'd take Wekopa and Streamsong Black over SV and Mammoth hands down.  I'm concerned that the names attached slightly inflate the rating.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 11:34:17 AM
Wolf Point is the only/the best course in Texas?  Sad, but maybe true.  One of the best golf states in the country--and too few great courses.

Jim, I feel your pain...I'm in Virginia and the lack of good/great courses here is very sad.


You have many good and great courses in Virginia.  Just remember, a 6 in Virginia is an 8 if its private and in NJ, PA, NY, RI or MA.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jason Thurman on October 20, 2020, 11:59:22 AM
I would certainly remove Prairie Club Dunes and replace with Dismal River Red.   Dismal Red is vastly underrated and I'm not sure why.


Is it?


I like Dismal Red. I especially love the intimacy of the routing in such a vast environment, and that it has such a completely different feel from the White course. But I'd split 10 plays 9-1 with the Dunes at Prairie Club, which I continue to rate as one of the most varied, elastic, and compelling courses I've ever played. Between the two courses, I think Prairie Club has:


* The four best par 3s. I'm still waiting for one person to make a coherent argument for why the Dunes course, as a set, should not be considered to have one of the best sets of par 3s in the US. They move in different (wind) directions, play to a variety of lengths, and they're all holes where consideration of ground contours can lead to aiming well away from the flag to get close to any given pin, whether off the tee or when attempting a recovery. When I think "best fourth hole I've played," PC(D)'s 4th always comes to mind right away.


* The 3 best par 4s. Dismal Red is full of very good two shotters, but I don't quite like any of them as much as 2, 8, or 13 at PC(D).


* A superior set of par 5s - 10 and 12 in particular at PC(D) are excellent holes. The par 5s at Dismal Red are fun, but not the stars of the show in my mind.


I love Dismal Red too. It's an outstanding routing and a delightfully sporty course. I do have it above quite a few courses on this list, in a comparable tier to Mammoth Dunes, Whistling Straits, Moraine, Kingsley, and Cherry Hills. I'd actually probably rate it above all of those courses, personally, but I can't be too frustrated about it not being included because ultimately I think those courses are all pretty comparable in quality, none of them are no-brainer top 100 courses in my mind, and some of them will inevitably get squeezed out of a list like this.


I was recalling the days back before Ran and Tom Doak had played Harvester Club with a friend over the weekend, remembering that when it was announced that Harvester would be closing as a public course, the immediate GCA reaction was that it was just another average CCFAD that didn't make it. I was astonished at the time as a guy who had always loved the course. It's inconceivable to think about guys around here calling it "average" now that Doak has called it the best course in Iowa, and Ran has written a glowing review of it under Courses By Country. But before the tastemakers played it, nobody had a "correct" opinion to parrot.


Well, Tom Doak still hasn't been to Prairie Club and Ran hasn't profiled it. In the absence of visits from them, I've been waiting 10 years for someone to give me a coherent explanation of WHY it doesn't belong on any given top 100 list, or WHY it's better or worse than anything else in the Sandhills region. And still, the best I get is "Dismal Red is underrated" or "LOL." In fairness, the turf conditions at Prairie Club could be firmer and faster, more regularly. Then again, so could the turf conditions at Dismal in my experience.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joe Hellrung on October 20, 2020, 12:00:23 PM
Call me the contrarian of the unwashed masses, but I think Pinehurst #4 is great.  It is fun, fair, interesting, gorgeous, and a lot of other adjectives. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 12:02:13 PM
But before the tastemakers played it, nobody had a "correct" opinion to parrot.



A closed feedback loop, if you will.




FYI, per Doak's Instagram he spent some time at Prairie Club this week.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jason Thurman on October 20, 2020, 12:15:47 PM
To Roman's point:


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes for the first time last month. I already can't wait to go back to the resort - they're really good. But I certainly think there's room to ask questions about their Top 100 validity.


I found Mammoth big, bold, and spectacular. It's fun as hell. I'm just not convinced that it's quite as discerning as a great course should be. On my play, it felt like the fine line between a good result and a poor result for an average shot might be just a little too skewed toward good results. It might be a little short on teeth. Then again, I really loved playing it!


Does Sand Valley have the great holes to truly cement its standing on this list? I love the ethos, I love the setting, and I think it's a good, strong golf course. Well worth an 8+ hour drive for me every couple years. But do you play one of the twenty best golf holes in Wisconsin when you play it? I'm asking genuinely - I think I need another play or two to really firm up my own thoughts on it.


Looking at what's not on the list, I certainly wouldn't rate either course above Pete Dye Golf Club, and it's a toss-up with places like Erin Hills, Kirtland, Canterbury, Crooked Stick, Beverly, Colorado GC, and Blackwolf Run. But it's not, like, crazy to me that Sand Valley's courses would belong to the exclusion of those.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 20, 2020, 12:24:51 PM
I would certainly remove Prairie Club Dunes and replace with Dismal River Red.   Dismal Red is vastly underrated and I'm not sure why.


Is it?


I like Dismal Red. I especially love the intimacy of the routing in such a vast environment, and that it has such a completely different feel from the White course. But I'd split 10 plays 9-1 with the Dunes at Prairie Club, which I continue to rate as one of the most varied, elastic, and compelling courses I've ever played. Between the two courses, I think Prairie Club has:


* The four best par 3s. I'm still waiting for one person to make a coherent argument for why the Dunes course, as a set, should not be considered to have one of the best sets of par 3s in the US. They move in different (wind) directions, play to a variety of lengths, and they're all holes where consideration of ground contours can lead to aiming well away from the flag to get close to any given pin, whether off the tee or when attempting a recovery. When I think "best fourth hole I've played," PC(D)'s 4th always comes to mind right away.


* The 3 best par 4s. Dismal Red is full of very good two shotters, but I don't quite like any of them as much as 2, 8, or 13 at PC(D).


* A superior set of par 5s - 10 and 12 in particular at PC(D) are excellent holes. The par 5s at Dismal Red are fun, but not the stars of the show in my mind.


I love Dismal Red too. It's an outstanding routing and a delightfully sporty course. I do have it above quite a few courses on this list, in a comparable tier to Mammoth Dunes, Whistling Straits, Moraine, Kingsley, and Cherry Hills. I'd actually probably rate it above all of those courses, personally, but I can't be too frustrated about it not being included because ultimately I think those courses are all pretty comparable in quality, none of them are no-brainer top 100 courses in my mind, and some of them will inevitably get squeezed out of a list like this.


I was recalling the days back before Ran and Tom Doak had played Harvester Club with a friend over the weekend, remembering that when it was announced that Harvester would be closing as a public course, the immediate GCA reaction was that it was just another average CCFAD that didn't make it. I was astonished at the time as a guy who had always loved the course. It's inconceivable to think about guys around here calling it "average" now that Doak has called it the best course in Iowa, and Ran has written a glowing review of it under Courses By Country. But before the tastemakers played it, nobody had a "correct" opinion to parrot.


Well, Tom Doak still hasn't been to Prairie Club and Ran hasn't profiled it. In the absence of visits from them, I've been waiting 10 years for someone to give me a coherent explanation of WHY it doesn't belong on any given top 100 list, or WHY it's better or worse than anything else in the Sandhills region. And still, the best I get is "Dismal Red is underrated" or "LOL." In fairness, the turf conditions at Prairie Club could be firmer and faster, more regularly. Then again, so could the turf conditions at Dismal in my experience.


By happenstance, I stopped in at The Prairie Club this past week on my way west.  And I'm sorry that you are using Dismal as the benchmark here, because onviously anything I say about that comparison is biased, so I will refrain from comparing them.


But, some of your opinions on the course presented above are ridiculous.  The par-3's ??  Two of them have greens that would get me flamed (or put in a straitjacket) if I built them.


Every course in the sand hills is interesting, and the Dunes has a handful of terrific holes, but the total package is over the top for my tastes.  I actually preferred the Pines course, though the dramatic 18th hole there didn't work great.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: MCirba on October 20, 2020, 12:41:31 PM
It's a pretty good list, although like everyone I have some changes I'd make. 
 

I've played 20 of the first 25, 13 more through 50, 14 more through 75, and 12 more to 100, for a total of 59.   
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 20, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
I'm thinking back to the first time I visited Somerset Hills, in 1980.  If you'd told me it would one day be ranked 23rd in America I'd have laughed.


To be clear:  I love the course, but these lists are starting to get silly.




Tom, why do you think SHCC isn't worthy of its spot?  1980 isn't 2020.  Find me another course that should replace it...   I think you may be the first person to every tell me that SHCC isn't deserving of top 25 consideration.


Michael:


I'm not sure if you are aware that my associate Brian Slawnik has done all the work at Somerset Hills, with occasional assistance from me.  And as I posted already, I love the place.  I would rather play there than almost half of the courses in the 22 spots ahead of it.


But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.


There are lots of fine courses in the rankings and quite a few that aren't - I guess there are more than 100 worth talking about[size=78%].  By my own arbitrary rating of 8 on the Doak Scale, Somerset Hills would be tied for 20th place with about fifty other courses.  Putting it 23rd with some of the others ranked 70th or 90th is what seems silly to me.  I guess other people think they have a keener sense of judgment than I do.[/size]

I thought it would go over better if I cited an example of how restorations become overrated where I was the architect, instead of Gil Hanse, but I guess not.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: MCirba on October 20, 2020, 12:47:51 PM
I haven't played it since the Doak version, but I was a bit surprised to see The Sheep Ranch coming in at only #80.

For those who have played the C&C version, is something missing (besides bunkers) on such a dramatic site?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark Pritchett on October 20, 2020, 12:50:07 PM
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 01:03:32 PM


But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.



How would you differentiate Somerset Hills from, say, Crystal Downs, Fishers Island and NGLA in this regard?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 20, 2020, 01:12:34 PM


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.


But there does seem to be some bias based on whom the clubs have hired to restore them.  I'm not sure if the reason that my clients > Keith Foster's > Ron Forse's is due to the work we have done, the work the original designer did, or just our relative standing with the panelists.  A lot of the questions about the list so far (new courses and restorations) boil down to certain favored architects being infallible in the eyes of some panelists.  That's too bad, and unfortunately the process is just reinforcing those biases, as you can see when a brand new course is lamented for being "only" #80 in America before it had its feet wet.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 20, 2020, 01:20:20 PM


But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.



How would you differentiate Somerset Hills from, say, Crystal Downs, Fishers Island and NGLA in this regard?


Well all three of them are along sizable bodies of water and you know that's worth 50 places!


I would have said the same about Fishers Island that I said about Somerset Hills.  Many would lump in Crystal Downs on the same basis, but you know it's special to me - and I also think it is more challenging to a good player and there are more unique holes than the other two.


NGLA is in a different class, IMO, it's top-5 material for me.  It's easier than Crystal Downs but the scale of it is amazing and it has a much more influential place in history.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Adam G on October 20, 2020, 01:22:17 PM
 :o  I wonder what happened to Yale to drop so much?


Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Peter Pallotta on October 20, 2020, 01:33:32 PM
Over the past 15 years of reading (and reading about) these lists, there seems to be a pattern, i.e. with some exceptions, most very good new courses debut high on the list and then steadily drop down in subsequent years. If that's actually a pattern, I suppose it's probably easily explainable in terms of the rating's process/dynamics. But what's interesting are those exceptions -- the new courses built over the last 15+ years that have debuted on a Top 100 list and then held there own as the years pass, and sometimes have actually more than held their own, rising instead of falling in the rankings. And those few examples seem to prove the old adage that great courses can only be fully recognized/appreciated after multiple plays. The corollary, if the adage is indeed true, is that the courses that debut high and then tumble down the list (or at least never go higher than their original ranking) may be very very good ones, but they are not great ones; their charms, for better or worse, are all evident after the first/one-and-only play.
Peter


Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 01:40:31 PM


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.




I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

[/size]When one [size=78%][/size][size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Roman Schwarz on October 20, 2020, 01:55:00 PM
To Roman's point:


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes for the first time last month. I already can't wait to go back to the resort - they're really good. But I certainly think there's room to ask questions about their Top 100 validity.


I found Mammoth big, bold, and spectacular. It's fun as hell. I'm just not convinced that it's quite as discerning as a great course should be. On my play, it felt like the fine line between a good result and a poor result for an average shot might be just a little too skewed toward good results. It might be a little short on teeth. Then again, I really loved playing it!


Does Sand Valley have the great holes to truly cement its standing on this list? I love the ethos, I love the setting, and I think it's a good, strong golf course. Well worth an 8+ hour drive for me every couple years. But do you play one of the twenty best golf holes in Wisconsin when you play it? I'm asking genuinely - I think I need another play or two to really firm up my own thoughts on it.


Looking at what's not on the list, I certainly wouldn't rate either course above Pete Dye Golf Club, and it's a toss-up with places like Erin Hills, Kirtland, Canterbury, Crooked Stick, Beverly, Colorado GC, and Blackwolf Run. But it's not, like, crazy to me that Sand Valley's courses would belong to the exclusion of those.


As I was playing Mammoth, I had the same thoughts about how it wouldn't be to a good player's liking and self-wondered why that should be any worse than a really difficult course that only better players can handle.  But I think the other side of the coin for Mammoth is the re-playability.  If you put it in a "split your 10 rounds" question with a subset of all the Bandon and Streamsong courses, it would be tough to argue for more than 1 crack at it.  There's nothing wrong with that for a fun resort course people probably won't play often, but I'd want more to rate it more highly than some of its peers.


I think you nailed it on Sand Valley.  Sticking with same designer, I thought Hidden Creek is a good comp for it.  Though it's a stellar course, I don't ever recall anyone arguing HC is 100 Greatest.  You can rightly complain about what an 8000 yard course stands for, but I prefer Erin Hills because there are a few holes there I dream about.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: MCirba on October 20, 2020, 02:03:20 PM
A lot of the questions about the list so far (new courses and restorations) boil down to certain favored architects being infallible in the eyes of some panelists.  That's too bad, and unfortunately the process is just reinforcing those biases, as you can see when a brand new course is lamented for being "only" #80 in America before it had its feet wet.
Tom,

I think we're saying the same thing here re: some architects with favored nation status, but also to Peter's point that courses often make a splash high up the list on first blush only to fall either gradually or precipitously over time.   Given the popularity of C&C's architecture, the cliff-top site, and the lack of much else new to talk about this year I would have expected to see their version of Sheep Ranch at least in the Top 50 if not Top 30 for it's initial foray onto the listing.   #80 doesn't give much room for the probably inevitable descent once the shine wears off and I'm trying to understand from those who have played it their overall impressions.   All I've read to date is the magazine(s) hype.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on October 20, 2020, 02:29:28 PM
Doesn't Golf Magazine have the smallest rater pool compared to the other two big ones, Golf Digest and Golf Week?  If so with fewer raters, combined with presumably far less travelling, it could be that even a handful of "negative" or "positive" votes could have a major swing on a courses' position.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Gallant on October 20, 2020, 02:36:07 PM


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.




I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

When one
[size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]


JC,

I can't speak for everyone, but this hasn't been my experience, and before I joined, Ran never asked me how many Top100s I had played. To give you the sort of idea for the courses I've seen this year, here's what I've seen that are new to me:


Dumbarnie[/t][/size]
Fraserburgh[/t][/size]
Murcar[/t][/size]
Iona[/t][/size]
Tobermory[/t][/size]
Woking[/t][/size]
Berkshire (Red)[/t][/size]
New Zealand[/t][/size]
Ardfin[/t][/size]

There are exactly 0 courses in the above that have featured in the last world ranking. And Iona is not easy to get to either :) Covid has hampered some plans, and I'm hoping to get to Kington, Painswick and Minchinhampton soon, but time will tell. I don't go out to see these places because I think they are all T100 contenders, but I just love to see new courses and see things that are architecturally interesting!


I do think your point has some merit in that if I was to do a trip to the States, I might easily choose a golf-rich place like Boston as I would be able to see a number of quality courses in potentially a short window. But I would hope to mix seeing a place like Kittansett with places like Oyster Harbors, George Wright and Plymouth and not let current positions influence my thoughts.


That's why the geographical spread of panellists is so important. I would hope that myself and some of the other UK panellists are trying to see a lot of courses over here to ensure things like density biased don't skew results.

It's never perfect, but it's not the closed loop you seem to think it is :)


Edit: I'll also note that the only two 'new' courses that I've seen this year Ardfin and Dumbarnie are not by the 'darling' architects that we all know and love. Clive Clark and Bob Harrison. It's important to not be myopic as you say.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jason Thurman on October 20, 2020, 02:44:05 PM
Tom, I would posit that you can get away with building damn near any green you want at this point. Which two par 3s at Prairie Club Dunes were over-the-top for you? I'm assuming 4. 14?


I don't see you getting straitjacketed for building a green like 4. Rob Collins built a pretty similar green at Sweetens' 4th that sorta put him on the map, after all. Now, part of the reason I love that hole so much might be because I hit such a great shot the first time I played it, but it was also a shot that doesn't happen without recognizing the influence of the architecture. Playing to a back right pin, I hit a low 4 iron that landed and released up the ridge in the center of the green and then fed probably 40 feet right toward the hole, winding up 12 feet or so away. The feel I came away with was that, while you could put two pins 80 yards apart on that green, you could probably also land two well-played tee shots about 10 yards apart near the green's center and have one feed to each of those two hypothetical pins for good birdie looks. And I liked that the slopes were strong enough that even a first time player could see and consider them, but that they still required a pretty exacting shot to really leverage to full effect. That in contrast to some of my questions about Mammoth Dunes, for example, where it sometimes feels like any ol' shot in the general vicinity of your target will end up just fine.



Noting that the course is over-the-top for your tastes is fair, and probably not surprising really. After all, the thing I love most about Dismal Red is that it is so much different from everything else in the Sandhills in that it feels restrained and compact despite its wild and wooly setting. And I love that juxtaposition.


At the same time, I've always loved a little dose of bombast, in pretty much every form of art. I love Apocalypse Now, the 1812 Overture, Fallingwater, and Tobacco Road. So yeah, the Dunes course is huge and full of centerline hazards and really wild slopes and it spreads over a huge piece of land with enough maintained turf that I fear for their ability to maintain it long term. But it's so much fun to play, and packs in so much variety. It really feels like it could be a totally different course from one day to the next, to a degree exceeding any other course I've ever seen.


And that's the part that I love most, and the part that keeps it in my personal top 5. My sole criteria is "Which course would I be most excited to be standing on the first tee of right now?" For me, there's no course that clearly beats it by that measure, and only a handful that rival it.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Erik J. Barzeski on October 20, 2020, 03:03:14 PM
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.

81.  Fox Chapel
Any opinions on that? I've caddied for my daughter there. Have yet to play it, but will be next year. I don't really care if it's top 100 or not, but I am curious how some of y'all feel about whether it's top 100, next 100, or what.

Also, I'm planning a trip to Sand Valley and some nearby courses next July, right now. Literally in a messenger window beside my browser window.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 03:06:55 PM


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.




I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

When one
[size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]


JC,

I can't speak for everyone, but this hasn't been my experience, and before I joined, Ran never asked me how many Top100s I had played. To give you the sort of idea for the courses I've seen this year, here's what I've seen that are new to me:


Dumbarnie[/t][/size]
Fraserburgh[/t][/size]
Murcar[/t][/size]
Iona[/t][/size]
Tobermory[/t][/size]
Woking[/t][/size]
Berkshire (Red)[/t][/size]
New Zealand[/t][/size]
Ardfin[/t][/size]

There are exactly 0 courses in the above that have featured in the last world ranking. And Iona is not easy to get to either :) Covid has hampered some plans, and I'm hoping to get to Kington, Painswick and Minchinhampton soon, but time will tell. I don't go out to see these places because I think they are all T100 contenders, but I just love to see new courses and see things that are architecturally interesting!


I do think your point has some merit in that if I was to do a trip to the States, I might easily choose a golf-rich place like Boston as I would be able to see a number of quality courses in potentially a short window. But I would hope to mix seeing a place like Kittansett with places like Oyster Harbors, George Wright and Plymouth and not let current positions influence my thoughts.


That's why the geographical spread of panellists is so important. I would hope that myself and some of the other UK panellists are trying to see a lot of courses over here to ensure things like density biased don't skew results.

It's never perfect, but it's not the closed loop you seem to think it is :)


Edit: I'll also note that the only two 'new' courses that I've seen this year Ardfin and Dumbarnie are not by the 'darling' architects that we all know and love. Clive Clark and Bob Harrison. It's important to not be myopic as you say.


Tim, Im not saying Ran asked you that nor am I saying that he would.  I think you've misinterpreted what I've said.


Nonetheless, geographic diversity is something we agree on.  However, when putting out two lists I think we are talking two different types of diversity because, as you note, coming from the UK you're going to want to see primarily the currently ranked courses.  What Im saying is that all the fine work you're doing on the UK side should also be done in the US for the US list.


One of the things that Golf Digest got right, which wasnt much as I've very publicly said on here, was ensuring each state had coverage.  The good work of Golf Digest was the best in state lists.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Gallant on October 20, 2020, 03:30:32 PM


I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.


If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.




I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

When one
[size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]


JC,

I can't speak for everyone, but this hasn't been my experience, and before I joined, Ran never asked me how many Top100s I had played. To give you the sort of idea for the courses I've seen this year, here's what I've seen that are new to me:


Dumbarnie[/t][/size]
Fraserburgh[/t][/size]
Murcar[/t][/size]
Iona[/t][/size]
Tobermory[/t][/size]
Woking[/t][/size]
Berkshire (Red)[/t][/size]
New Zealand[/t][/size]
Ardfin[/t][/size]

There are exactly 0 courses in the above that have featured in the last world ranking. And Iona is not easy to get to either :) Covid has hampered some plans, and I'm hoping to get to Kington, Painswick and Minchinhampton soon, but time will tell. I don't go out to see these places because I think they are all T100 contenders, but I just love to see new courses and see things that are architecturally interesting!


I do think your point has some merit in that if I was to do a trip to the States, I might easily choose a golf-rich place like Boston as I would be able to see a number of quality courses in potentially a short window. But I would hope to mix seeing a place like Kittansett with places like Oyster Harbors, George Wright and Plymouth and not let current positions influence my thoughts.


That's why the geographical spread of panellists is so important. I would hope that myself and some of the other UK panellists are trying to see a lot of courses over here to ensure things like density biased don't skew results.

It's never perfect, but it's not the closed loop you seem to think it is :)


Edit: I'll also note that the only two 'new' courses that I've seen this year Ardfin and Dumbarnie are not by the 'darling' architects that we all know and love. Clive Clark and Bob Harrison. It's important to not be myopic as you say.


Tim, Im not saying Ran asked you that nor am I saying that he would.  I think you've misinterpreted what I've said.


Nonetheless, geographic diversity is something we agree on.  However, when putting out two lists I think we are talking two different types of diversity because, as you note, coming from the UK you're going to want to see primarily the currently ranked courses.  What Im saying is that all the fine work you're doing on the UK side should also be done in the US for the US list.


One of the things that Golf Digest got right, which wasnt much as I've very publicly said on here, was ensuring each state had coverage.  The good work of Golf Digest was the best in state lists.


I’d agree on that and did enjoy that GD state lists.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tommy Williamsen on October 20, 2020, 03:33:13 PM
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.

81.  Fox Chapel
Any opinions on that? I've caddied for my daughter there. Have yet to play it, but will be next year. I don't really care if it's top 100 or not, but I am curious how some of y'all feel about whether it's top 100, next 100, or what.

Also, I'm planning a trip to Sand Valley and some nearby courses next July, right now. Literally in a messenger window beside my browser window.


Fox Chapel is wonderful. I would have no argument with anyone if it were in the top 100. The holes are imaginative, it uses hazards well, is well bunkered, and has a good collection of greens. It isn't necessarily a bomber's paradise, because straight really helps.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 20, 2020, 03:47:54 PM


Fox Chapel is wonderful. I would have no argument with anyone if it were in the top 100. The holes are imaginative, it uses hazards well, is well bunkered, and has a good collection of greens. It isn't necessarily a bomber's paradise, because straight really helps.


I have no opinion of Fox Chapel specifically, but describing a Raynor course as "imaginative" made me snort.  Does it not have the same templates as all of the other Raynor courses?  Does it have any great holes that are not templates?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 20, 2020, 04:15:53 PM
Tom, I would posit that you can get away with building damn near any green you want at this point. Which two par 3s at Prairie Club Dunes were over-the-top for you? I'm assuming 4. 14?


I don't see you getting straitjacketed for building a green like 4. Rob Collins built a pretty similar green at Sweetens' 4th that sorta put him on the map, after all. Now, part of the reason I love that hole so much might be because I hit such a great shot the first time I played it, but it was also a shot that doesn't happen without recognizing the influence of the architecture. Playing to a back right pin, I hit a low 4 iron that landed and released up the ridge in the center of the green and then fed probably 40 feet right toward the hole, winding up 12 feet or so away. The feel I came away with was that, while you could put two pins 80 yards apart on that green, you could probably also land two well-played tee shots about 10 yards apart near the green's center and have one feed to each of those two hypothetical pins for good birdie looks. And I liked that the slopes were strong enough that even a first time player could see and consider them, but that they still required a pretty exacting shot to really leverage to full effect. That in contrast to some of my questions about Mammoth Dunes, for example, where it sometimes feels like any ol' shot in the general vicinity of your target will end up just fine.


Noting that the course is over-the-top for your tastes is fair, and probably not surprising really. After all, the thing I love most about Dismal Red is that it is so much different from everything else in the Sandhills in that it feels restrained and compact despite its wild and wooly setting. And I love that juxtaposition.



It was the first and last par-3 greens, and if I had built either of them I'd probably check myself into rehab  :)


I think there are a lot of new courses where the young designers and shapers would benefit from a hand on their shoulder (or two), instead of trying to build the golf equivalent of the 1812 Overture.  Maybe that's what your generation wants, but it won't hold up very long if every new course keeps trying to outdo last year's darling.  And especially if there aren't enough golfers who like the outlandish to support a place.  Twitter posts don't have a very long life cycle.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Buck Wolter on October 20, 2020, 04:53:00 PM





Tom, I would posit that you can get away with building damn near any green you want at this point. Which two par 3s at Prairie Club Dunes were over-the-top for you? I'm assuming 4. 14?


I don't see you getting straitjacketed for building a green like 4. Rob Collins built a pretty similar green at Sweetens' 4th that sorta put him on the map, after all. Now, part of the reason I love that hole so much might be because I hit such a great shot the first time I played it, but it was also a shot that doesn't happen without recognizing the influence of the architecture. Playing to a back right pin, I hit a low 4 iron that landed and released up the ridge in the center of the green and then fed probably 40 feet right toward the hole, winding up 12 feet or so away. The feel I came away with was that, while you could put two pins 80 yards apart on that green, you could probably also land two well-played tee shots about 10 yards apart near the green's center and have one feed to each of those two hypothetical pins for good birdie looks. And I liked that the slopes were strong enough that even a first time player could see and consider them, but that they still required a pretty exacting shot to really leverage to full effect. That in contrast to some of my questions about Mammoth Dunes, for example, where it sometimes feels like any ol' shot in the general vicinity of your target will end up just fine.


Noting that the course is over-the-top for your tastes is fair, and probably not surprising really. After all, the thing I love most about Dismal Red is that it is so much different from everything else in the Sandhills in that it feels restrained and compact despite its wild and wooly setting. And I love that juxtaposition.



It was the first and last par-3 greens, and if I had built either of them I'd probably check myself into rehab  :)


I think there are a lot of new courses where the young designers and shapers would benefit from a hand on their shoulder (or two), instead of trying to build the golf equivalent of the 1812 Overture.  Maybe that's what your generation wants, but it won't hold up very long if every new course keeps trying to outdo last year's darling.  And especially if there aren't enough golfers who like the outlandish to support a place.  Twitter posts don't have a very long life cycle.


For anybody else trying to get a feel, these are pretty cool flyovers



https://envisage.golf/tpcdunes/?hole=4 (https://envisage.golf/tpcdunes/?hole=4)


https://envisage.golf/tpcdunes/?hole=14 (https://envisage.golf/tpcdunes/?hole=14)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 05:12:12 PM
Thanks for posting those, Buck.  They might seem wild for the new, old Tom Doak but they seem just right for this guy.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Hendren on October 20, 2020, 05:15:33 PM
So Jason, had you caught that 4-iron at Sweetens a little fat and pushed it a hair would your opinion of the 4th hole change once you played your pitch from a divot farm or had to take a drop from a drain grate?[size=78%] [/size] ;)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 20, 2020, 05:17:28 PM


Fox Chapel is wonderful. I would have no argument with anyone if it were in the top 100. The holes are imaginative, it uses hazards well, is well bunkered, and has a good collection of greens. It isn't necessarily a bomber's paradise, because straight really helps.


I have no opinion of Fox Chapel specifically, but describing a Raynor course as "imaginative" made me snort.  Does it not have the same templates as all of the other Raynor courses?  Does it have any great holes that are not templates?


One of the stark facts that sticks out from all US Course Rankings is the large number of Raynor courses given the contempt that some exhibit toward “template courses”. I am not a partisan in this battle because I have played only Yale and Old White which I take it are more MacDonald than Raynor.  But how does one reconcile the rankings of Raynor courses with the criticism/skepticism of him as an Architect?


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 05:38:24 PM
A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 20, 2020, 05:56:24 PM
A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.


I wonder if anyone has gone to NGLA in the morning and scoffed at the idea of yet more templates in the afternoon at Southampton, West Hampton, Piping Rock or Creek Club?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 08:06:35 PM
A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.


I wonder if anyone has gone to NGLA in the morning and scoffed at the idea of yet more templates in the afternoon at Southampton, West Hampton, Piping Rock or Creek Club?


You’re the best, Timmy!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jason Thurman on October 20, 2020, 08:18:06 PM
A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.


I got to talking Raynor with a few guys at this year's Mashie, and item 2 was definitely mentioned with an addendum: they're also almost all kept in superb condition.


It's hard to have a bad day on a Raynor course. I'm not sure how to rate his body of work given the staunch lack of creativity, but the templates didn't become templates because they're bad concepts. You're going to face a lot of interesting shots.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 20, 2020, 08:28:30 PM
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run


thank you
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 20, 2020, 08:34:16 PM
A lot of the questions about the list so far (new courses and restorations) boil down to certain favored architects being infallible in the eyes of some panelists.  That's too bad, and unfortunately the process is just reinforcing those biases, as you can see when a brand new course is lamented for being "only" #80 in America before it had its feet wet.
Tom,

I think we're saying the same thing here re: some architects with favored nation status, but also to Peter's point that courses often make a splash high up the list on first blush only to fall either gradually or precipitously over time.   Given the popularity of C&C's architecture, the cliff-top site, and the lack of much else new to talk about this year I would have expected to see their version of Sheep Ranch at least in the Top 50 if not Top 30 for it's initial foray onto the listing.   #80 doesn't give much room for the probably inevitable descent once the shine wears off and I'm trying to understand from those who have played it their overall impressions.   All I've read to date is the magazine(s) hype.


well typed, but go play Sheep Ranch and make it your #60 played on the list, then type about it, geez are you a rater?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 20, 2020, 08:37:13 PM
A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.


I wonder if anyone has gone to NGLA in the morning and scoffed at the idea of yet more templates in the afternoon at Southampton, West Hampton, Piping Rock or Creek Club?


hahaha
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 20, 2020, 09:58:15 PM
A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.


I got to talking Raynor with a few guys at this year's Mashie, and item 2 was definitely mentioned with an addendum: they're also almost all kept in superb condition.


It's hard to have a bad day on a Raynor course. I'm not sure how to rate his body of work given the staunch lack of creativity, but the templates didn't become templates because they're bad concepts. You're going to face a lot of interesting shots.


Exactly.  I love The Palm as a steakhouse.  And it always fun to argue whether the Palm in Vegas is better than the Palm in Dc.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JESII on October 21, 2020, 08:45:06 AM
I don't count myself a steak or restaurant expert, nor am I a MacRaynor expert...but it would not shock me at all if 5 or 6 of The Palm's locations made a Top 100 list of US steakhouses...with 1 or 2 in the top 20.


The concept CBM ran with; that there are certain ideal holes and they can be replicated to create good/great golf is valid to me. Sure, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Sand Hills are be unique golf courses and rightly occupy the very top spots but there is a place at the table for acknowledged cool template holes.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 21, 2020, 08:55:34 AM

The concept CBM ran with; that there are certain ideal holes and they can be replicated to create good/great golf is valid to me. Sure, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Sand Hills are be unique golf courses and rightly occupy the very top spots but there is a place at the table for acknowledged cool template holes.


+1
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ryan Hillenbrand on October 21, 2020, 09:57:45 AM
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run


thank you


I'd bet money that Congressional and Fox Chapel will back on the next list based on pictures of the work being done currently
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan_Callahan on October 21, 2020, 10:25:46 AM

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.


Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on October 21, 2020, 11:14:48 AM
I recommend watching "The Price of Everything", a documentary about the art world and its vagaries.  More than a few similarities to Golf Course Ratings with what's hot and not...
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan Boerger on October 21, 2020, 11:37:32 AM
Thanks Kalen, I will check that out. In a similar vein, I recall reading an article many years ago in the "New Yorker" on a Rembrandt painting called "The Polish Rider." Scholars could not determine if he painted it alone, with his student(s) or if his student(s) did it. The painting has not changed in hundreds of years but this report from the experts would determine if it's worth $40,000 or $4 Million. What does this have to do with Golf Course ratings? We probably don't say it enough: Enjoy the course and you are your own best rater.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 21, 2020, 11:43:36 AM
Thanks Kalen, I will check that out. In a similar vein, I recall reading an article many years ago in the "New Yorker" on a Rembrandt painting called "The Polish Rider." Scholars could not determine if he painted it alone, with his student(s) or if his student(s) did it. The painting has not changed in hundreds of years but this report from the experts would determine if it's worth $40,000 or $4 Million. What does this have to do with Golf Course ratings? We probably don't say it enough: Enjoy the course and you are your own best rater.


Dan-That’s on the money. For all the derision that Tom Fazio gets on this site there are legions of loyal followers. Play what you like!!!

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 21, 2020, 12:29:14 PM

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.


Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.


I had a History Professor who used to quip that anything that occurred after the Civil War was current events. But he was making the point that it can take a long time for something to receive focus and analysis.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Peter Pallotta on October 21, 2020, 12:43:05 PM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joe Zucker on October 21, 2020, 12:49:18 PM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.


Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Adam Lawrence on October 21, 2020, 12:52:41 PM
Thanks Kalen, I will check that out. In a similar vein, I recall reading an article many years ago in the "New Yorker" on a Rembrandt painting called "The Polish Rider." Scholars could not determine if he painted it alone, with his student(s) or if his student(s) did it. The painting has not changed in hundreds of years but this report from the experts would determine if it's worth $40,000 or $4 Million. What does this have to do with Golf Course ratings? We probably don't say it enough: Enjoy the course and you are your own best rater.


Yeah but that’s not a subjective issue. Rembrandt either painted it or he didn’t. Whether we can be certain or not is a separate question
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Bernie Bell on October 21, 2020, 12:55:23 PM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.


Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.


I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Eric LeFante on October 21, 2020, 01:09:43 PM

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.


Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.


Somerset Hills did not need a lot of work to improve significantly. The 7th hole, a long par 4, is a good example: prior to Doak's work the right side of the green had rough and pine trees that were not there originally. By clearing out that area and maintaining the turf properly, a bump and run shot from short right of that green that navigates the slope that Tillinghast incorporated is one of the most rewarding shots on the course.


Somerset was added to the Golf Digest list top 100 list in 1985. Bringing back a handful of features like the 7th to Tillinghast's intent makes the course much better than it was. Presentation and conditioning matter. You lose points if you cannot play the course the way the architect intended. You could not have asked a rater in 1985 to completely ignore presentation and conditioning and only rate the course on the way it should be presented. Somerset was not as enjoyable to play back then as it is today.   
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 21, 2020, 01:11:58 PM

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.


Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.




OK, I could agree with all of that.  But the post just before yours implied that Congressional and Fox Chapel will be back in the lists AFTER THEY SPEND $$$ TO RESTORE THEIR GOLF COURSES.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 21, 2020, 01:13:18 PM

The concept CBM ran with; that there are certain ideal holes and they can be replicated to create good/great golf is valid to me. Sure, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Sand Hills are be unique golf courses and rightly occupy the very top spots but there is a place at the table for acknowledged cool template holes.


+1


yes
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joe Zucker on October 21, 2020, 01:15:07 PM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.


I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.


Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on October 21, 2020, 01:21:24 PM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.


I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.


Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.


I think it depends on what you're applying it to.  Religious ideas, yes far more dogmatic in the 20s.

But GCA was the Wild Wild west with little or no regulations and/or "right" way to do it...
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Joe Zucker on October 21, 2020, 01:34:08 PM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.


I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.


Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.


I think it depends on what you're applying it to.  Religious ideas, yes far more dogmatic in the 20s.

But GCA was the Wild Wild west with little or no regulations and/or "right" way to do it...


100% agree Kalen.  I know very little about art, but is that a normal trend that artistic fields run opposite societal trends? When society is more open, does art get less wild and interesting?  Or is this relationship not on any type of solid footing.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jim Hoak on October 21, 2020, 01:59:44 PM
This discussion in the last several posts is among the best and most important I have read on GCA in some time.
The Golf Magazine Top 100 list--and the discussion here--brings up what I think is the most dangerous thing on this chatroom--the danger of "group think."  We have a tendency toward that in many instances: Knowing we are right and dismissing other opinions.
I happen to agree personally with the general thinking on here--the need for more fun in golf and course design, the dislike of "manufactured" architecture, the bias toward the original style of architecture, etc.  But I think that sometimes we overdo it--and I see some of that in the Top 100 list.  When 17 courses are added and 17 dropped, without a really good discussion of new, changed criteria, something is wrong.
How does Spyglass go from 50-something to out of the Top 100 without anything new happening there?  What changed?
Similarly, I have played Wolf Point in Texas, I found it very well done and charming, and I wish the new owner great success.  But to say it is the best course in Texas--in fact the only one on the list--is just plain silly.  The course shows a simplicity in style that is fascinating.  But to say that it can come from nowhere to Top 100 is not realistic.  It's like a totally new list is being created with a totally new set of criteria, and there is no recognition to what was being done in the past.
Ran has done a great job at Golf Magazine, and I am of course totally appreciative of what he has created in GCA.  But I'd caution him against moving too fast, recognizing only one set of criteria, and being too sure that other viewpoints than his do not have areas of credibility that need to be recognized.  I thought his Guardians of the Game list was creative, but I worried that it wasn't clear enough that it was based on only his set of personal criteria, with which I agreed on some points and disagreed on others.  But it was certainly his right to use any criteria he wanted, so long as he identified them clearly.  With the magazine list the need for full disclosure is even more important.
My first reaction to this new Top 100 list was appreciation and agreement, but my second reaction is some dismay at what I think is overly dogmatic thinking.  As someone wrote above, the best criteria may simply be to play whatever you find most compelling based on your own set of criteria.  There is no universal standard of criteria that is absolutely right and others that are equally clearly and totally wrong.  Let's keep our minds open.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Peter Pallotta on October 21, 2020, 02:19:31 PM
Gents -
I think you note just about all the factors/dynamics involved, then vs now; I'd only add golfers to the mix. I think we're the main  'drivers of change' for how golf architecture is seen and appreciated and rated/ranked. It seems to me golfers a hundred years ago expected to accommodate their golf-their games to whatever golf course they happened to be playing that day, whereas today we expect/demand that golf courses be built to accommodate us -- our own golf-game, on every and all courses we might play, on any and every day. Except for Pine Valley, Shinnecock etc -- those are too old and too respected for us to do anything but praise them unreservedly, and honour them as 'true tests' of the actual quality of our games.


Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan Boerger on October 21, 2020, 02:38:44 PM
Adam - That's the point. It was hardly black or white. "Experts" could not agree on who painted the painting so a majority rule decided based up loads of subjective interpretation ... brush stroke length, use of certain colors, etc. But decide they did and it made the painting -- again, which had not been altered in hundreds of years -- more/less valuable. Quite the academic chase.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Bernie Bell on October 21, 2020, 02:49:12 PM
Adam - That's the point. It was hardly black or white. "Experts" could not agree on who painted the painting so a majority rule decided based up loads of subjective interpretation ... brush stroke length, use of certain colors, etc. But decide they did and it made the painting -- again, which had not been altered in hundreds of years -- more/less valuable. Quite the academic chase.


Do you like the painting or not?  Its worth at auction doesn't touch that.  The same people who would pay $$$ to watch Joshua Bell play the violin as a headliner on stage at Kennedy Center passed him by without stopping when he was busking in DC Metro stations.  Certain names on a golf course can command a higher green fee, and it would seem that those names change over time.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 21, 2020, 03:45:43 PM
This discussion in the last several posts is among the best and most important I have read on GCA in some time.
The Golf Magazine Top 100 list--and the discussion here--brings up what I think is the most dangerous thing on this chatroom--the danger of "group think."  We have a tendency toward that in many instances: Knowing we are right and dismissing other opinions.
I happen to agree personally with the general thinking on here--the need for more fun in golf and course design, the dislike of "manufactured" architecture, the bias toward the original style of architecture, etc.  But I think that sometimes we overdo it--and I see some of that in the Top 100 list.  When 17 courses are added and 17 dropped, without a really good discussion of new, changed criteria, something is wrong.
How does Spyglass go from 50-something to out of the Top 100 without anything new happening there?  What changed?
Similarly, I have played Wolf Point in Texas, I found it very well done and charming, and I wish the new owner great success.  But to say it is the best course in Texas--in fact the only one on the list--is just plain silly.  The course shows a simplicity in style that is fascinating.  But to say that it can come from nowhere to Top 100 is not realistic.  It's like a totally new list is being created with a totally new set of criteria, and there is no recognition to what was being done in the past.
Ran has done a great job at Golf Magazine, and I am of course totally appreciative of what he has created in GCA.  But I'd caution him against moving too fast, recognizing only one set of criteria, and being too sure that other viewpoints than his do not have areas of credibility that need to be recognized.  I thought his Guardians of the Game list was creative, but I worried that it wasn't clear enough that it was based on only his set of personal criteria, with which I agreed on some points and disagreed on others.  But it was certainly his right to use any criteria he wanted, so long as he identified them clearly.  With the magazine list the need for full disclosure is even more important.
My first reaction to this new Top 100 list was appreciation and agreement, but my second reaction is some dismay at what I think is overly dogmatic thinking.  As someone wrote above, the best criteria may simply be to play whatever you find most compelling based on your own set of criteria.  There is no universal standard of criteria that is absolutely right and others that are equally clearly and totally wrong.  Let's keep our minds open.


Ran is the Harold Bloom of golf course architecture. Mostly that is for the better, but Jim's post is a good caution that it is not unqualifiedly for the better.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Leahy on October 21, 2020, 03:52:34 PM
Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless.  :P
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 21, 2020, 04:03:29 PM
Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless.  :P


Put a fence around pebble and it would be in the top 3.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark Kiely on October 21, 2020, 04:25:26 PM
Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless.  :P


Put a fence around pebble and it would be in the top 3.


Conversely, put a 20-foot tall wall around Pebble and where does it rank?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan_Callahan on October 21, 2020, 04:27:16 PM
OK, I could agree with all of that.  But the post just before yours implied that Congressional and Fox Chapel will be back in the lists AFTER THEY SPEND $$$ TO RESTORE THEIR GOLF COURSES.


Fair enough. Two separate issues.

If you had a Van Gogh that was muddled by a giant shit stain, its value would appreciate considerably after it was cleaned up.

In the case of a Dickinson poem, the "greatness" was there the moment it was written. But it took a change in societal taste and, more likely, the advocacy of an influential critic, to bring it to prominence.

In our world, something is only great when an important and influential person says it's great.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Steve Lapper on October 21, 2020, 05:26:03 PM
 So many good, and questionable, posts here.


 It's easy for everyone to take a shot at what placed where and infer or insinuate that some quasi-sinister "social engineering" or "closed feedback loop," "dogma," or "palace intrigue" was at work.


 As someone who participated in the list's creation, I'm terribly sorry to bore and disappoint you all, but none of the above occurred on Ran's watch. He simply encouraged all of us to get out and see EVERYTHING we thought should be seen.....as far and wide as we could.*


Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!

Instead of arguing with anyone over specifics (although I don't think Pebble or Olympic are as good as some of you folks do ::)  ) I remind everyone that all lists are flawed and this one is no exception. There are some hits, some misses, and some surprises in this one. IMO, it was a stellar first try. It was also GM's very first wholly-unique US Top 100.

Furthermore, I'm sorry that the GM Panelists had limited time, resources, and weren't part of some great financial scheme to enrich the publication, and thus did not canvas every course in every state in the country (PS....That's solely Paul Rudovsky's job :~).

*Clearly, it was a year that so much previously-scheduled and well-planned travel had to be canceled or seriously curtailed. The pandemic forced so many clubs--understandably--to restrict or even eliminate measures of guest play before the ballot was due. When the virus is gone, I'd expect many foreign-based panelists to find their way over the pond.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: David Wuthrich on October 21, 2020, 05:31:03 PM
Well said Steve
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100 Wish List
Post by: Steve Lang on October 21, 2020, 05:48:21 PM
 8)   Surprised that Ballyneal wasn't placed above Inverness, then the Ross folks could could argue about whether Oakland Hills or Inverness 65 miles to the south were truly ranked correctly...
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 21, 2020, 06:31:50 PM
So many good, and questionable, posts here.


 It's easy for everyone to take a shot at what placed where and infer or insinuate that some quasi-sinister "social engineering" or "closed feedback loop," "dogma," or "palace intrigue" was at work.


 As someone who participated in the list's creation, I'm terribly sorry to bore and disappoint you all, but none of the above occurred on Ran's watch. He simply encouraged all of us to get out and see EVERYTHING we thought should be seen.....as far and wide as we could.*


Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!

Instead of arguing with anyone over specifics (although I don't think Pebble or Olympic are as good as some of you folks do ::)  ) I remind everyone that all lists are flawed and this one is no exception. There are some hits, some misses, and some surprises in this one. IMO, it was a stellar first try. It was also GM's very first wholly-unique US Top 100.

Furthermore, I'm sorry that the GM Panelists had limited time, resources, and weren't part of some great financial scheme to enrich the publication, and thus did not canvas every course in every state in the country (PS....That's solely Paul Rudovsky's job :~).

*Clearly, it was a year that so much previously-scheduled and well-planned travel had to be canceled or seriously curtailed. The pandemic forced so many clubs--understandably--to restrict or even eliminate measures of guest play before the ballot was due. When the virus is gone, I'd expect many foreign-based panelists to find their way over the pond.


A wee bit defensive. Most of the courses are not accessible to me, but of the ones that I have played, it strikes me as a fine list. But to assert that it does not reflect a particular philosophy (with which I generally but not wholeheartedly agree) is to not acknowledge that biases exist.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on October 22, 2020, 02:23:18 AM
Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.


I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.


Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.


I think it depends on what you're applying it to.  Religious ideas, yes far more dogmatic in the 20s.

But GCA was the Wild Wild west with little or no regulations and/or "right" way to do it...


100% agree Kalen.  I know very little about art, but is that a normal trend that artistic fields run opposite societal trends? When society is more open, does art get less wild and interesting?  Or is this relationship not on any type of solid footing.


It is not to do with society. Anything new is wild and free at the beginning. Over time, as more people get involved / interested, more rules are added and generally accepted outcomes converge in to a much smaller field of tolerance.... The move towards homogenisation... This move is due to the closed minds of the customer (everyday golfer) and architects should be fighting against it wherever possible.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Sweeney on October 22, 2020, 05:59:52 AM


Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!




Yes, I am a fan of 147 Custodians:


https://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/


and I am still waiting for #148 to be posted after the 2019 Open Championship!! Oops, Ran sold us out to Golf.com!!


I also like this list, now lost in the archives:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/matthew-hunt-another-take-on-a-world-top-100-ranking/


The new US list is fine, but there is clearly a bias to Northeast private course renovations with over the top green speeds.


I am happy that Ran pulled Yale from the Golf list, the ultimate in "be careful in what you wish for", as they went to #83 on the Ran/Golf Magazine World list in November 2019 to off the Ran/Golf USA list October 2020. Maybe it will be a wakeup call, and you can't have 14 Stimp greens at Yale!! 


Here is Masa's compilation of the Golf list, now dated:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/nishijima-masa-golf-magazine-top-100-1983-2011/
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Steve Lapper on October 22, 2020, 07:58:42 AM


Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!




Yes, I am a fan of 147 Custodians:


https://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/)


and I am still waiting for #148 to be posted after the 2019 Open Championship!! Oops, Ran sold us out to Golf.com!!


I also like this list, now lost in the archives:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/matthew-hunt-another-take-on-a-world-top-100-ranking/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/matthew-hunt-another-take-on-a-world-top-100-ranking/)


The new US list is fine, but there is clearly a bias to Northeast private course renovations with over the top green speeds.


I am happy that Ran pulled Yale from the Golf list, the ultimate in "be careful in what you wish for", as they went to #83 on the Ran/Golf Magazine World list in November 2019 to off the Ran/Golf USA list October 2020. Maybe it will be a wakeup call, and you can't have 14 Stimp greens at Yale!! 



Mike,


   You need to get out more. The skew towards "Northeast private course renovations" is, as Tom Doak said; "precisely because there are so many fine courses out there." 


  Your claim/blame on "over the top green speeds" is just ludicrous. I don't know of a single course in the Northeast where highly-stimped green speeds mattered even an iota. For example, a few of us played one specific course over a period of time when the weather prohibited swift speeds, yet it was near unanimous how good the architecture was and how well it had been revealed over the last decade.


Lastly, The 147 Guardian list is absolutely great for what it sets out to accomplish and highlight. It isn't a US Top 100 list whatsoever and like comparing Kiwis to Apples. You don't do that with your client companies...why do it here??


Ira,


  While the list results may fit into a descriptive philosophy, it certainly wasn't conceived or even remotely guided that way. Surely, every human walking this planet has their biases. No qualitative list can ever be drawn without them.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on October 22, 2020, 08:13:25 AM
Steve,


Would you not say it is guided that way through its choice of panellists?


After that, fully understand that there is no directive. But when everyone likes the same kind of thing, they end up convincing each other that they are right.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 22, 2020, 08:20:52 AM
Steve,


Would you not say it is guided that way through its choice of panellists?


After that, fully understand that there is no directive. But when everyone likes the same kind of thing, they end up convincing each other that they are right.


A closed feedback loop, if you will.


I quite enjoy the comedy of starting a post with "you need to get out more", that is defending having such a huge % of a Top 100 list being in the Northeast.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 22, 2020, 08:55:37 AM
Steve,


Would you not say it is guided that way through its choice of panellists?


After that, fully understand that there is no directive. But when everyone likes the same kind of thing, they end up convincing each other that they are right.


A closed feedback loop, if you will.


I quite enjoy the comedy of starting a post with "you need to get out more", that is defending having such a huge % of a Top 100 list being in the Northeast.
+1, it is entertaining and also sadly misplaced to be defending a list as if was his own, LOL.
It's always strange to me how "seasonal" these great courses of the NE actually play.
love me some Mountain Lake

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Michael Moore on October 22, 2020, 09:14:51 AM
I played Worcester Country Club for the first time this month. It was designed 105 years ago by a guy from Scotland on a piece of land that he personally selected. They have recently cut down almost all of the trees, and you spend the afternoon looking over acre after acre of fairway, native area, and fescue tumbling all over the perfect topography. The stone walls, bunkers, and green sites are of course just so, and the third and sixth holes are world class. It's everything you could ever want. Count me in on the Northeast private renovations, and I hope that they proliferate.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JC Jones on October 22, 2020, 09:30:08 AM
I played Worcester Country Club for the first time this month. It was designed 105 years ago by a guy from Scotland on a piece of land that he personally selected. They have recently cut down almost all of the trees, and you spend the afternoon looking over acre after acre of fairway, native area, and fescue tumbling all over the perfect topography. The stone walls, bunkers, and green sites are of course just so, and the third and sixth holes are world class. It's everything you could ever want. Count me in on the Northeast private renovations, and I hope that they proliferate.


I have heard great things about Worcester Country Club.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jim Franklin on October 22, 2020, 10:41:04 AM
Where's Whippoorwill? Davenport?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 22, 2020, 10:47:52 AM
Where's Whippoorwill?


not that good
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Sweeney on October 22, 2020, 11:03:13 AM


Lastly, The 147 Guardian list is absolutely great for what it sets out to accomplish and highlight. It isn't a US Top 100 list whatsoever and like comparing Kiwis to Apples. You don't do that with your client companies...why do it here??



Not a big deal, I was answering your question, which had no reference to US Top 100. I get it, Top 100 US was implied by the topic on this thread. Just some internet confusion:


Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture? If so, dome a favor and SHOW me!


Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: PCCraig on October 22, 2020, 11:40:51 AM
Well - whatever I say is biased as I was personally thrilled to see WBYC on the list at #76.


Generally speaking, this list is more in line with what I personally enjoy to play. The Custodians List is still my favorite but for overall quality of the list this one is pretty good.


Other than Mammoth Dunes making the list I didn't have any moments of "really?!" other than maybe Bandon Trails being in the Top 40 courses in the entire country?


Loved seeing Lawsonia on the list. Much deserved.


As with any list, there tends to be too much emphasis on where they exactly land on the list.


Anyone know when the issue is going to be officially released? It's not on my iPad app.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jim Franklin on October 22, 2020, 12:08:09 PM
Where's Whippoorwill?


not that good

Personal experience? I loved it.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jeff Schley on October 22, 2020, 12:23:44 PM
One aspect of this list (when seen) is the high bar they use in GCA attribution. I like keeping the original GCA unless a significant redesign is done. They use this as a bar.  From what I can see in the last 20 years the only ones who are listed as GCA for a redesign are:
Much prefer this high bar than lumping in restorations with 5 different GCA's in a line next to a course. I hope that GM can start this trend and stay true to it as an independent entity that helps put a fence around what is/isn't design credit from an integrity standpoint. I know there are GCA's on the panel and if they are living it has a propensity for conflict of interest, but based on what I see it is a very objective standard and it is appreciated.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Carl Nichols on October 22, 2020, 12:28:02 PM
To Roman's point:


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes for the first time last month. I already can't wait to go back to the resort - they're really good. But I certainly think there's room to ask questions about their Top 100 validity.


I found Mammoth big, bold, and spectacular. It's fun as hell. I'm just not convinced that it's quite as discerning as a great course should be. On my play, it felt like the fine line between a good result and a poor result for an average shot might be just a little too skewed toward good results. It might be a little short on teeth. Then again, I really loved playing it!


Does Sand Valley have the great holes to truly cement its standing on this list? I love the ethos, I love the setting, and I think it's a good, strong golf course. Well worth an 8+ hour drive for me every couple years. But do you play one of the twenty best golf holes in Wisconsin when you play it? I'm asking genuinely - I think I need another play or two to really firm up my own thoughts on it.



I spent 3 days at Sand Valley earlier this year.  We had a terrific time, and I too hope to return soon.  Jason's thoughts on the courses are practically identical to mine. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Nuzzo on October 22, 2020, 12:28:27 PM

Similarly, I have played Wolf Point in Texas, I found it very well done and charming, and I wish the new owner great success.  But to say it is the best course in Texas--in fact the only one on the list--is just plain silly.  The course shows a simplicity in style that is fascinating.  But to say that it can come from nowhere to Top 100 is not realistic.  It's like a totally new list is being created with a totally new set of criteria, and there is no recognition to what was being done in the past.


Glad you enjoyed Wolf Point. "Come from nowhere" is not an accurate statement.
While Al was alive I required and got every visitor to agree to not submit a review to a major magazine.
We never solicited reviews, but obviously a number of people on the Golf panel visited over the years and decided it should be included.
Cheers
 

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 22, 2020, 12:51:36 PM
I’m not surprised to see East Lake drop out. I love the Bobby Jones connection and there are some fun holes but I don’t think it merits Top 100 status.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: PCCraig on October 22, 2020, 01:10:41 PM
One aspect of this list (when seen) is the high bar they use in GCA attribution. I like keeping the original GCA unless a significant redesign is done. They use this as a bar.  From what I can see in the last 20 years the only ones who are listed as GCA for a redesign are:
  • Cal Club - 2007 Kyle Philips
  • Inverness - 2017 Andrew Green
  • Sleep Hollow - 2017 Gil Hanse
  • Oak Hill East - 2020 Andrew Green
  • Monterey Peninsula Shore - 2004 Mike Stranz
  • Monterey Peninsula Dunes - 2015 Jackson/Kahn
  • Pinehurst no. 4 - 2017 Gil Hanse
Much prefer this high bar than lumping in restorations with 5 different GCA's in a line next to a course. I hope that GM can start this trend and stay true to it as an independent entity that helps put a fence around what is/isn't design credit from an integrity standpoint. I know there are GCA's on the panel and if they are living it has a propensity for conflict of interest, but based on what I see it is a very objective standard and it is appreciated.


Not to mention they finally got the architect of WBYC right!!!  ;D ;)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Edward Glidewell on October 22, 2020, 04:23:34 PM
I’m not surprised to see East Lake drop out. I love the Bobby Jones connection and there are some fun holes but I don’t think it merits Top 100 status.


I agree.  I enjoy playing East Lake and think it's a good golf course, but I don't think it would make my personal top 10 of courses I've played and I'm nowhere near as well-traveled (at least when it comes to golf courses) as many other contributors here. Hard for me to believe it's one of the 100 best in the country.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: PCCraig on October 22, 2020, 04:32:58 PM
Managed to see a Pdf of the Top 100 article.


Really enjoyed the Top 50 ranking of courses from each region of the country. NE, SE, Heartland, and West.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 22, 2020, 06:21:25 PM
Where's Whippoorwill?


not that good

Personal experience? I loved it.
yep, played it, a few nice holes and a nice club
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 22, 2020, 06:24:13 PM
I’m not surprised to see East Lake drop out. I love the Bobby Jones connection and there are some fun holes but I don’t think it merits Top 100 status.
+1
the Tour PGA'd the greens and took out a lot of interest in that regard, bummer
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kevin Pallier on October 22, 2020, 07:05:45 PM
Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless.  :P


Tim


I know your post was tongue in cheek but I for one am glad to finally see a US magazine push Pebble Beach into double figures.


Golf Digest at some stage in early 2000'as had it a #1 in US and has always had it no worse than #7 since 1985. Golf Magazine has had it at a high of #3 in the early 80's and now at #10. For mine #10 is still a little too high but at least it's a start.   


 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 22, 2020, 09:06:52 PM
It is always entertaining to see the comments on these Top 100 lists.  People take them so seriously.  It is also so funny but not surprising to see the debate about Pebble Beach.  To each his own but I tell people I have now played about 20 Doak 10’s and Pebble Beach is one of them.  I guess if I listed all 20 courses one of them would have to be #20 but they all would still be a 10  ;D


I played a course today (no need to mention the name but is was a good one).  I was discussing my thoughts on the recent renovation with my host and one of my comments was that while I absolutely love the golf course, it was now very refined, highly manicured, wall to wall green,..., almost too perfect.  It lost “the roughness around the edges” and I mean “the roughness around the edges” in a good way (I miss that). My host agreed and used what I thought was a good example/analogy which I will paraphrase. He said it’s a bit like when someone takes an old rifle to get appraised and the comment is made - “What a beautiful piece, but I see somebody tried to polish up the barrel and they replaced the stock,.. it looks almost new. It is probably worth about $500 but it’s a shame because if it hadn’t lost its patina it would be worth more than double that.” 

We all know some courses don’t age well but I still wonder if the same could be said about some of our great classic designs that get a face lift and it is too perfect and it loses that patina? 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Brian Finn on October 23, 2020, 09:06:04 AM
It is always entertaining to see the comments on these Top 100 lists.  People take them so seriously.  It is also so funny but not surprising to see the debate about Pebble Beach.  To each his own but I tell people I have now played about 20 Doak 10’s and Pebble Beach is one of them.  I guess if I listed all 20 courses one of them would have to be #20 but they all would still be a 10  ;D


I played a course today (no need to mention the name but is was a good one).  I was discussing my thoughts on the recent renovation with my host and one of my comments was that while I absolutely love the golf course, it was now very refined, highly manicured, wall to wall green,..., almost too perfect.  It lost “the roughness around the edges” and I mean “the roughness around the edges” in a good way (I miss that). My host agreed and used what I thought was a good example/analogy which I will paraphrase. He said it’s a bit like when someone takes an old rifle to get appraised and the comment is made - “What a beautiful piece, but I see somebody tried to polish up the barrel and they replaced the stock,.. it looks almost new. It is probably worth about $500 but it’s a shame because if it hadn’t lost its patina it would be worth more than double that.” 

We all know some courses don’t age well but I still wonder if the same could be said about some of our great classic designs that get a face lift and it is too perfect and it loses that patina? 

That's a terrific analogy.  The tough thing about developing a patina is that it requires that we leave well enough alone.  Patience and restraint are in short supply these days.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 23, 2020, 09:27:57 AM
Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan_Callahan on October 23, 2020, 09:33:33 AM
I've never understood why Pebble gets such heavy criticism on here. Granted, I think it's one of those courses where it is very difficult to separate out the architecture from the scenery. Having said that, it is a course I had high expectations of, and those expectations were exceeded after I played it. That doesn't happen all that often.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jason Thurman on October 23, 2020, 10:30:23 AM
I think the criticism thrown at Pebble is pretty easy to understand:


And in fairness, some of the things above are legitimate things to critique. Particularly bullets 2 and 3 - it has some mundane holes, and the presentation leaves something to be desired. Different people will weigh those detriments differently, and there aren't really right and wrong answers.


It's right next to Pinehurst No. 2 on this list, which offers both clear comparability (expensive, famous, resort golf) and contrast (inland, more noted for its consistent excellence than its extraordinary highlights, firm and fast and rugged presentation). For me, if I list the best holes between the two courses, it's not until I'm trying to choose the 9th best hole between them that there's even a discussion of selecting a hole from No. 2. And again, for me, highs that high outweigh the fact that No. 2 doesn't have any holes in the bottom 5.


To compare to another iconic entity from the area, the 2017 Warriors are the best basketball team I've ever seen. I could give a shit that the bench was rounded out with Javale, Zaza, and old Anderson Varejao. In crunch time, the fact that they could throw five Hall of Famers on the floor sorta trumps the rest of the roster for me.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jim Franklin on October 23, 2020, 11:03:47 AM
It is always entertaining to see the comments on these Top 100 lists.  People take them so seriously.  It is also so funny but not surprising to see the debate about Pebble Beach.  To each his own but I tell people I have now played about 20 Doak 10’s and Pebble Beach is one of them.  I guess if I listed all 20 courses one of them would have to be #20 but they all would still be a 10  ;D


I played a course today (no need to mention the name but is was a good one).  I was discussing my thoughts on the recent renovation with my host and one of my comments was that while I absolutely love the golf course, it was now very refined, highly manicured, wall to wall green,..., almost too perfect.  It lost “the roughness around the edges” and I mean “the roughness around the edges” in a good way (I miss that). My host agreed and used what I thought was a good example/analogy which I will paraphrase. He said it’s a bit like when someone takes an old rifle to get appraised and the comment is made - “What a beautiful piece, but I see somebody tried to polish up the barrel and they replaced the stock,.. it looks almost new. It is probably worth about $500 but it’s a shame because if it hadn’t lost its patina it would be worth more than double that.” 

We all know some courses don’t age well but I still wonder if the same could be said about some of our great classic designs that get a face lift and it is too perfect and it loses that patina? 


Sounds like a course outside of Philadelphia I know.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 23, 2020, 11:05:07 AM
I think the criticism thrown at Pebble is pretty easy to understand:


  • It's ungodly expensive. I can think of a handful of resort courses that charge within $100 of Pebble's greens fee, and they all catch shade around here with the exception of Pinehurst No. 2 which somehow gets a pass.
  • The maintenance meld probably isn't quite up to snuff with the rest of the Top 10 contenders, and in fact, might rank in the bottom 25% on this list. It's kept in very nice shape, but pretty soft and lush with a pretty clean and manicured aesthetic that doesn't get cool points around here.
  • A handful of average holes. I don't think this is really a detriment of the course. In fact, I remember coming up 15 and feeling almost overwhelmed by how over-the-top cool so many of the holes were, and being thankful for the chance to catch a breath. I think the flow of the course benefits from having some quieter moments, but the sum of the parts is less than it would be if some of those inland holes were loaded with wild-ass architectural features.
  • Nothing makes one's tastes sound refined like shitting on something that's universally beloved. If I go to The Palms with Jones and say something like "I mean, this is a good steak, but the marbling just doesn't quite reach the levels of the finest cuts and also is that... *sniff sniff*... maple that I taste? It's a little cloying. And this preparation is closer to medium than medium-rare, and that's unacceptable..." I sound like a real critic. And because of the items above, it's easy for an armchair architect to pick out some stuff to criticize at Pebble.
  • It's a low-key HARD golf course. I think we can safely assume that over 50% of people who play Pebble will only play it once in their lives. How many of them experience the course's greatest thrills firsthand during that round? I know I didn't. I hacked it up all day and made one par. It's my favorite course I've seen, and that's half the reason I can't wait to go back. But I also want another crack at a bunch of shots out there...
  • And yeah, it's public. And a publicly-known entity. The guy with the hottest takes about Pebble Beach doesn't have to worry about never getting invited back, or offending his host. And he doesn't step to the first tee with a feeling of inherent gratitude for being fortunate enough to have had the stars align to allow him to step foot onto the property. If anything, he might be a little pissy about just spending $500.
And in fairness, some of the things above are legitimate things to critique. Particularly bullets 2 and 3 - it has some mundane holes, and the presentation leaves something to be desired. Different people will weigh those detriments differently, and there aren't really right and wrong answers.


It's right next to Pinehurst No. 2 on this list, which offers both clear comparability (expensive, famous, resort golf) and contrast (inland, more noted for its consistent excellence than its extraordinary highlights, firm and fast and rugged presentation). For me, if I list the best holes between the two courses, it's not until I'm trying to choose the 9th best hole between them that there's even a discussion of selecting a hole from No. 2. And again, for me, highs that high outweigh the fact that No. 2 doesn't have any holes in the bottom 5.


To compare to another iconic entity from the area, the 2017 Warriors are the best basketball team I've ever seen. I could give a shit that the bench was rounded out with Javale, Zaza, and old Anderson Varejao. In crunch time, the fact that they could throw five Hall of Famers on the floor sorta trumps the rest of the roster for me.


A well reasoned post that holds even more significance because of the disclaimer that Jason did not play well the day he was there. His take ramps up my desire to play and my takeaway is that the good/great holes more than compensate for those that are considered “pedestrian.”



Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on October 23, 2020, 11:17:29 AM
I've always found the haggling/grief over Pebbles exact ranking a bit amusing. 

With 15,372 courses in the US,  whether it should be in the top 5,(0.0325%) of courses, or just top 10, (0.0651%) of courses seems a bit absurd.

P.S.  If the course was private and the average joe salivated over it being untouchable like a CPC, it would never even leave the top 3.  :D
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kevin_Reilly on October 23, 2020, 11:24:58 AM
I will be fortunate enough to play Pebble Beach next week (two of my boys with me).  Great post above, Jason.  I would add that if Pebble still looked as it did in this match, many would probably "rate" it higher.  It has a 1990s resort look about it today, with continuous cart paths etc.  But that is nit picking and not as noticeable on the ground as it is from aerial shots.


https://youtu.be/qMnrQYyxOho (https://youtu.be/qMnrQYyxOho)

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JMEvensky on October 23, 2020, 11:42:51 AM

I've always found the haggling/grief over Pebbles exact ranking a bit amusing. 

With 15,372 courses in the US,  whether it should be in the top 5,(0.0325%) of courses, or just top 10, (0.0651%) of courses seems a bit absurd.

P.S.  If the course was private and the average joe salivated over it being untouchable like a CPC, it would never even leave the top 3.  :D 



I agree--especially the PS. If you can get past past the green fee, I can't imagine a reason to turn down an opportunity to play PB.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Chris Clouser on October 23, 2020, 12:09:34 PM
It's been a long time since I posted on here, but looking through the posts have a question.  I'll use Colonial as an example.  It is a well established club with a long pedigree of tournaments that hung onto the list for a long time, I'm assuming based on the merits of the golf course and perhaps somewhat to the nostalgia.  I believe it slipped off the list just from new clubs coming on and not having any high profile changes to it in recent years.  What would it take for a Colonial to get back onto the list?  And how high would it go up the list if it had some minor work done by a Coore, Hanse, or Doak?  How high if it has some sort of restoration?

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jim Hoak on October 23, 2020, 12:31:43 PM
Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?


It seems to me that there are two kinds of renovations--those that restore the original design features of the course and those that blow up the design and just use the same land.  Of course, it isn't that precise; most renovations have elements of both.  But there are preponderances of one or the other in most.
Now--to blatantly pat ourselves on the back, I want to tell you about about our renovation of the Brook Hollow golf course in Dallas--which is due to open for play on November 1.  Our singularly overriding goal was to restore the course (which had fallen far from the acknowledged best in Dallas, maybe the state) in a clearly Tillinghast fashion.  That was always the major factor in all our decisions.  We hired an architect because of his experience with Tillinghast renovations (Keith Foster).  We traveled to see his Tillinghast work.  We hired a Tillinghast historian to research the history of the Tillinghast design and give us his thoughts.  We put Tillinghast features--squareish greens, Great Hazard, etc.--back into the course.  We always said that our goal was to be seen as the best Tillinghast course, not on either coast.
We'll soon see how well we did.  Look forward to any good or bad comments.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: JMEvensky on October 23, 2020, 01:17:57 PM
Jim Hoak, I played BH over 40 years ago and loved it then. I think at least 2 fraternity brothers are still members. Please post any info/pictures of the restoration--I'd love to see them.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Niall Hay on October 23, 2020, 03:19:14 PM

It seems to me that there are two kinds of renovations--those that restore the original design features of the course and those that blow up the design and just use the same land.  Of course, it isn't that precise; most renovations have elements of both.  But there are preponderances of one or the other in most.
Now--to blatantly pat ourselves on the back, I want to tell you about about our renovation of the Brook Hollow golf course in Dallas--which is due to open for play on November 1.  Our singularly overriding goal was to restore the course (which had fallen far from the acknowledged best in Dallas, maybe the state) in a clearly Tillinghast fashion.  That was always the major factor in all our decisions.  We hired an architect because of his experience with Tillinghast renovations (Keith Foster).  We traveled to see his Tillinghast work.  We hired a Tillinghast historian to research the history of the Tillinghast design and give us his thoughts.  We put Tillinghast features--squareish greens, Great Hazard, etc.--back into the course.  We always said that our goal was to be seen as the best Tillinghast course, not on either coast.
We'll soon see how well we did.  Look forward to any good or bad comments.


Absolutely cannot wait to see Brook Hollow. LOVE Tilly and Foster does great work.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: mike_malone on October 23, 2020, 07:57:29 PM
It is always entertaining to see the comments on these Top 100 lists.  People take them so seriously.  It is also so funny but not surprising to see the debate about Pebble Beach.  To each his own but I tell people I have now played about 20 Doak 10’s and Pebble Beach is one of them.  I guess if I listed all 20 courses one of them would have to be #20 but they all would still be a 10  ;D


I played a course today (no need to mention the name but is was a good one).  I was discussing my thoughts on the recent renovation with my host and one of my comments was that while I absolutely love the golf course, it was now very refined, highly manicured, wall to wall green,..., almost too perfect.  It lost “the roughness around the edges” and I mean “the roughness around the edges” in a good way (I miss that). My host agreed and used what I thought was a good example/analogy which I will paraphrase. He said it’s a bit like when someone takes an old rifle to get appraised and the comment is made - “What a beautiful piece, but I see somebody tried to polish up the barrel and they replaced the stock,.. it looks almost new. It is probably worth about $500 but it’s a shame because if it hadn’t lost its patina it would be worth more than double that.” 

We all know some courses don’t age well but I still wonder if the same could be said about some of our great classic designs that get a face lift and it is too perfect and it loses that patina? 

That's a terrific analogy.  The tough thing about developing a patina is that it requires that we leave well enough alone.  Patience and restraint are in short supply these days.


I strongly agree with this. A restoration should sneak under the radar not blare “ we spent a lot of money!!!!”
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: jeffwarne on October 23, 2020, 08:35:16 PM
It is always entertaining to see the comments on these Top 100 lists.  People take them so seriously.  It is also so funny but not surprising to see the debate about Pebble Beach.  To each his own but I tell people I have now played about 20 Doak 10’s and Pebble Beach is one of them.  I guess if I listed all 20 courses one of them would have to be #20 but they all would still be a 10  ;D


I played a course today (no need to mention the name but is was a good one).  I was discussing my thoughts on the recent renovation with my host and one of my comments was that while I absolutely love the golf course, it was now very refined, highly manicured, wall to wall green,..., almost too perfect.  It lost “the roughness around the edges” and I mean “the roughness around the edges” in a good way (I miss that). My host agreed and used what I thought was a good example/analogy which I will paraphrase. He said it’s a bit like when someone takes an old rifle to get appraised and the comment is made - “What a beautiful piece, but I see somebody tried to polish up the barrel and they replaced the stock,.. it looks almost new. It is probably worth about $500 but it’s a shame because if it hadn’t lost its patina it would be worth more than double that.” 

We all know some courses don’t age well but I still wonder if the same could be said about some of our great classic designs that get a face lift and it is too perfect and it loses that patina? 



The loss of "patina" to me is always always most evident when the turf in all areas consists of a monostand with not only no weeds, but several varieties of grass segregated into its respective perfectly kept area.(i.e. no fairway turf in the rough, and no rough creeping into the native or vice versa)
A bit like a 6 year old freaking out if his peas touch his potatos or his beef.
I used to love the way Palmetto's unirrigated fairways bled into sandy rough with a light dose of browned out common bermuda and whatever native could survive unirrigated in the hot summer underneath cart and foot traffic.
Hard to tell where fairway ended and rough began and had a wonderful texture that changed with the weather and the season.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Nigel Islam on October 23, 2020, 09:22:44 PM
It's been a long time since I posted on here, but looking through the posts have a question.  I'll use Colonial as an example.  It is a well established club with a long pedigree of tournaments that hung onto the list for a long time, I'm assuming based on the merits of the golf course and perhaps somewhat to the nostalgia.  I believe it slipped off the list just from new clubs coming on and not having any high profile changes to it in recent years.  What would it take for a Colonial to get back onto the list?  And how high would it go up the list if it had some minor work done by a Coore, Hanse, or Doak?  How high if it has some sort of restoration?


I don’t have an answer, but great to see you posting again!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 24, 2020, 12:00:45 AM
It's been a long time since I posted on here, but looking through the posts have a question.  I'll use Colonial as an example.  It is a well established club with a long pedigree of tournaments that hung onto the list for a long time, I'm assuming based on the merits of the golf course and perhaps somewhat to the nostalgia.  I believe it slipped off the list just from new clubs coming on and not having any high profile changes to it in recent years.  What would it take for a Colonial to get back onto the list?  And how high would it go up the list if it had some minor work done by a Coore, Hanse, or Doak?  How high if it has some sort of restoration?


Chris:


This is part of what I have been lamenting.  I think places like Colonial have seen the last of the list, because there is no designer label to restore them to.  So a place like Brook Hollow with the Tillinghast banner will surpass Colonial, even though few people used to think they were equals.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on October 24, 2020, 12:15:11 AM

To compare to another iconic entity from the area, the 2017 Warriors are the best basketball team I've ever seen. I could give a shit that the bench was rounded out with Javale, Zaza, and old Anderson Varejao. In crunch time, the fact that they could throw five Hall of Famers on the floor sorta trumps the rest of the roster for me.


I agreed with large parts of your post, but this analogy is not so great.  On a golf course every player (golf hole) gets to take its one shot and then you are done with it.  You can't hide the weak holes on the bench where they only play five minutes in breather time.


Years ago someone ran a hole by hole match between Pebble and Pacific Dunes . . . Pebble won every hole from 5-10 plus 14, 17 & 18, but lost all the rest.  Yet no one argues that Pacific Dunes is way better than #10 in the USA.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark Pritchett on October 24, 2020, 04:50:52 AM
I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course.  [/size]
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 24, 2020, 08:06:34 AM
I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course.  [/size]


agreed
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: jeffwarne on October 24, 2020, 08:41:04 AM
I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course.  [/size]


Bingo
If matched in sequence especially
 and a great hole that greatly contributes to the sum can be canceled by an epic hole.
Conversely an epic hole can be wasted on a dud.





Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on October 24, 2020, 08:53:46 AM
To weigh in on the above, I very much dislike hole vs hole match plays.


Primarily because it ignores the routing / journey and also because it fails to reward consistency, vibe and general je ne sais quoi... not to mention the random outcomes based on what number each hole falls at.


I’ve mentioned before that I seem to rank golf courses a little more on the overall versus number of great holes compared to a few of the architects on here. That’s not to say that great holes aren’t of the utmost importance, just that the focus on them seems to be imbalanced and moving us worryingly close to the old photographic signature hole theory.


Once you’re talking about great holes designed on uninteresting or subtle land that don’t always photograph well, I’m all yours.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jeff Schley on October 24, 2020, 09:09:30 AM
When rating course it is more than 1 hole, it is 18 parts and collectively are greater than the sum of the parts. Fun to BS about and dissect aspects of each hole, but side by side I don't put alot of weight in. An alternative I heard a friend use is comparing the hole handicapped holes side by side. 1 handicap vs. 1 handicap and so forth. We did it for a pair of local munis and was fun, but wouldn't say that is great either.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 24, 2020, 09:13:36 AM
Has anyone broken down the list by architect?


Thanks.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jeff Schley on October 24, 2020, 09:18:15 AM
Has anyone broken down the list by architect?


Thanks.
Ira as a HC I used to work for would say, "that's a great idea, your on it!"
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: corey miller on October 24, 2020, 09:57:20 AM



Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.


I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.


Why not a "match" based on the sum of the Doak ratings on each hole?     
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on October 24, 2020, 10:28:22 AM
Has anyone broken down the list by architect?


Thanks.
Ira as a HC I used to work for would say, "that's a great idea, your on it!"


Jeff,


You are way better organized and more efficient than I am.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Drew Harvie on October 24, 2020, 10:31:42 AM
Collection of golf holes are different than a golf course. Great golf courses have great golf holes, obviously, but the flow, routing, pacing, etc is a huge component of what makes them great
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 24, 2020, 10:34:45 AM
Why not admit what we all know, there are literally hundreds of courses in the U.S. that could be ranked in the Top 100 in the country. My own list of courses that I have played and consider best on the planet just topped 450.  I think any of those could be argued to be a Top 100 design. 


I think Tom Fazio said it best, “There is one clear #1 course and after that I could name 200 that could be argued to be ranked #2.” 


My suggestion is go experience as many as you can as they all are special in their own way and if you look closely you can learn a lot in the process. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: PCCraig on October 24, 2020, 11:19:38 AM
I think Tom Fazio said it best, “There is one clear #1 course and after that I could name 200 that could be argued to be ranked #2.” 



Let me guess...Shadow Creek & 200 more 2nd best courses?  ;)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Peter Pallotta on October 24, 2020, 11:28:22 AM
Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.

I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.

I spent years thinking I wanted pace and flow and an elegant routing that made the best possible use of the site, but nowadays I agree with Corey, ie I just want as many great / cool / interesting holes as possible — and as long as you don’t have me walking endlessly around in circles or hiking up and down a 2 mile hill, I don’t care very much about the ‘flow of an excellent routing’, which now feels to me like a made-up concept that I wouldn’t know how to recognize/judge in any event.

Give me 18 signature holes, 18 great postcards. After all, the great (or at least award winning) new courses of the last 2+ decades by the best architects of our times: aren’t they mostly about and don’t they most prominently feature one cool / interesting hole after another? They might not be very much like the postcards that Nicklaus or Jones or Fazio used to send, but they are indeed postcards nonetheless. 

And that is precisely what makes those courses special/award-winning/great. The ‘pace’ and ‘flow’ are just the conceptual eye candy and marketing bumph — and not one single top architect working today is going to create even one single less-interesting golf hole (let alone forego a potentially very good or great one) in order to achieve those concepts.



Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on October 24, 2020, 11:43:58 AM
Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.

I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.

I spent years thinking I wanted pace and flow and an elegant routing that made the best possible use of the site, but nowadays I agree with Corey, ie I just want as many great / cool / interesting holes as possible — and as long as you don’t have me walking endlessly around in circles or hiking up and down a 2 mile hill, I don’t care very much about the ‘flow of an excellent routing’, which now feels to me like a made up concept that I wouldn’t know how to recognize/judge in any event.
Give me 18 signature holes, 18 great postcards. After all: the great (or at least award winning) new courses of the last 2+ decades by the best architects of our times, aren’t they mostly about and most prominently feature one cool / interesting hole after another? THAT is what makes the courses special — the ‘pace’ and ‘flow’ are just the eye candy.


You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.


Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.


Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.


I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 24, 2020, 12:23:11 PM
I am sure Fazio would list Shadow Creek as one of the #2s and it would be hard to argue with him (though every one here would because that is what we do  ;) ) but his clear #1 is Pine Valley. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Dan_Callahan on October 24, 2020, 02:23:14 PM

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.

Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.

Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.

I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.
Ally,

Wouldn't you say Carne is a poster child for what you're saying? Among the 27 holes on the property, almost all are spectacular. But the routing detracted from the experience. Better-integrating the new 9 with the older layout takes the experience to a much higher level.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Jerry Kluger on October 24, 2020, 05:33:54 PM
I see the list of courses as well as the list of raters and I will certainly admit that the raters have backgrounds which have given them the ability to see and play far more courses than I ever will so I will give my observations and take them for what they are.  I am a huge fan of Ballyneal and so much so that I have often said that I wonder if it had been built before Sand Hills would it be ranked higher.  That being said, I would also rank it higher than Pacific Dunes which I also really like but there is something very special about the routing as well as the way the course plays that makes Ballyneal so special to me.  SH opened the door for so many other really good courses and C & C should be recognized for that but after SH it becomes very difficult to rank their courses - perhaps that is because they are all so good but it is still very difficult to do. 


NGLA is no doubt one of the greatest courses in the US but the issue becomes how do you rank the other classic courses which have a predominance of template holes?  I look at the list and wonder how one ranks those courses and specifically what makes one better than the other?


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes last year and thought that Sand Valley was really good but Mammoth Dunes was special because to me it is very unique.  The fairways at MD are enormous but that doesn't make it easy as approaching those greens from the wrong angle can be a bear of a job. On that same trip we played Lawsonia I was amazed at how unique it was but I would question the conditioning as well as the forced play on some holes due to intruding trees. 


So far as #2 goes I think you come to appreciate it when you see it in tournament conditions.  I was at the US Open when Kaymer won and I know that he played it incredibly well but you should have seen the rest of the field struggle with the course and that was with the plantings in the waste areas struggling due to a lack of rain in the spring. It is a brilliant course because of the importance of angles in approaching greens and dealing with the complexes when a green is missed.  Nicklaus said it is the greatest tree lined course he has seen where the trees don't come into play. 



Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 24, 2020, 07:03:37 PM
Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.

I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.

I spent years thinking I wanted pace and flow and an elegant routing that made the best possible use of the site, but nowadays I agree with Corey, ie I just want as many great / cool / interesting holes as possible — and as long as you don’t have me walking endlessly around in circles or hiking up and down a 2 mile hill, I don’t care very much about the ‘flow of an excellent routing’, which now feels to me like a made up concept that I wouldn’t know how to recognize/judge in any event.
Give me 18 signature holes, 18 great postcards. After all: the great (or at least award winning) new courses of the last 2+ decades by the best architects of our times, aren’t they mostly about and most prominently feature one cool / interesting hole after another? THAT is what makes the courses special — the ‘pace’ and ‘flow’ are just the eye candy.


You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.


Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.


Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.


I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.


I agree that you can have both. A great hole loses something when the trek to the next tee is 200 yards.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: jeffwarne on October 24, 2020, 07:23:09 PM


Why not a "match" based on the sum of the Doak ratings on each hole?   


That makes more sense than match play in order.
But the order could reduce variety and the balance of the routing(example:if the last four holes were the only dogleg rights)

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Leahy on October 25, 2020, 02:50:41 AM
Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless.  :P


Tim


I know your post was tongue in cheek but I for one am glad to finally see a US magazine push Pebble Beach into double figures.


Golf Digest at some stage in early 2000'as had it a #1 in US and has always had it no worse than #7 since 1985. Golf Magazine has had it at a high of #3 in the early 80's and now at #10. For mine #10 is still a little too high but at least it's a start.   
Jack Nicklaus has it #1 and that's all I need.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Sean_A on October 25, 2020, 03:39:32 AM
To weigh in on the above, I very much dislike hole vs hole match plays.


Primarily because it ignores the routing / journey and also because it fails to reward consistency, vibe and general je ne sais quoi... not to mention the random outcomes based on what number each hole falls at.


I’ve mentioned before that I seem to rank golf courses a little more on the overall versus number of great holes compared to a few of the architects on here. That’s not to say that great holes aren’t of the utmost importance, just that the focus on them seems to be imbalanced and moving us worryingly close to the old photographic signature hole theory.


Once you’re talking about great holes designed on uninteresting or subtle land that don’t always photograph well, I’m all yours.

I don't look at hole by hole matchplay as a definitive concept. To me it's about really looking at each hole with the aim of being more objective. The other stuff like flow, walk, quality of the turf, drainage and beauty is important though. I recall doing head to head matches with Cavendish and realizing how good that course is. Head to head basically chucks out the assumptions based on reputation and history and makes it quite easy to see what actually exists. I use it a lot as a sort of eye test.

Ciao
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Paul Rudovsky on October 25, 2020, 04:19:34 AM
I would suggest that those who do not think routing and flow are important for evaluating a golf course should go to Australia to play Ellerston (on the Kerry Packer Estate about 175 miles north of Sydney). 


Ellerston was designed by Greg Norman's firm (I believe Bob Harrison was the point man in the field).  With seemingly infinite land available (as I recall the estate is about 100 sq miles), the course is built on a plot that seems to be about 500-600 acres (pure guess on my part based on a Google Maps look)...and each hole feels like it is in a "perfect" setting.  But the walks from green to tee must average at least 150-200 yards, and almost all must take a motorized cart (given the remoteness of the site caddies are generally not available...it also gets an unbelievably low amount of play).  And remember Mackenzie's 13 Principles of Course Design...as I recall #3 was short walk from green to next tee.


To me, Ellerston is the post child for why flow and routing are so important.  On a hole by hole match (no matter what the rules) it has to be in my world top 5 or 10...but in my overall evaluation I have it in the 76-100 grouping.  One person's opinion!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Bill Gayne on October 25, 2020, 07:18:31 AM
Paul,


Concur with your comments about routing and flow. Another example from Norman and Harrison is Doonbeg. When the course first opened it had routing and flow issues that significantly limited opinions and enjoyment of the golf course. I haven't been to Doonbeg in several years but have been told they've made several changes to improve routing and playability.


Bill
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on October 25, 2020, 07:54:09 AM
love Lawsonia, great place

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ally Mcintosh on October 25, 2020, 08:30:48 AM

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.

Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.

Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.

I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.
Ally,

Wouldn't you say Carne is a poster child for what you're saying? Among the 27 holes on the property, almost all are spectacular. But the routing detracted from the experience. Better-integrating the new 9 with the older layout takes the experience to a much higher level.


Dan, the absolute number one and two priority at Carne was walkability and playability... Jim Engh’s initial routing was a cart course... There were spectacular holes, many of which could have ended up great, but it would have been a very difficult walk... it still is but it’s about as easy as we could have made it and flows better once new 9 and back 9 are intertwined. That said, there are still a couple of areas that we need to work on to improve and lessen green to tee walks. A site that had huge advantages and some pretty big disadvantages.


Sean, when you put it like that, I can see how a hole to hole matchup can help as an indicator to elevate courses that don’t sometimes get considered as great / excellent.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: jeffwarne on October 25, 2020, 08:53:23 AM
I would suggest that those who do not think routing and flow are important for evaluating a golf course should go to Australia to play Ellerston ...


and each hole feels like it is in a "perfect" setting.  But the walks from green to tee must average at least 150-200 yards, and almost all must take a motorized cart (given the remoteness of the site caddies are generally not available...it also gets an unbelievably low amount of play).  And remember Mackenzie's 13 Principles of Course Design...as I recall #3 was short walk from green to next tee.


To me, Ellerston is the post child for why flow and routing are so important.  On a hole by hole match (no matter what the rules) it has to be in my world top 5 or 10...but in my overall evaluation I have it in the 76-100 grouping.  One person's opinion!


I'm generally very good at remembering each hole of a course I play once. but the ones I struggle with (or lose track of a hole or two) are those which have the poor transitions between holes or a cart required. That's not to say a long walk is a dealbreaker for memory(example-Bandon Trails or Highland Links) it's just that when I get turned around and lose my orientation via a winding, long or heavily treed long ride to the next hole that it all kind've runs together)
Somehow my memory is tied to to how the next hole is tied to the previous.I felt  little bit of this(despite walking ) at Bandon Dunes with the routing crossovers.


18 "separate" and/or "signature" holes on a website or marketing material pretty much makes me less inclined to want to visit.
I'd rather walk and play an awkward/quirky hole,en route a great sequence of holes, then walk/ride around the challenge all day to get to all "great" holes. Interestingly, sometimes the walk makes the next hole MORE memorable such as the walk to 16 at Friars Head or 5 at Barnbougle. Maybe it's the fact that on both courses you're on foot(more likely the fact that the walk is in a memorable/spectacular setting)
So yes, I'm clearly a walking contradiction.(who often can be found in a cart)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mark_Fine on October 25, 2020, 09:10:43 AM
C&C’s Plantation course sits on over 750 acres and is stunning. It is one of if not my favorite course in Hawaii though Nanea is right there with it and sits on even more acreage.  I also love Wannmoisett which sits on less than 100 acres.  The beauty of golf.  So much variety in the playing fields.   :)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Rob Marshall on October 27, 2020, 11:40:40 AM
Is the Doak scale located anywhere in the discussion board?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kevin_Reilly on October 27, 2020, 11:45:55 AM
It is on the site, but a google search brings up many results.  Here is one:


https://golfcoursegurus.com/rankings/doakscale.php (https://golfcoursegurus.com/rankings/doakscale.php)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on October 28, 2020, 02:28:51 PM
Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?
I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Brian Finn on October 28, 2020, 04:12:04 PM
Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?
I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.
Mike,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tim Martin on October 28, 2020, 04:33:11 PM
Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?
I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.
Mike,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.


Not to thread jack but I wonder how Green’s work has been generally received as far as reclaiming the lost Ross features at Oak Hill East? Anybody that has played since the reopening can chime in. Thanks.


Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on October 28, 2020, 04:41:45 PM
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.
Outside of the aforementioned greens, the course feels cohesive. Andrew Green did a good job in that regard. However, it's more polished and manicured now and less the tight, rustic beast it used to be. There's more room for error, which is great from a playability standpoint, but less from a strategic one, as you can get away with more. Having attended the Open there in 1979, it's a totally different course now than then. That course had teeth. This version of Inverness does as well, but less of them.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Anthony_Nysse on October 29, 2020, 05:44:02 AM
Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?
I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.
Mike,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.


Not to thread jack but I wonder how Green’s work has been generally received as far as reclaiming the lost Ross features at Oak Hill East? Anybody that has played since the reopening can chime in. Thanks.


Via social media, it's been very well received, heralded, in fact.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Anthony_Nysse on October 29, 2020, 06:00:15 AM
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.
Outside of the aforementioned greens, the course feels cohesive. Andrew Green did a good job in that regard. However, it's more polished and manicured now and less the tight, rustic beast it used to be. There's more room for error, which is great from a playability standpoint, but less from a strategic one, as you can get away with more. Having attended the Open there in 1979, it's a totally different course now than then. That course had teeth. This version of Inverness does as well, but less of them.


But aren't all these restored courses going towards width & being lauded by golf fans, especially from the GCA group? I think a combination of a renovated golf course, new Superintendent & desire to host national events, its inevitable that it will be more manicured.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on October 29, 2020, 07:49:45 AM
But aren't all these restored courses going towards width & being lauded by golf fans, especially from the GCA group? I think a combination of a renovated golf course, new Superintendent & desire to host national events, its inevitable that it will be more manicured.
That's the trend, for sure. I'm more of a throwback guy who cut his teeth on tight Ross courses with small greens. The question was posed does it still feel Rossian to me and I'd argue it doesn't. Inverness plays more like an open links style course minus the water. The broadening of the fairways and tree removal they did are primarily responsible for that. That said, the course is still tremendous in its own right. But it's a completely different course, in my mind.


I played Columbus Country Club a few weeks ago and Denison just outside of Columbus - both Ross courses. Columbus had a major resto-vation done there several years ago. Denison, I can't speak to. However, i hated the three holes on the back nine of that course that were built in place of Ross' original holes, but the Ross holes that are still intact are fantastic! In any event, both courses felt more Rossian to me than Inverness. Unless you've been on the grounds of Inverness over the decades to compare then to now, it's a night and day transformation. The majority of people (the membership, most importantly) love it and that's great. I'm simply not a big fan.


I played another Toledo course, Sylvania CC, for the first time ever last week. I fell in love with the place. The course felt true to the original Willie Park Jr. design. It hasn't been tinkered with nearly as much over the years as Inverness and thus felt more authentic. I can't say the same for Inverness in its current iteration and that's no criticism to Andrew Green. He simply made changes to the course based on the approval of the membership there. However, if the objective was to make it feel more like the original Ross layout, then I'd argue they fell short of the mark for the reasons stated above and those prior.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Brian Finn on October 29, 2020, 10:34:26 AM
I'm more of a throwback guy who cut his teeth on tight Ross courses with small greens. The question was posed does it still feel Rossian to me and I'd argue it doesn't. Inverness plays more like an open links style course minus the water. The broadening of the fairways and tree removal they did are primarily responsible for that.
How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general?  What features would / wouldn't you expect to see? 

I've played a healthy number of Ross courses, and have never felt there was a "typical" Ross style.  In my experience, his courses varied based on where they were located, the terrain, the soil, the budget, and many other factors, I am sure.  In reading about the hundreds of his courses I have not played, there seems to be even more variety.  Among the gca crowd, I'm hardly well-educated on Ross, but feel comfortable in asserting a few basic ideas.

I don't view tight, tree-lined courses with small greens as typical of Ross at all.  If anything, those courses are likely a product of tree planting that occurred at courses across the country in the 60s-80s, and green shrinkage due to years of sub-optimal course maintenance practices.  In studying numerous Ross courses, particularly when viewing original plans and pre-1940 aerial photos, I can't recall too many heavily treed courses. 

FWIW, the gca archives (1030 pages w/ ~25 topics per page) include a treasure trove of information on Ross, his courses, and everything you could ever imagine related to them.  There are too many to cite, but I have found this one especially informative.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on October 29, 2020, 11:30:27 AM
How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general?  What features would / wouldn't you expect to see? 

I've played a healthy number of Ross courses, and have never felt there was a "typical" Ross style.  In my experience, his courses varied based on where they were located, the terrain, the soil, the budget, and many other factors, I am sure.  In reading about the hundreds of his courses I have not played, there seems to be even more variety.  Among the gca crowd, I'm hardly well-educated on Ross, but feel comfortable in asserting a few basic ideas.

I don't view tight, tree-lined courses with small greens as typical of Ross at all.  If anything, those courses are likely a product of tree planting that occurred at courses across the country in the 60s-80s, and green shrinkage due to years of sub-optimal course maintenance practices.  In studying numerous Ross courses, particularly when viewing original plans and pre-1940 aerial photos, I can't recall too many heavily treed courses. 

FWIW, the gca archives (1030 pages w/ ~25 topics per page) include a treasure trove of information on Ross, his courses, and everything you could ever imagine related to them.  There are too many to cite, but I have found this one especially informative.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html)
The majority of Ross Courses I've played or caddied on, i.e. Oakland Hills, Barton Hills, Western, Grosse Isle, Muskegon, Detroit Golf Club, Columbus Country Club, Manakiki, Dennison, etc. - primarily, Midwest Ross are by and large tightly compacted courses with small to medium sized greens sloped sharply from back to front with drop-off's on the back. Are there exceptions? Of course. The question posed was why I thought Inverness in its current iteration no longer felt like a Ross course? I gave my reasons why. Anyone is welcome to disagree and I'm sure I'm in the minority in my opinion. My statements, however, were specific to my experience on Midwest Ross courses and past visits to Inverness. They weren't intended to paint all of Ross work with a broad brush. I've yet to have the privilege or good fortune to play his courses out east, in addition to those in the Carolina's or Florida to see how they contrast and vary. Those are on the bucket list.


Bottom line: Ross courses in Michigan and Ohio share a lot of commonalities and traits - Inverness included. Sure, there are differences that set each course apart and distinguish them from other Ross works in the area. That's the beauty of Ross. However, Inverness to me no longer feels like it did in the 70's and 80's, when it looked and felt more like Ross' other courses in the area. That's all I'm saying. Again, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Inverness and hope to go back and play it again. The layouts great, but it feels less Ross to me than it did before this last renovation is all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Brian Finn on October 29, 2020, 11:54:51 AM
How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general?  What features would / wouldn't you expect to see? 

I've played a healthy number of Ross courses, and have never felt there was a "typical" Ross style.  In my experience, his courses varied based on where they were located, the terrain, the soil, the budget, and many other factors, I am sure.  In reading about the hundreds of his courses I have not played, there seems to be even more variety.  Among the gca crowd, I'm hardly well-educated on Ross, but feel comfortable in asserting a few basic ideas.

I don't view tight, tree-lined courses with small greens as typical of Ross at all.  If anything, those courses are likely a product of tree planting that occurred at courses across the country in the 60s-80s, and green shrinkage due to years of sub-optimal course maintenance practices.  In studying numerous Ross courses, particularly when viewing original plans and pre-1940 aerial photos, I can't recall too many heavily treed courses. 

FWIW, the gca archives (1030 pages w/ ~25 topics per page) include a treasure trove of information on Ross, his courses, and everything you could ever imagine related to them.  There are too many to cite, but I have found this one especially informative.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html)
The majority of Ross Courses I've played or caddied on, i.e. Oakland Hills, Barton Hills, Western, Grosse Isle, Muskegon, Detroit Golf Club, Columbus Country Club, Manakiki, Dennison, etc. - primarily, Midwest Ross are by and large tightly compacted courses with small to medium sized greens sloped sharply from back to front with drop-off's on the back. Are there exceptions? Of course. The question posed was why I thought Inverness in its current iteration no longer felt like a Ross course? I gave my reasons why. Anyone is welcome to disagree and I'm sure I'm in the minority in my opinion. My statements, however, were specific to my experience on Midwest Ross courses and past visits to Inverness. They weren't intended to paint all of Ross work with a broad brush. I've yet to have the privilege or good fortune to play his courses out east, in addition to those in the Carolina's or Florida to see how they contrast and vary. Those are on the bucket list.

Bottom line: Ross courses in Michigan and Ohio share a lot of commonalities and traits - Inverness included. Sure, there are differences that set each course apart and distinguish them from other Ross works in the area. That's the beauty of Ross. However, Inverness to me no longer feels like it did in the 70's and 80's, when it looked and felt more like Ross' other courses in the area. That's all I'm saying. Again, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Inverness and hope to go back and play it again. The layouts great, but it feels less Ross to me than it did before this last renovation is all I'm saying.

I understand.  To be a bit more direct about it, one of the points I was trying to make is that the things that you consider typical of a Midwest Ross course (tight, tree-lined, small greens) mostly did not come about until well after his time.  Those are things that happened to Ross courses, not features of Ross designed courses.

I've played my fair share of Midwest Ross.  Brookside CC in Canton, Oakland Hills, Scioto, Hyde Park, Columbus CC, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Granville (Denison), Congress Lake, Miami Valley, Detroit GC, Broadmoor, Ravisloe, plus a bunch more.  In doing research (or more accurately, reading other people's excellent research), few, if any of these courses were designed to play through trees to small greens.  That's all. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on October 29, 2020, 12:24:50 PM
To be a bit more direct about it, one of the points I was trying to make is that the things that you consider typical of a Midwest Ross course (tight, tree-lined, small greens) mostly did not come about until well after his time.  Those are things that happened to Ross courses, not features of Ross designed courses.

I've played my fair share of Midwest Ross.  Brookside CC in Canton, Oakland Hills, Scioto, Hyde Park, Columbus CC, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Granville (Denison), Congress Lake, Miami Valley, Detroit GC, Broadmoor, Ravisloe, plus a bunch more.  In doing research (or more accurately, reading other people's excellent research), few, if any of these courses were designed to play through trees to small greens.  That's all.
I understand and appreciate that. Unfortunately, I wasn't alive in the 20's, 30's and 40's to play Ross' courses as he intended them. Thus, I can only base my comments of what I've actually experienced, not hypotheticals. That said, a lot of private Ross courses have implemented tree removal programs the past decade and have undertaken green restoration in an attempt to return those courses as close to their original design as conceivably possible. As such, you're starting to get a better feel for how some of his courses were intended to be played, which I applaud and hope more Ross courses undergo. I thought Columbus did a great job with their tree removal program and really exposed that property for the beautiful expanse Ross saw it for. I hope more of his courses in the Midwest follow suit.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Brian Finn on October 29, 2020, 12:27:52 PM
To be a bit more direct about it, one of the points I was trying to make is that the things that you consider typical of a Midwest Ross course (tight, tree-lined, small greens) mostly did not come about until well after his time.  Those are things that happened to Ross courses, not features of Ross designed courses.

I've played my fair share of Midwest Ross.  Brookside CC in Canton, Oakland Hills, Scioto, Hyde Park, Columbus CC, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Granville (Denison), Congress Lake, Miami Valley, Detroit GC, Broadmoor, Ravisloe, plus a bunch more.  In doing research (or more accurately, reading other people's excellent research), few, if any of these courses were designed to play through trees to small greens.  That's all.
I understand and appreciate that. Unfortunately, I wasn't alive in the 20's, 30's and 40's to play Ross' courses as he intended them. Thus, I can only base my comments of what I've actually experienced, not hypotheticals. That said, a lot of private Ross courses have implemented tree removal programs the past decade and have undertaken green restoration in an attempt to return those courses as close to their original design as conceivably possible. As such, you're starting to get a better feel for how some of his courses were intended to be played, which I applaud and hope more Ross courses undergo. I thought Columbus did a great job with their tree removal program and really exposed that property for the beautiful expanse Ross saw it for. I hope more of his courses in the Midwest follow suit.
Couldn't agree more.  Beautiful views across the course, better turf health, and generally more playable (at least tee to green) for hacks like me!  I hope to see the latest work at Columbus CC soon.  I played it many times (thanks to a gca member invite), but all before the work, and the handful of pictures I have seen look really solid.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Erik J. Barzeski on October 29, 2020, 05:50:43 PM
You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.
I don't know if this makes much sense. If you set me down on the first tee at Augusta National before there was a course there, I think many of us might wander over to 10, or down 18, or over to 9 and go up that way, and wander back that direction.

Who would wander across a turnpike at Oakmont? :)

I'm glad others are expressing doubt about the idea of a "routing" meaning that much. I've never understood what it meant AFTER the golf course is there. I understand its importance in designing the course, and using the best land possible, and solving problems, but AFTER that's done… I'm with the recent dissenters.

As an attempt to add an uneducated opinion here, I think that a "routing" from the playing perspective might only be "bad" or "unnoticed." The bad routings with long walks or drives do take away a bit from the experience, but I don't know that I've had too many "good" experiences where I thought to myself "man, that walk really added to my enjoyment of the course!" Another example might be back-to-back par threes, which many might see as a negative.

So maybe a routing (walking/driving) is only something worth considering if it's a negative? (Again, post-construction and from a playing standpoint only).
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Drew Harvie on October 29, 2020, 08:01:43 PM
Perhaps if you only notice a routing if it's poorly done you shouldn't be a rater
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Lou_Duran on October 30, 2020, 05:54:31 PM

Similarly, I have played Wolf Point in Texas, I found it very well done and charming, and I wish the new owner great success.  But to say it is the best course in Texas--in fact the only one on the list--is just plain silly.  The course shows a simplicity in style that is fascinating.  But to say that it can come from nowhere to Top 100 is not realistic.  It's like a totally new list is being created with a totally new set of criteria, and there is no recognition to what was being done in the past.


Glad you enjoyed Wolf Point. "Come from nowhere" is not an accurate statement.
While Al was alive I required and got every visitor to agree to not submit a review to a major magazine.
We never solicited reviews, but obviously a number of people on the Golf panel visited over the years and decided it should be included.
Cheers


Speaking from experience as a member of three panels at different times over the last 20 years (GOLF not among them), to be reviewed, i.e. for a vote or ballot to be submitted, the golf course had to be a candidate for the rankings.  Wolf Point was never one and very few golfers knew of its existence.  How it popped as Texas' only Top 100 course four years after Al's passing when the course was mostly closed is puzzling to me.  Perhaps Ran is trying to stir things up and generate more interest?  It would be interesting for those who care about these things to understand the criteria used to arrive at these judgments.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Nuzzo on October 30, 2020, 10:41:48 PM

Similarly, I have played Wolf Point in Texas, I found it very well done and charming, and I wish the new owner great success.  But to say it is the best course in Texas--in fact the only one on the list--is just plain silly.  The course shows a simplicity in style that is fascinating.  But to say that it can come from nowhere to Top 100 is not realistic.  It's like a totally new list is being created with a totally new set of criteria, and there is no recognition to what was being done in the past.


Glad you enjoyed Wolf Point. "Come from nowhere" is not an accurate statement.
While Al was alive I required and got every visitor to agree to not submit a review to a major magazine.
We never solicited reviews, but obviously a number of people on the Golf panel visited over the years and decided it should be included.
Cheers


Speaking from experience as a member of three panels at different times over the last 20 years (GOLF not among them), to be reviewed, i.e. for a vote or ballot to be submitted, the golf course had to be a candidate for the rankings.  Wolf Point was never one and very few golfers knew of its existence.  How it popped as Texas' only Top 100 course four years after Al's passing when the course was mostly closed is puzzling to me.  Perhaps Ran is trying to stir things up and generate more interest?  It would be interesting for those who care about these things to understand the criteria used to arrive at these judgments.


Lou!
I don't know how many panelists from each magazine came by, I would have lost count if I tried. There were many.
I don't know the panel rules, but I know they can play where they are invited or pay, it doesn't need to be on a list to enjoy. When a rater wanted to play, and I knew they were a rater I required they not submit a review.
The only review I ever heard that was submitted was one to Golfweek and I was disappointed because someone broke their promise.
Ron W. asked if he could put it on the panel long ago, I said no, per Al's wishes.

Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Lou_Duran on October 31, 2020, 10:42:09 AM
Mike!


When I played WP in 2008 it was during my wilderness years in SoCal.  I was not a member of any panel at that time.  I have no idea how a GW panelist could have submitted a review on WP as ballots are submitted online on a template populated in the system for specific candidate courses.  I am unaware of an option for a rater to create such a template and vote for a course not on the candidate list, though, for many years now,  I have only kept up with the GW process through infrequent discussions with mates on that panel.


Of course raters are allowed to play anywhere they desire.  At GD at least, the panelists are just not allowed to use their GD credentials to gain access on courses not on the candidate list.  I know very little about GOLF's process or governance.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kevin Pallier on November 02, 2020, 06:19:55 PM
Did a quick review by some architects

C&C
7 Original Designs (OD) + 2 Redesign or Restoration (RR)
1 Top 10 = Sand Hills

Doak
6 OD  + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes

Mackenzie
7 courses re: input
2 Top10 = Cypress Point & Augusta


Tillinghast
13 courses re: input
1 Top20 =Winged Foot (West)


Ross
12 courses re: input
2 Top20 = Pinehurst & Seminole
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Bill Brightly on November 02, 2020, 08:05:01 PM

Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!



As I was reading through the list and saw the big risers and fallers, I thought that this group of raters obviously valued FUN courses, and knocked down HARD ones.


I'm good with that!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kevin Pallier on November 02, 2020, 08:25:09 PM
Macdonald
6 courses re: input
1 Top10 = NGLA


Raynor
10 courses re: input
1 Top10 = Fishers Island


Dye
6 OD
No Top20


Fazio
6 courses re: input
No Top20
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2020, 08:37:04 PM
Did a quick review by some architects

Doak
6 OD  + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes



I don't think they should list Redesign & Restoration credits at all, but I have actually done work on seventeen of the courses on the list, plus the six I designed or co-designed.  I'm honestly not sure which three they are giving me credit for, or why!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kevin Pallier on November 02, 2020, 09:28:45 PM
Tom

The 6 OD from you / your assoc. + co-design
Bandon (Pacific Dunes)
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Bandon (Old Macdonald)
Streamsong (Blue)
Sebonack


That 9 in the list was my take on things. Some magazines list a lot of redesigns and restoration work while others don't.

The other 3 being:
Somerset Hills
Pasatiempo
Palmetto








Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: William_G on November 02, 2020, 10:17:15 PM
Tom

The 6 OD from you / your assoc. + co-design
Bandon (Pacific Dunes)
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Bandon (Old Macdonald)
Streamsong (Blue)
Sebonack


That 9 in the list was my take on things. Some magazines list a lot of redesigns and restoration work while others don't.

The other 3 being:
Somerset Hills
Pasatiempo
Palmetto


who would be best to do R&R work on any of TD's ODs?  ::)
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Steve Lapper on November 03, 2020, 06:09:54 AM
Did a quick review by some architects

Doak
6 OD  + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes



 


I don't think they should list Redesign & Restoration credits at all, but I have actually done work on seventeen of the courses on the list, plus the six I designed or co-designed.  I'm honestly not sure which three they are giving me credit for, or why!


Is that really fair to the likes of a Kyle Phillips, near wholly redesigning the likes of the Cal Club or Wilshire CC? Or Gil's work at Sleepy Hollow, Mike Stranz & Jackson/Kahn at MPCC?


Restoration work, sure...give the originals their due, but aren't near wholesale redesigns a fresh and original work of art?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on November 03, 2020, 07:19:59 AM
They just posted the list by architect on the Golf website. I would include a link if I knew how. They go give a few, but only a few, modern architects credit for work on courses originally designed by others. A couple mentioned by Steve are included.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on November 03, 2020, 07:26:50 AM
Here's the link to the Golf.com article Ira referenced in his post.


https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-architect/ (https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-architect/)



Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on November 03, 2020, 07:53:06 AM
To demonstrate how little difference there is among the cream of the cream, they also list the Top 50 by four regions. On a quick read, there is quite a bit of difference where a course in the overall Top 100 lands in its respective regional ranking.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Buck Wolter on November 03, 2020, 07:53:20 AM
Embedded video with 'The Man' himself discussing the process.



https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/ (https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/)


Check out the rater profiles with a last name starting with H!


edit -- fixed font


Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on November 03, 2020, 08:04:37 AM
Here's the link to the Golf.com article Ira referenced in his post.


https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-architect/ (https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-architect/)


Thanks!
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ryan Hillenbrand on November 03, 2020, 11:42:15 AM
Tom

The 6 OD from you / your assoc. + co-design
Bandon (Pacific Dunes)
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Bandon (Old Macdonald)
Streamsong (Blue)
Sebonack


That 9 in the list was my take on things. Some magazines list a lot of redesigns and restoration work while others don't.

The other 3 being:
Somerset Hills
Pasatiempo
Palmetto


Tom - any chance you tuned into the Champions Tour event last week?


They had Brett Quigley and Lee Janzen mic'd up and Quigley was talking about Rock Creek, and offered to take Janzen out there. Janzen said "that's a Doak, right?"
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on November 03, 2020, 01:23:56 PM
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Bernie Bell on November 03, 2020, 01:36:56 PM
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?


Ira


Another variable is the composition of the panel.  I don't know enough to suggest whether that affects the outcome Ira notes, I'm just noting that it is a variable that could do so. 
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on November 03, 2020, 02:02:06 PM
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?

Ira


Its a good question Ira, and certainly been discussed here at length.  Yes they certainly had few if any environmental restrictions and far more open/available land to work with, but I still don't know if these are the big differentiators.

I think it came down to the practical realities of the time.  Without a fleet of dozers at their disposal, I think they really had to use their noodle and their feet in in many days walking the site and doing the upfront due diligence, to find the holes that fit in a cohesive routing, as opposed to finding a routing that worked and creating holes.  I think this led to identifying many out-of-the box, one of a kind holes that gives the course a unique identity like a Pine Valley or a Yale.  And all these years later, seeing and playing these layouts is often a special kind of day on the course.  Throw in the history and aurora of a place and no doubt it can leave a lasting impression when it comes time to check the boxes...
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Ira Fishman on November 03, 2020, 02:28:04 PM
I also am curious about the breakdown between Sand and Clay.


Thanks.


Ira
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on November 03, 2020, 03:43:12 PM
Has anyone put a chart or table together contrasting and comparing the Top 100 U.S. lists from Golf, Golf Digest and Golf Week to see where huge variances and discrepancies exist? The reason I ask is because I noticed today, while doing some research, that there are a number of courses on Golf's current Top 100 U.S. list that are outside Golf Digest's Top 100 U.S. list from 2019. Here are but a few examples that stood out.


Pasatiempo: Golf rating = 59; Golf Digest rating = 106
Sand Valley (SV): Golf rating = 91; Golf Digest rating = 110
Streamsong (Red): Golf rating = 77; Golf Digest rating = 112
Baltimore CC (East): Golf rating = 75; Golf Digest rating = 116
Kingsley Club: Golf rating = 79; Golf Digest rating = 121
Newport CC: Golf rating = 84; Golf Digest rating = 134
Harbor Town: Golf rating = 73; Golf Digest rating = 136

The greatest discrepancy was with Eastern Ho! Golf ranks it 53 in their Top 100, while Golf Digest had it outside their Top 100 in 2019 and ranked it 153 up from 154 the last time they did these rankings. WTH!? That's a 100 point swing.

While I understand that Golf Digests ratings are nearly two years old, they are worlds apart on courses that have been in existence a number of years. I haven't gone and compared these to Golf Week, but I was taken aback by the divergence in some of these ratings and wondered how panelists from two distinguished publications can see the same courses so differently? I know some older courses have undergone renovations or restorations thus pushing their ranking higher, but on some of the newer courses that play the same now as they did in 2018, what's changed?
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on November 03, 2020, 03:56:18 PM
Mike,

I guess I see it differently.  Given there are approx 15,500 courses in the US, all of these are in the top 1%, on either list.

The % difference for each are:

0.30%
0.12%
0.23%
0.26%
0.27%
0.32%
0.41%

Seems a bit of a tough task to figure out why they vary so little across potentially hundreds of different raters and ratings.  I'm guessing if you're in the top 1%, you've certainly already grasped the proverbial brass ring.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on November 03, 2020, 04:07:00 PM
I guess I see it differently.  Given there are approx 15,500 courses in the US, all of these are in the top 1%, on either list.
Seems a bit of a tough task to figure out why they vary so little across potentially hundreds of different raters and ratings.  I'm guessing if you're in the top 1%, you've certainly already grasped the proverbial brass ring.
I totally get your perspective. However, if it were as simple as that you wouldn't have people getting bent out of shape over why certain courses fell out of the Top 100 or complaining how certain courses got in or why they're rated so much higher than they were previously.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Kalen Braley on November 03, 2020, 04:14:53 PM
I guess I see it differently.  Given there are approx 15,500 courses in the US, all of these are in the top 1%, on either list.
Seems a bit of a tough task to figure out why they vary so little across potentially hundreds of different raters and ratings.  I'm guessing if you're in the top 1%, you've certainly already grasped the proverbial brass ring.
I totally get your perspective. However, if it was as simple as that you wouldn't have people getting bent out of shape over why certain courses fell out of the Top 100 or complaining how certain courses got in or why they're rated so much higher than they were previously.


Fair enough Mike,

Humanity has never been a particularly rational species on basically anything, and no doubt it continues today.  So I'm not surprised there are those who get bent out of shape over a rating algorithm that tries to numerically represent an irrational process with explainable results.  ;D
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Lou_Duran on November 03, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?


Ira


Another variable is the composition of the panel.  I don't know enough to suggest whether that affects the outcome Ira notes, I'm just noting that it is a variable that could do so.


That is a very impressive panel that Ran has assembled.  Of course its composition makes a big difference.  As does having a relatively small number of members, which, I assume, means that the number of votes for a course to qualify is relatively small.  I think it would shed some light to know the number of votes each course in the Top 100 received, as well as a list of courses which did not receive enough votes to qualify, if any.


Another factor is the criteria used to determine the rating for each course.  GD has the Challenge category (previously resistance to scoring) that is controversial for many on this site and seemingly at odds with the zeigeist that has golf as a fun, walk in the park.  GW has several, but the overall rating is independent of an arithmetic calculation from these.  I don't know that GOLF gives its raters any specific directions.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Adam G on November 03, 2020, 04:31:33 PM
It's really about the margins being so microscopic once you get past the top handfull of courses. Golf magazine does not release their numbers, but they said that "the statistical difference between No. 80 on our list (Sheep Ranch) and No. 120 (Boston GC) is the smallest it has ever been".


Golf Digest and GolfWeek do release numbers. At Golf Digest, for instance, the gap between #1 (Pine Valley) and #3 (Cyperess Point) is as big as the gap between #36 (Bandon) and #100 (Mayacama). The gap between #1 and #10 is bigger than the gap between #10 (Fishers) and #100! And there are 34 courses within a point of #100. The point being that a handfull of ballots can change the ranking quite dramatically, especially with only 100 raters. I bet the weighting for the points for the different buckets you can list courses in e.g. "50-100" can affect things as well.
Title: Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
Post by: Mike Bodo on November 03, 2020, 04:50:12 PM
It's really about the margins being so microscopic once you get past the top handfull of courses. Golf magazine does not release their numbers, but they said that "the statistical difference between No. 80 on our list (Sheep Ranch) and No. 120 (Boston GC) is the smallest it has ever been".
I totally see this from yours and Kalen's perspective and your arguments are sound. However, to play devil's advocate, tell this to the average retail golfer, club member or layman why course "X" is no longer in the Top 100, but course "Y" is? They don't care about microscopic differences in determining the rankings. They care about placings. I'm sure there are resort owners and private club boards that are upset that their course is no longer in the Top 100, same as there are those who are ecstatic that their course was recognized as being amongst the Top 100. While these differences may not seem all that significant to many here, the impact of being downgraded or upgraded has a huge impact on the respective courses, clubs and resorts in question.