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 risersSurprises
- 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
Quite a few new additions which signifies the shift in the panel makeup.
- 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
No Yale love on this list?
Yale>>>>SH
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Nothing against Pinehurst No. 4 but it's not a Top 100 golf course in the US.
The absence of BGC is criminal.
Nothing against Pinehurst No. 4 but it's not a Top 100 golf course in the US.
no doubt
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 risersSurprises
- 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
Quite a few new additions which signifies the shift in the panel makeup.
- 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)
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.
I would certainly remove Prairie Club Dunes and replace with Dismal River Red. Dismal Red is vastly underrated and I'm not sure why.
But before the tastemakers played it, nobody had a "correct" opinion to parrot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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 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]
Dumbarnie[/t][/size]
|
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.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.
81. Fox Chapel
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.
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.
Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.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.
81. Fox Chapel
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!!
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.
+1, it is entertaining and also sadly misplaced to be defending a list as if was his own, LOL.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.
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.
Where's Whippoorwill?
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??
Where's Whippoorwill?
not that good
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.
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.
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.
- 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
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.
yep, played it, a few nice holes and a nice clubWhere's Whippoorwill?
not that good
Personal experience? I loved it.
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
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
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 ;DThat'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 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?
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?
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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 ;DThat'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 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?
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?
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?
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?
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 am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course. [/size]
I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course. [/size]
Has anyone broken down the list by architect?Ira as a HC I used to work for would say, "that's a great idea, your on it!"
Thanks.
Has anyone broken down the list by architect?Ira as a HC I used to work for would say, "that's a great idea, your on it!"
Thanks.
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.”
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.
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.
Ally,
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.
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.
Why not a "match" based on the sum of the Doak ratings on each hole?
Jack Nicklaus has it #1 and that's all I need.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.
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.
Ally,
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.
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.
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!
Brian,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.
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?
Mike,Brian,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.
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?
Mike,Brian,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.
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 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.
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.
Mike,Brian,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.
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 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.
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.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'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?
How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general? What features would / wouldn't you expect to see?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.
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)
How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general? What features would / wouldn't you expect to see?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.
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)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
Did a quick review by some architects
Doak
6 OD + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes
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
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!
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/)
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
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
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
0.30% |
0.12% |
0.23% |
0.26% |
0.27% |
0.32% |
0.41% |
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.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.
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 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.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.
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.
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.
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.