Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Daryl "Turboe" Boe on April 01, 2003, 08:18:46 PM
-
Is it out?
Anyone seen anything on the results from Golf Digest on their newest list of America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses?
I heard that it is supposed to be out in the next issue, and I heard through a friend in the media in OH that Avalon Lakes supposedly has made quite a showing. Pete Dye came in a few years ago, and did some touch up work on the course. Apparently it was quite well received if it has taken a big leap into the 100 Greatest as I hear it might have.
Anyone hear any other information about courses that might have made the list? I wonder if anyone with more computer knowledge than I can find the information out there in the electronic world. If this information that my freind told me is true, obviously someone is starting to get information out. I am sure with the golf connections and knowledge we have here we can find this information.
LATER EDIT:
Here is the link now that it is officially on GD's website:
http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/gd200305100greatest.html
-
Oops, I guess there was already some talk of some of the advance information leaking out under the Pine Valley thread here also. I did not know that when I started this. I guess like the guy on the Mr. Obvious Show, "I never made the connection." Either that thread title is not descriptive enough or I am just too dense to make the connection. Probably most likely the latter. I had seen the Pine Valley thread today, but didnt take the time to read it, then after I posted this one I thought "hey that could have something to do with the ratings as well."
-
Turbo: I agree with you. Golf Digest's 2003 top-100 rankings have many surprises. On balance, I think that Golf Digest's rankings are better than Golf's. The Golfweek panelists are idiots. Barona Creek in the top 100? Crazy.
-
Turboe - You can get the ratings on a website posted by a golf enthusiast. I don't know how he obtained the ratings in advance, but he posted them.
-
Pete Kilhern;
As a Golfweek rater, I'll take your comments under advisement.
Glad to hear you favor a publication where a course is deemed the greatest in the world and then two years later, is suddenly 5th without any reasoning offered.
It's such a bitch when you don't get to host the US Open every year, don't you think? You'd think that all important "bounce" would last longer than 18 months! Sheesh...bummer.....
Glad to see that course architecture is considered in some categories, as well.
-
Mike Cirba - The differences among the top five courses are nominal. We can expect the courses to move around in the top five from year to year.
Golfweek's ratings, especially the modern courses ratings, have so many mediocre courses listed that I don't think there are enough raters to lead to balanced ratings. Or the raters are too enthusiastic since they have not seen many courses.
Examples of overrated courses include Kinloch, Eugene, Mayacama, Bear's Club, Gallery and Barona Creek.
-
Mike Cirba - Since you appreciate Yale, you can safely assume that my complaints about Golfweek do not apply to you.
-
Pete;
Since you love Yale, and particularly the 10th, I'm sure we'd agree on a lot.
Tell me that you love the 18th, and we might be twins separated at birth. ;)
-
Pete,
What is the link to the website you reference where the advanced copy of GD's rankings are posted?
-
Pete Kilhern- I too am a golfweek panelist who takes some offense to your blanket statement. I'm also a MEMBER at Yale with a great love of and appreciation for the architecture of the course. How's that? ;)
By the way- what do you think of the work being done to the Yale course over the past few years?
-
Hey guys - how about we wait till these come out FOR REAL before we start ripping each other? So many rumors, so little fact...
It won't be long.
TH
Golf Digest Rater and unabashed lover of the 18th at Yale, as well as all the rest of that fantastically fun golf course
-
This is more fun Huckaby and BTW congratulations on your little rating service placing 5 Art Hills courses in the top 100? Is every GD panelist on drugs? ;)
-
DW - you know how I love Art Hills, hey the only course I've ever played of his is HMB-Ocean!
I've just heard about 15 different versions of the GD list now from "reliable sources". This might be fun, but it'll be more fun when it's actually in print!
As for the relative worth of these lists, not to be a fun-killer, but one ought to keep in mind the VERY different criteria used. I know you and I can do that and give each other shit without killing each other, Dave... I just don't trust the real world! ;D
TH
-
Pete,
Slamming the GW panelists is pretty much slamming what seems to be half of all the GCA posters. There are a lot of them here, perhaps 30 or so. Far fewer GD panelists and one lonely GM panelist.
-
Mike Cirba - The differences among the top five courses are nominal.
Golfweek's ratings, especially the modern courses ratings, have so many mediocre courses listed that I don't think there are enough raters to lead to balanced ratings. Or the raters are too enthusiastic since they have not seen many courses.
Examples of overrated courses include Kinloch, Eugene, Mayacama, Bear's Club, Gallery and Barona Creek.
Kinloch - 10
Eugene - 33
Mayacama - 29
Bear's Club - 47
Gallery - 80
Barona Creek - 94
Most of the courses you mention are new. As has been discussed about a hundred times, the consideration of new courses is a challenge to any such list. You will have enough "visits" over time, but how many is enough. GOLFWEEK makes the decision to include courses after 10 visits. Golf Digest waits two years, although their "Tradition" category penalizes courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes for a good while.
The Modern rankings have been a lightning rod for their inclusion of so many "mediocre" courses. Remember, a Top 100 list has 100 courses. It isn't like there is a bevy of courses worthy of supplanting all the ones you mention that lie outside the Top 100 entirely.
You say the difference between the Top 5 is nominal. Are you aware that the difference between 65 and 125 is also nominal? Two of the courses you mention are in the bottom 20 and close to falling off the list.
- One of the idiots.
(P.S. Who the hell are you? You make a whopping 7 posts on GCA.com and already know I'm an idiot. Also the other 225 or so of my peers.)
-
JC - rest easy, I'm sure when the GD list is finally published we'll all be called much worse than idiots. Brad Klein said it best: these lists don't make anyone happy.
TH
ps - of the ones he calls overrated, I've only played Mayacama and Barona Creek and I believe GW got those right on.
-
Huckster
Did your votes count this year? If so I think that this list and all future ones should carry an asterix and/or health warning. (Insert emoticon of your choice here).
-
I am about half tempted to start another thread when someone here actually has the results in hand. I was merely asking a question about if anyone had seen them, and I do not like the tone that this thread has taken on already. As TH says this thread was destined to become testy because of the nature of the ratings game, I just cant believe it turned angry this quickly and without anything to even debate yet.
Also, I cannont remember back that far for me, but I have a question for Ran. How many posts does it take to get your second star? I think we are guilty of too lenient of promotion schedule in our early formative posts. I think we are using that PC mindset to make sure that everyone has a warm fuzzy feeling when they first start out. You know how that new age grading thing works, "we want to make sure everyone feels good about themselves so we prop them up artificially." Nothing directed towards any particular person or your posts, but I am just asking because if 7 posts already gives you your second star rank, I just wonder what the rank with one star even means?
Just some random thoughts.
ps The ratings might be out officially now. I heard from my friend that he has the magazine in his hands now. I have not talked to him directly so I do not know if he got it off the news stand, or if he got an advanced copy because he is in the sports media business.
-
turboe
It's not just this thread that becomes testy, it is all threads.
-
The list is now on GD's website.
-
Here it is:
http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/americasgreatest/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/gd200305100greatest.html
I might also go back and edit my first post so that it is also there for ease of finding on this thread.
-
Interesting that they also now publish a list of the "Top 100" Public courses.
Interesting, as well, that neither Wild Horse nor Rustic Canyon made that list. Oh well, guess they needed that room to make sure that King's North at Myrtle Beach National had a much-deserved spot. ::)
After all, 43 bunkers on one hole, and both an island fairway and island green deserves some type of award, I'd think. ;) ;D
(http://www.mbn.com/kingholes/kn1.jpg)
(http://www.mbn.com/kingholes/kn2.jpg)
(http://www.mbn.com/kingholes/kn3.jpg)
-
For those who may not have seen the posting on GD's Website here's a few interesting things to ponder:
Who's In This Time ...
Pacific Dunes #47 *Should have been higher?
The Dunes Beach and Golf Club #78 *A good return!
Pine Tree #81
Atlanta CC #86
Old Warson #90 *Really?
Ocean Forest #96
Rich Harvest Links #99
Who's Out ...
Atlantic (NY) *So much for all the lobbying of panelists!
Sand Ridge (OH)
Valley Club of Montecito (CA) *Say it ain't so!
World Woods / Pine Barrens (FL)
Crosswater (OR)
Sanctuary (OH)
Wilmington / South (DE)
It appears the biggest jump from clubs already in the top 100 appears to be Aronimink -- moves up 46 places to #52. Congrats to the club and to Ron Prichard's restoration work.
On the flip side the Prince goes down to #73.
Someone will have to help me out with this but how does Old Warson and Bellerive continue to be top 100 courses? Ditto Greenville CC?
A few other interesting notes:
How does The Golf Club (likely one of the 2-3 finest Pete Dye courses) only merit a rating of #57. It's a top 50 finisher without doubt.
Speaking of Dye -- it seems Shadow Creek has now become the Nasdaq Tech stock as it drops to #48 -- my, oh my, doesn't it seem like yesterday when the course actually made the top ten?
Couple of other points -- Crystal Downs is now #23. National Golf Links is #19 -- Shinnecock Hills is only #6!
Can someone explain how Plainfield (#45) finishes behind NY / NJ metro courses such as Quaker Ridge (#20), Baltusrol / Lower (#22), WF / East (#32) and Somerset Hills (#41)? On the flip side -- thank heavens that Maidstone is no longer in the top 50 but it still finished ahead of The Golf Club -- OK?
It would be really interesting if GD would expand its listing to a top 200 because clearly it would help to know what courses are making some "noise" and may challenge for a future position. Of course, one can glean certain developments from the state ratings although the state listing for NJ was truly out there in deep left field with some of the choices.
-
For those who may not realize this but GD also listed for the first time a top 100 public listing -- get this -- neither Wild Horse, Rustic Canyon or Barona Creek made the listing. ???
In fact, Quarry Oaks in Nebraska made the listing at #95!
Kemper Lakes and Pine Meadow finished at #27 and #28. Really?
Tullymore in MI finished at #25. Really?
I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-I-N-G !!!
-
Ahh my mind is put at ease. I now see the new list of 100 Greatest Public courses is listed also.
I was actually a little worried in that my friend who called me told me that Avalon Lakes in his area there was #44 on the 100 Greatest List. I was floored when I thought that it might be at #44 on the REAL 100 Greatest. I enjoy Avalon Lakes, but #44 on the Actual 100 Greatest would have been a mind blower.
I can see it there on the Public list.
-
Bellerive is a perfectly nice little course...if played at the US Open tee markers marked by bronze plaques or from the current championship back tees. If the World Championship had not been cancelled due to Sept 11th...it would have proved itself once again on the world stage....just as it proved itself to me on a beautiful Sunday morning in February...a great membership...a great routing...a great test of all facets of the game...a modern masterpiece created over 40 years ago...RTJ was way ahead of his time on that one...if RR can just watch his ego...it should never leave anyones list.
-
I went over the roster and was shocked that Pinon was suspiciously absent. Has it never made the list?
-
Hard to believe that Pinon is not on the list. But I can't believe that Duke doesn't make the top-100 public. Crazy.
Prairie Dunes 25? My only conclusion it that noone can find the
course to rate it higher. I have not been to Olympia Fields, but
I have to believe that upcoming events have it rated higher that PD.
-
Mr. Kilhern takes exception to the GW ratings with respect to a few courses. In particular he mentions Eugene CC which is 83rd on the GD list. It is 33rd on the Best Modern GW list. If he would knock the chip off of his should er for a second he might figure out that Eugene is probably rated lower in its category by GW raters than the GD group. Some statician could figure that out for me.
My beef with the GD list is with two categories, Tradition points and resistance to scoring. These two items skew the list toward the old and the long. Baltusrol and Bandon Dunes are perfect examples of this from two different eras. Both are very good golf courses. But both require a power game and minimal strategy. After time they would seem to lose some of their lustre. Baltusrol is in particular too high on the list.
Resistance to scoring is a difficult thing to judge. Firstly. the idea that the GD panel is all low handicaps is a fabrication. Secondly, new courses playing at 7200 yards plus are too long for all but a few of the nations best amateurs.
Strategic choice would seem a pertinent and useful category for all but the few elite golfers in this country.
signed
Another Idiot
-
Pacific Dunes #47 *Should have been higher?
Matt:
How? If "tradition" is still a criterion, it probably scores zero here like Sand Hills does. Strip "tradition" from the last list and Sand Hills became a Top 10.
-
After reviewing the new GD Top 100 I was disappointed to see Sand Hills drop two spots to #38. Looking at the scoring sysytem it appears Sand Hills received a 1.15 score in the category of Tradition. On one of the pages of thie site GD explains their categories. They list all categories with a brief summary. On this summary page the Tradition category has been replaced with Ambiance.
They define Ambiance as - "How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game"
I find this confusing. Is Sand Hills receiving a 1.15 because it is a new course and has never hosted a major event? Is it because it was built in the 90s?
I find it very hard to believe that Sand Hills would receive so low a score for Ambiance. Inverness, which jumped from #24 to #17 (Huge move up) received a 7.36. This doesn't seem to add up.
Does anyone get this Tradition vs. Ambiance confussion?
-
I'm convinced these lists are getting worse every year :(
are these people playing the same courses as everyone else?
how is crooked stick Dye's best? how does Dye not have a top 50 course? how do Sand hills and Pac Dunes rate so poorly?..how is the pete dye club not on this list?
how is augusta #2?
i think every year that goes by i get more and more sick of augusta...maybe because the public never shuts up about it
-
John C:
I am well aware of how "tradition" (the fudge factor) works. My point was a simple one -- on pure golf architecture ALONE Pac Dunes should easily be among the top 25 courses in the USA.
matt kardash:
Agree completely with your take. Pete Dye is likely the most influential designer in the second half of the 20th century and doesn't get even one course in the top 50. You might as well be saying that Barry Bonds is nothing more than just a footnote in baseball. ;)
-
I find it very hard to believe that Sand Hills would receive so low a score for Ambiance. Inverness, which jumped from #24 to #17 (Huge move up) received a 7.36. This doesn't seem to add up.
Does anyone get this Tradition vs. Ambiance confussion?
J,
When you tee it up this summer in Mullen Nebraska, I promise you will not remember this list !!!
-
Has everyone noticed that The Country Club (Brookline) is not listed as the Composite course, but rather as the Clyde/Squirrel nines (i.e. the course that the members play every day, not the Open course including three holes from the Primrose nine)? I would think that most of us would call this a definite improvement, no?
Cheers,
Darren
-
Regarding the GD list:
>:(
:(
:'(
:O
::)
:-/
?!?
There. I said it.
-
Actually, the course raters did an excellent job if you look at the numbers minus "tradition".
The tradition category carries a disproportionate amount of weight affecting the overall final result.
Just because a course has held a few tournaments doesn't necessarily make it a better golf experience. (Think Belfry here).
Maybe bonus tradition could be scaled down to say 0, 1 or two points so that the GD list isn't SO DISCRIMINATORY towards new golf courses.
Build a course tomorrow which blows Pine Valley away and the Golf Digest list won't have it ranked in the top 40 because it is not old enough.
Makes very little sense.
The Golf Digest list is the oldest list and seemingly the most widely followed which should spark some sense of journalistic responsibility among the editors to report more accurately to many of the readers, lay people and novice golfers who don't know better. ??? ??? ???
Golf Digest's list relegates them to being no more than a Golfing Pravda.:P :P :P
-
John C:
I am well aware of how "tradition" (the fudge factor) works. My point was a simple one -- on pure golf architecture ALONE Pac Dunes should easily be among the top 25 courses in the USA.
Okay, then you do understand it. My point is also a simple one - the panelists agree and have Pacific Dunes in the Top 10 of all American golf courses.
-
Gene/John C;
I think we all agree that the Golf Digest list is fairly reasonable once the Tradition points are removed, at least the regular Top 100.
The Top 100 Public and State lists on the other hand... ::) :o
Which begs the question...Why is GD so afraid of the results of what 800? 700? 900? magazine-appointed raters come up with that they need to exercise final "editorial control" over the results, which change those results DRAMATICALLY!!
Why is great new architecture punished?
Is this all a result of Shadow Creek making it into the Top 10 in it's first year of eligibility, and the "powers that be" at the mag saying..."ok...who ARE these guys???...better wrest control back!"
-
I'm gonna try to answer this, Mike, seriously at least to begin with.
I've argued many times that events of historic import occuring at a golf course effect one's play of the golf course, and ought to be considered. I'm not going to restate this argument again, it's on here many times from the last two days and many times prior.
I'd also agree that what GD calls "architectural significance" does matter also - a lot. Courses that changed the fabric of golf course design or that exhibit classic design features which survived the march of time ought to get credit for such as well.
My feeling is that very few people can adequately assess either of these things, or at least they can't assess them as readily as all the other criteria, such as shot values, etc.... Those are opinions, these two require substantive knowledge and study, more than the vast majority of golfers have time to do.
In a perfect world, all these ratings and rankings would be done by a small panel of people, all of whom have made this study and continue in it, with a cross-representation of public course and private club players covering a wide-range of skill levels. NO magazine does this currently. You and I both know a lot of people who'd be perfect in this role, however...
So we have what we have... and I'd say GD does their take on course assessments just fine. I am quite OK that they don't trust the raters to do these last two assessments, because for every one who might have the substantive knowledge, there are likely 10 who have no interest in obtaining such.
And given I feel it does matter... it's great by me if the editors take this on. Oh, it might skew the results in some places in ways we don't like, but to me it's better than the alternative of having all the raters try and assess this.
I mean no offense, btw, to my GD rater brethren. I freely admit I'd have a very hard time assessing tournament history and architectural significance for all the courses I get to - hey, I do work for a living.
Maybe this helps, maybe not. Please believe I'm not enamored with how the results came out - some of the ommissions are shocking to me, particularly in the public list.
But I believe the methodology and process is very correct.
I also believe that lots of people look at golf courses lots of different ways, so if they're different than me, well... as Tom Paul says, it's a big beautiful world of golf.
TH
-
Tom;
Even if I accept all of your premises, I can't understand the "results" of the "Tradition" category, as determined by those who are the "ultimate arbiters", by virtue of their superior historical course knowledge.
You mention that "courses that changed the fabric of golf course design or that exhibit classic design features which survived the march of time ought to get credit for such as well." I can agree with that, for certain.
Then I look at the points awarded in the Tradition category and I see Oakland Hills #4, while Pine Valley is #20. Or, Scioto at #25 and NGLA at 37!
Frankly, in the end, with such illogical results, it starts to look like a jury-rigged crapshoot designed to adjust each course just enough to determine a final position of the editor's choosing.
-
Mike:
You could be right, I don't know. I choose to remain blissful and trust that the educated assessments of the editors are honestly done. You disagree with them, hell I disagree with a lot of them... I'm just gonna choose to believe that these are indeed honest differences of assessment.
Remember also that walkablity matters in this... bonus tradition points are based on:
20% tournament history
40% architectural significance
40% ambiance (as defined)
Then that is combined with any "walking" points merited, and all this combined gives what they call "bonus tradition points".
With all those factors, hopefully you can see that there are many ways courses and opinions about them can differ.
TH
-
Actually, the data has two separate categories. bonus tradition and bonus walking. i think you have correctly identified the components of the tradition category. walking is 0-2, so it has considerably less effect.
-
Thanks, JL - I thought those were different but I wasn't sure. Muchas gracias for setting this straight.
TH
-
A few things that jump out at me.
Sand Hills at #38. You gotta be kidding me!! Even looking at it w/out the Tradition list it still should be higher.
Why is Kiawah Ocean not more revered? Spyglass better than Kiawah? No way.
As far as I know no major changes @ Oak Hill since the Ryder Cup in prep for the PGA. IS the jump due to better conditioning in prep for the major and the "I played next year's major course" factor in there big time?
No Barona, Wild Horse or Rustic Canyonon the Public list let alone the Top 100 list. There is no waty there are 100 better public coure than WH. Hell, I don't think ther's 20!
Why the drop in Pinehurst #2!!
Does tradition play in the Top 100 Public courses? Doesn't seem right that it does.
-
The Top 100 Public has me scratching my head also, JF. Edgewood Tahoe at #35? My god, if that's a better golf course than Wild Horse we all need to quit playing NOW. And I mean this assessing such by the specific GD criteria....
I wonder if the same methodology was used for the Public list as the overall list... all specific results and explanations of methodology are given for the latter, but none is given for the former....
Just thinking out loud.
TH
ps - obviously you and I are of the same mind re Sand Hills. But I'm trying hard not to question the results and only discuss the methodology... reasonable minds will differ, I keep telling myself.... ;D
-
Let's be clear -- GD inserted the tradition and walking aspects (see Jerry Tarde's comments in the current issue) to introduce some aspect of "social engineering" into the process.
I'm waiting for GD to start to include points for "best locker room, best practice area, best 19th hole -- yada, yada, yada." ;) Isn't the focus suppose to be on the quality of the golf course architecture?
A little history is necessary. The fanfare, a few years back, attached to Shadow Creek woke up plenty of people in Trumbull. Here you have a course that made it to the top ten through the minds of its astute panelists (for disclosure purposes I was one for 17 years). In order to make sure there wasn't a wholesale invasion of new courses making such sweeping entrances you get the introduction of the "fudge" categories (see above). As a panelist I made my comments known how such categories are really irrelevant to what was the ultimate purpose.
When you add just enough of the points from these "fudge categories" you get the desired result -- the near iron grip of status quo maintenance.
It's been said by a cross section of people here on GCA that plenty of superior modern courses opened in the last 40 years have to play some inane waiting game in order to be duly recognized. The "fudge" factor is really an introduction of making sure the end result will be a close replica to what it has been with just a few exceptions thrown in from time to time. Yes, Pacific Dunes finished 47th but clearly you have a course that's grossly penalized -- ditto what happened to Bandon Dunes.
How can one possibly explain the fact that Pete's Dyes most gifted design, The Golf Club, doesn't even break into the top 50. Heck, a case can easily be made that The Golf Club is the best golf course in the Buckeye State ahead of Muirfield Village which gets plenty of mileage out of its tie to the Golden Bear and in hosting a Tour stop each year.
Mike C:
You mention the aspect of the state and public rankings and I completely agree. To name just one course -- Cascata (Vegas area) is a Rees Jones course and is known more for its exclusivity than its design greatness. Does such a course merit a position when you have layouts as Rustic Canyon, Barona Creek and Wild Horse sitting on the sidelines? The answer is no. Too many of the panelists are spending an inordinate amount of time cherry picking off the "name" courses in certain key golf destinations (i.e. Myrtle Beach, Vegas, Florida, Hawaii) and failing to go below the surface and identifying the "gems" that truly exist. Simpy stating that you have 800 plus panelists or even a million is pointless. They say the proof of the pudding is the taste and the results one sees from GD is truly leaving a bad taste in my mouth as well as others.
-
Let's be clear -- GD inserted the tradition and walking aspects (see Jerry Tarde's comments in the current issue) to introduce some aspect of "social engineering" into the process.
I'm waiting for GD to start to include points for "best locker room, best practice area, best 19th hole -- yada, yada, yada." ;) Isn't the focus suppose to be on the quality of the golf course architecture?
Maybe to you it is, Matt. I'd say to the vast majority of golfers, architecture is just one piece of the puzzle, and may or may not be the "focus."
TH
-
Though GD has a large number of panelists, many clubs do not necessarily make any special provisions for their access. Some even shun them. So, some clubs just don't get seen as much as they should. Perhaps this has affected the Golf Club, which I think is extremely underrated, too. Also, some courses like Wild Horse are relatively inaccessible for most of the panel.
-
cos,
With respect to Baltusrol, could you go over the course on a hole by hole basis and tell me where strategy is lacking ?
I don't know many golfers who play it all the way back, and I think too many people make their pronouncements from those tees, speaking as if they're amongst the best players in the world.
For members and guests, Baltusrol Lower and Upper have all the strategy you can handle, so I'm curious as to how you've concluded that the course has no strategy.
-
Where in the hell does Golf Digest say or imply that their list is about the architecture....Its about the greatest places to play the game....architecture on the most base level that some on this site seem to profess is a very small condition. I don't even know what you people think architecture is anymore besides whatever it is that gets your friends or favorites the most recognition....hairy bunkers, lazer cut bunkers...natural or unnatural naturalnesss for natures sake....expansive views...colored cartpaths....removed trees because they might grow....planted trees because the ball goes too far....routings that suck because of a great greensite...greensites that suck because of a great routing....Rees genius by accident...Hanse genius through discovery....its all either likeable or not...by you, me or some other guy who either can't look into the face of their wife or a hungry child in the wrong side of town....its hard to find the time to enjoy the game...so why not go somewhere that has a total package....screw the architecture if some banal item pisses you off....screw the banal if the architecture makes you happy.....like what you like and ignore the rest.
-
jakab: that's a different - and better - way of saying what I've been trying to say for years here. Golfer Man does not live by architecture alone...
TH
-
I have more of a problem with some of the state lists also as I am more familiar with many of the courses. My two questions for golf digest would be and these are based on statements by Huckaby and Matt.
1. If the process needs to be rigged at the end "social engineering", because you do not like the results, why not just get better and more competant raters?
2. The tradition ranking is pretty ambigious but if one needs to "study" to find tradition, that tradition is pretty meaingless.
-
shivas:
Those are all great points without a doubt.
My feeling is that many raters are just ignorant enough not to "get" what they "should". For example, I have several friends who are good players, love the game, but have no concept of history and if I mentioned the name CB MacDonald they'd guess he founded the fast food chain.... I do trust that they could assess qualities of golf courses, but would we trust them to assess NGLA correctly and completely?
It's for people like this for whom big brother is needed.
Does this make better sense?
TH
-
I'm not giving up yet. See, the point is things like this SHOULD matter, and if idiot people miss them, the course should not be downgraded.
I do get what you're saying though and it is dangerously close to blowing my whole take on this out of the water. Hell, wouldn't be the first time that happened.... ;)
TH
-
Corey M:
"1. If the process needs to be rigged at the end "social engineering", because you do not like the results, why not just get better and more competant raters?"
I've been saying this for quite some time but you know what happened to John the Baptist -- right? ;) Too many panelists are really regional in scope -- they are not national panelists by any sort of reasonable logic. You also have the problem in which panelists all have an equal vote. That is laughable because the expertise level of the people involved is so widely divergent. You also have the issue of simply adding up numbers from people who have not played the cross section of courses necessary in order to make the fundamental comparisons that are needed for such an exercise. At the end of the day you have a Zagat's deal in adding up numbers from people and to make sure these numbers don't go off in some zany direction you have the "fudge" categories thrown in to preserve "harmony" among the old time treasures.
Corey, the botton line is that some of these treasures are like aging ball players when compared to the fine crop of modern courses that continually get a lower level of attention and respect. The function of any panel is to do the due diligence and search out those courses. It's up to magazines to decide just what is ultimate goal -- are we highlighting the core architecture of a course (i.e. the routing, diversity of holes, shot values) or is the goal to highlight the touchy feely golf experience (tradition, walking) with architecture being relegated to a side show.
You could easily go with far less people and make it a point for them to get off the main roads and see the types of courses that are out there. If one really looks at the public listing it's clear that many people prefer the main line destinations.
When Jeff Lewis says that a place like Wild Horse is too inaccessible for most of the panel I would then start to wonder what many of the panelists are indeed loooking at. Is it just the more known and easily accessed areas that get the fanfare and attention. I expect "golf's leading publication" to be a bit more demanding and sophisticated when it presents America's 100 Greatest and the 100 Greatest Public.
When you add fudge catgegories (whether they be by editors or even the panelists themselves) you get away from what real golfers (at least the ones I know) want to know at the core of the issue -- what courses are indeed the finest overall courses -- defined from the 1st tee to the 18th green. All that other crap is just window dressing and a prop to keep some old time courses in the mix and deny the grand new ones that are out there -- NOW!
-
1. By calling Wild Horse inaccessible, obviously he means geographically. It is very silly to expect every rater to get to that remote part of Nebraska.
2. No one ever said anything but the golf course, from 1st tee to 18th green, counts for any of this. There is just far more than "architecture" involved in that assessment as well. Of course we might just be arguing semantics - what you call architecture might include all the "other" things that I would think fall outside of that definition.
But Matt you and I have sure discussed this ad nauseam already. I'm just having a bit of fun being a thorn in your side this morning. ;D
TH
-
Shivas,
When I read...very happily I might add...about the rise of Pine Meadow...the first thought in my head was that you have gotten the word out. Also don't you believe Butler is rising at GD because of its fall at GW....I think these guys read both mags and make adjustments as such.
-
Shivas (and Jakab),
Do you really think Pine Meadow is that good? or Kemper Lakes? Better than Cuscowilla or Yale (which I haven't played) or PGA West (which I have)? For the crummier golfer like me, Kemper seems just as manufactured as PGA West, though a lot less interesting, and Pine Meadow is a nice fun course with great hot dogs, but wouldn't you rather play even the unrated Lawsonia or Meadow-Valley courses than either?
Jeff Goldman
-
Jeff,
I have only played Pine Meadow and Kemper of all the courses you mention....as a young struggling father living in the big city...I found Pine Meadow to be a great place to play where I could afford and be afforded great respect by the staff and co-players....much like Rustic Canyon must be in L.A......I don't know why...but Kemper never did appeal to me and really doesn't meet what I would call public anyway. I really don't even remember one hole at Pine Meadow...I just remember it being a pleasure to be there....what more could a guy who had a young wife and kid at home want. Now that I am fat and old...happiness...while not hard to find comes in bigger doses and shorter spurts.
-
Pat,
I didn't say no strategy, I said minimal. Admittedly, It has been some years since I played Baltusrol, however my impression was that a relatively straight and long shot from the tee left a shot doable shot to the green. Bandon as I suggested has much the same feel. Long is good. PD in comparison on most holes favor choosing a route that often varies from the middle.
Trust me I didn't play from the tips. I rarely play from the tips and play to a 3-4 handicap. I am out there to have fun not beat my head against a wall.
I also never said that Baltusrol is not a great golf course. Just not the type I would choose to play as a regular diet. Any invitation would be gladly entertained. (This time I will be less naive and show up fully dressed; another story for another time)
-
Cos:
FYI -- The Lower has been modified by Rees Jones as it awaits to host the '05 PGA. I agree with your take on the course because so much of the Lower is tied to the fact that it has been the scene of so much golf history. Doesn't hurt either that Jack won two Opens there -- both memorable.
I also believe that if people have not seen the Lower recently it may not be as fresh as from past visits. I walked the layout late last year and it appears the desire to both lengthen the layout and add the apppropriate amount of rough is what will take place for the main event in '05.
But, here's the rub -- the Digest rates Baltusrol / Lower #2 in NJ and then follows that with Somerset Hills. The real missing ingredient is the layout that comes in at #4 -- Plainfield. If anything it's Plainfield that should be at #2 since it combines the best of both worlds from what you find at Baltusrol / Lower and Somerset Hills.
-
I distrust the Golf Digest list because it is an effort to "scientifically" determine, through numbers, which golf couse is better than the next.
Each course is rated in 8 categories: Shot Values, Resistance to Scoring, Design Variety, Memorability, Aesthetics, Conditioning, Bonus Tradition, and Bonus Walking.
Each category seems to be on a scale from 1 to 10, except Bonus Walking, which appears to be 1 to 2.
The final score is calculated by adding up the scores in each individual category, with only the "Shot Values" score counting twice.
So Golf Digest says that conditioning and aesthetics are exactly as important as each other, and are exactly as important as memorability, design variety, and resistance to scoring.
I would argue that these ratios differ from person to person. I naturally prefer a better-conditioned course to a lesser-conditioned course. But when I played Princeville, and the greens were in lousy shape, I didn't include that in my appraisal that the coure was "fabulous".
The numbers are a tool that the editors get to hide behind. Instead of presenting this as a subjective list, which it is, they can say, "Hey, this is how the numbers stacked up, with no tinkering on our part. This is purely objective."
It isn't objective.
-
Murph:
The editors don't say that, however. They freely disclose the subjective part of this, that is, the awarding of bonus tradition points.
I do agree with you in any case that each criteria is going to have different "worth" to different golfers, but how could one possibly quantify this? Make it too subjective and you might as well throw out the data and criteria completely - which seems to be exactly what Golf Magazine does!
There is no perfect way to do this, and I continue to refer to Brad Klein's recent article and the best take yet on all these rankings - they are plain just never going to make anyone happy.
TH
-
Lists and their numbers do not quantify greatness. Nor do they make me want to play them because of their numerical status. I have a book of GD's Greatest, circa 1982, and it is very dusty - cough cough. (Here's an exerpted caption... Tom Fazio and Uncle George may be among the foremost designers of tomorrow's courses.) Here's another one... "The dynamic clan (of RTJ, RTJjr, RS) have designed or co-designed 21 courses among the 100 Greatest listing.)
But no, there will be no book burning!
In my travels, the old course in Bandon has the most tradition as I've played it every year since it was opened way back in the last millenium. I still have the receipt in parchment for my maiden voyage. Surely that puts me on some kind of list of greatness.
"All things must pass" Hindu doctrine
-
Does Baltusrol really need additional length? and is it only new tees and the rough lines that are being changed?
One of the problems with the constant adding of tees and length is that the "regular" member tees seem to slowly drift back toward the "champion" tees. The most recent times I have played Baltusrol this is evident on #11 in particular as it is now real difficult from the regular tees you probably need 240-260 on the right side of the fairway to not be blocked.
-
Why is Kiawah Ocean not more revered? Spyglass better than Kiawah? No way.
The average "Bonus Tradition" score is 4.56. The Ocean Course got 1.67. Just getting the average would put us at 38th. I'm dying here... :P And 1.37 for "Walkability." 82 of the top 100 scored higher. What's up with that? Y'all got to get out of the carts and walk the course. I walked it yesterday and played another 18 in the afternoon. Piece of cake... ;)
-
I found that comment about accessability to Wild Horse to be quite telling that this GD list must then be biased towards metropolitian courses. Cog Hill and Pine Meadows placement can then be understood. Especially as shivas' points out there is no way it's better than many behind it.
-
Mike,
Tournament History: The Ryder Cup has to be as big as a major, and the World Cup is a big deal too.
Architectural history? Dye, after the hurricane?
Ambiance: Next to an Ocean.
Yet, Black Diamond, Blackwolf Run, Forest Highlands, Long Cove, Valhalla, Shadow Creek, and the Prince Course beat you for Tradition. I must not understand the criteria, or how they are combined. Only Valhalla would seemingly beat you on a tournament history and that is generous.
Architectural history?
Ambiance?
-
Someone mentioned The Golf Club...just to show you where GD is coming from..The Golf Club is somehow ranked 4th in Ohio. That's crazy... If someone said this course was 4th best in the country I'd actually have an easier time believing that.
Is it actually possible that Dye is underrated on this list?
Mike Vegis, i feel for you buddy. I was looking at the breakdown for the ocean course and i had to laugh. It' sad.
I would have never thought in a million years that the ocean course and whistling striats would actually rate more poorly then in their last list
-
Mike Vegis - I said it before in an earlier thread... The Ocean Course has made a commitment to walkers and to receive such a low score for "Walkability" is ridiculous. The course is extremely easy to walk and should be rated far above average in this category. There are MANY courses that were given higher walkability scores that are not as easy to walk as TOC. And now a caddie has the same status as a cart and is included in the green fee at no additional cost!!! What else could anyone ask for???
Are you kidding me... Greenville CC (Chanticleer) outpoints The Ocean Course (both South Carolina courses) for TRADITION and WALKABILITY!!!!! Chanticleer has no tradition (except for hosting an occasional State Am) and it is a bitch to walk compared to TOC. It is obvious glitches like this that bring this rating process into question. There is way too much politics involved in these ratings... otherwise Chanticleer would not even be on the list.
-
As the new guy here, can someone please explain to me how Wilmington dropped out of the top 100. I have always thought the South Course was an underrated track, and it should be in great shape this year with the Mid-Am coming to town. It is a visually stunning golf course that doesn't get the attention it deserves because it happens to be in Delaware.
-
Three things + a Bonus comment...
The Ocean Course is underated....and very walkable without a caddie.
Michael....instead of spewing the negative about Chanticleer...why not profile the course for us...that is what this site is spose to be about. Read the profile on this site...you may come away with why this course is so highly pointed...I was surprised at its historical and architectural significance.
Quassi...why not say five courses that you think should be on the list instead of putting down five...this type of negative attitude just hurts good people.
Bonus.....GolfWeek now thinks AGNC is not a top ten classic course.....a statement more wrong than any one thing on the GD list.
-
JakaB - No spewing here... I've read the profile of Chanticleer on this site several times over the past couple of years. And, after playing the course 30+ times, I agree with most of its points. It is an excellent course and has a high "resistance to scoring" value. I will whole heartedly agree it is set up to be one of the most difficult scoring courses one will ever play. I'm not trying to slack Chanticleer. Just point out that a course that has little true "Tradition" or historical significance (other than sentimental value derived from its designer) has been awarded more "Tradition" points than a course that has hosted several international competitions, including one of the most historically significant Ryder Cup competitions of the modern era. IMHO, as good as Chanticeer is, its architectural and historical significance pales in comparison to Pete Dye's creation on Kiawah Island. And, again, to award Chanticleer more "walkability" points than the Ocean Course is puzzling.
-
Shivas, remember that the walk in the park test has nothing to do with the ranking of the golf course in golfweek. That is based strictly off the final rating number. Golf Digest does include these numbers in their ranking. My question is how do they get their tradition numbers to .01? I can see all the first numbers being that way since they are averages, but unless their are specific points for specific things or a bunch of editors vote on tradition so you get an average, I can't see how you can say that Riviera has .01 points more tradition than Cypress Point.
-
Tom H:
Nobody says ratings are fair -- sure that's true! But I always thought the casinos were fair before I walked in the door -- for some reason I always left a bit lighter when I left. :o
It's the process Tom -- if GD really wanted to ensure some element of a J.D. Power Associates study then credibility would have a better shot at being preserved.
Shivas:
To be fair --
The Ocean Course runs circles around Greenville CC and I say that as a grad of the Univ of S Carolina and I had numerous times playing Greenville CC when visiting friends in the area. I don't doubt the course is very good and will fight you each step of the way -- however, it is not top 100 IMHO.
I have NOT played The Ocean Course since the changes were made, but from the two times I have played it the course is clearly beyond 70th position. I also have to ask regarding courses in the Palmetto State how Harbour Town gets such a high mark when for the most part the course is usually in mediocre shape -- especially the greens. The only time the course is on target is just prior and after the PGA Tour stop.
matt kardash:
I mentioned previosly my thoughts on how The Golf Club really got screwed. This is one of Pete's Dye's finest layouts and it can't even crack the top 50! Pete is the finest and most influential designer for the second half of the 20th century and he doesn't get even one course in the top 50. As they say in my neck of the wood -- something amiss in Schaefer city!
Corey M:
Your point on how a course can simply meld into something else when new tees are included is a good one. Unless I'm mistaken the game plan for Baltusrol for the '05 PGA is to be longer and grow the rough.
Regarding a few other courses that were mentioned:
Losing Wilmington / South is no great loss -- the course represents the RTJ philosophy and I've seen better layouts of his that were never in the top 100. But consider the consistency of GD when you have two other RTJ courses that are rather similar in style still within the Top 100 -- Old Warson Bellerive. What about St. Louis CC?
quassi:
Agree 100% with you on Shoal Creek and Shoreacres. I'd keep Desert Forest because it really personifies what desert golf can be given the limitations of turf development for the region. Black Diamond is a 50/50 call as well as Estancia in my book.
-
You lost me re the JD Powers thing. But I loved the casino comment!
The absurdity of it all just gets clearer and clearer to me. And by that I mean, not the process, but how seriously people take it.
I know, it matters, people lose jobs/money based on this. Damn I wish that weren't the case.
TH
-
Tom H:
J.D. Power and Associates is respected because of the methodology it employs, the separation it maintains from the products it reviews and the detailed analysis it gives to validate its findings.
GD would be better served in reforming a number of issues relating to how it identifies "America's 100 Greatest." Using the J.D. Powers model would be a good step. In fact, not too long Dan Kelly suggested a methodology that would be useful. Please don't get me wrong you cannot ensure with 100% perfection and quanitify an outcome that at its heart is a qualitative matter.
Tom, I've mentioned a couple of ways to do that already and my fingers are getting a bit sore from all the verbiage.
I salute you and others as panelists who do take the time, expense and try to be fair at all times. There are many out there no doubt. But there are others who are clearly agenda oriented by having conflicts of interests. GD specifically manipulates the end result with the inclusion of a topic (tradition) that has nothing to do with what is clearly about architecture -- I know you feel differently but when one adds tradition you might as well rank baseball teams by the size of the hot dogs they sell in the stands. I'm interested in the baseball team -- not the concessions!
-
Matt, you had me nodding my head in agreement at all of that until the last line.
Of course you know way more about this than I do, all I do is follow the directions GD gives us and rate the criteria they tell us to rate. To continue with your phrasing, none of that has anything to do with the hot dogs at the stadium.
You know this, likely better than anyone... yet you continue to cast aspersions. That mystifies me.
So ok, a certain portion of GD raters suck, don't know their heads from their asses, are over-awed by surroundings of a course and its trappings and inflate their ratings due to this. Fine. Good. That's human nature. I'd defy any ratings group not to have at least SOME of this occur....
Just please do remember that the criteria itself is good. It matters, all of it. I know you disagree with this, but you think your fingers are getting sore.... I guess we ought to just agree to disagree. I really think we agree on way more than we disagree on re this whole issue anyway.
In any event, why does any of this have to be clearly about architecture? I guess that's where you and I have our biggest fundamental disagreement. You take this as an assumption, I take it as fundamentally wrong. I could ask twenty of my best golf friends what a redan is and none of them would know... to me that shows how important "architecture" is. You denigrate their view as "golf experience", but what occurs on a golf course other than a set of experiences? Why should factors beyond the architecture NOT COUNT?
I'm never going to understand that. And no, I'm not talking clubhouse, cart girls, quality of beer in the taps. I'm taling the exact definitions GD uses to award bonus tradition points. All of those, as defined, DO MATTER.
Tell my friends not to go look where Watson chipped in at 17 Pebble... tell them not to think about it as they play the shot. Obviously that has absolutely nothing to do with the course's design, but to say it has no effect is really just plain wrong.
Golf course architecture can and should be evaluated as a separate entity - most properly by those who do it for a living. Just don't ever say that this a total evaluation of the course. It won't be.
TH
-
I wonder if Jeff Sagarin could devise a system to eliminate all debate on this endless subject of ranking, once and for all.
Or would that just create another brawl in the commons?