[Ran Morrissett]

Think about what would have been the world top 100 courses in 1939.

Then think about what would be the world top 100 courses ever built as they exist in 2002.

What would be the differences in the two groups of courses?

Clearly, the playing conditions of the prepared surfaces are much more uniform today and the green speeds in some cases have literally doubled. The courses of today are longer, perhaps up to 10% longer as a group.

That much is a given. Still, which grouping of courses would appeal more to you and how would you go about such an analysis?

It seems that one step would be to see what new courses exist today that didn't way pre WWII. Such courses as Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Casa de Campo, Turnberry, Paraparaumu Beach, The Golf Club and the completion of a second nine at Prairie Dunes gives the modern list a big push toward the victory line. Conversely, such courses as Lido and Timber Point weren't too bad either  

Another step would be to analyze how certain designs play today vs 65 years ago. For instance, the firm and fast Kingston Heath of today with no tree trouble is a design that has been tweaked to near perfection. Also, is the RTJ version of Oakland Hills more interesting with today's equipment than the original Ross course? Perhaps, given that Ross himself drew up modifications to his course in acknowledgement that changes were needed to accommodate the modern aerial game. Unfortunately, other world class designs like Yale and Bel-Air have been continually undermined.

IF you conclude that the grouping of World top 100 pre-War II courses is of more appeal (i.e. the creme de la creme was better then than now), at what number would that change, clearly acknowledging the high number of quality courses have been built since WWII? Is it World top 200? 500? 1000?

Cheers,

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

I'll take the pre-WWII list any day.  

Check out the latest Golf list - only 2 post-WWII courses even make the top 25 (Sand Hills at 12 and Turnberry at 18 ).

Case closed!

[CHrisB]

Let me see if I understand what Ran is asking.  Are we to decide which is more appealing:
1. The list of top 100 courses in the world, at a time before WW2, with pre-WW2 playing conditions, or
2. The current top 100 courses in the world, under today's playing conditions?

Or put another way:
If you trade
{Lido, Timber Point, etc. + Yale, Bel-Air, Oakland Hills, and the rest of the list as they used to play}
for
{Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Casa de Campo, Turnberry, etc. + renovations + modern playing conditions}
which side gets the better deal?


For me, although I'll always wonder how the great courses played back then, and I wish I could have seen all of the best "missing links" like Lido, I'll take the modern list.

Why?
1. Diversity--Like Paul said, it is still loaded with pre-WW2 designs, with some truly outstanding new ones.
2. The classics are still classics (mostly)--despite some questionable renovations/restorations, the greatness of most of the classic pre-WW2 courses has been retained. I can't remember a single time I have played a top-100 course and have been distracted by longing for what used to be.
3. Playing conditions--from a player's standpoint, I'll take modern playing conditions over pre-WW2 playing conditions (despite the decline of firm-&-fast). I don't care so much about uniform playing surfaces through the green as much as on the greens themselves. I like to see a ball rolling smoothly (and at times speedily) across a putting surface, I'd rather have a pendulum putting stroke than a wristy pop to get the ball rolling. For me, holing putts is a thrill, perhaps even more exciting than shaping a shot exactly as planned, and while I believe that a skilled putter can make putts on any surface, I don't want to leave it up to the bounces (or have to hammer every putt).

But I'll say this--if there were a third option, pre-WW2 top 100 with modern green surfaces, but otherwise playing like they did back then, I might find that I would prefer that most of all!

(Yet I would probably still look at the unused property at Prairie Dunes and say, "Wow, imagine the holes you could build through there." Same for rural Nebraska or coastal Oregon if I were ever out there...)

[Tom Doak]

Ran:

I would LOVE to go back and play the Lido, but I wouldn't trade Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills for it.

I also have the advantage of seeing a bit into the future:  some of the sites I've seen lately should tip the scales further, whether we get to do them or someone else does.  Give us five or ten more years and there won't be any argument.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

In your humble opinion, will Doonbeg ever make the Golf mag top 100 in the world list?

What other (if any) courses do you think may eventually make that list?

[TEPaul]

I'd love to be able to give some insightful answers but I think I might be too dumb to understand all those questions!

So all I can say is there have been some great courses built since WW2 and they are on that top 100 and deserve to be but there are others built post WW2 that probably shouldn't be on the top 100 but are. And lastly there are so many good pre-WW2 courses that still are on the top 100 and deserve to be and a number of other Pre-WW2 courses that should be but aren't!

If that's a dumb answer or even a non-answer, I'm sorry! These top 100 lists just give me a headache and to determine which wins, pre or post WW2, of my favorite top 100 courses, would require me to count them all up and compare and I'm too stupid to even do that!

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

I would ask you not to answer Paul Richards's question in your humble opinion!

Frankly, I've always thought your nonhumble opinion is a far more valid and interesting one anyway! So would you mind answering in that kind of opinion?

Frankly, this site has the world fairly well covered already and I, for one, would be even more interested in what you think might potentially be coming instead of what is, particularly since you say you've been stumbling across some otherworldly raw sites!!

How about just letting your imagination fly for otheworldly potential architecture on those otherworldly sites (and since they haven't been planned yet forget too about skimping types of budgets) and let your imagination wander towards the brass ring of all those sites could do and be--and again, in your best nonhumble opinoin!

What the hell, when it comes to dreaming, modesty is for the birds anyway! And dreaming may not be all that expensive anyway!

[brad_miller]

Tom Doak, I second TPauls comment, would like to hear more about the raw land and general locations if you feel at liberty, especially US sites. Sounds like you and Jim have been seeing some great land. Any further comments and thoughts on the general development environment we find today might also be of interest. Thank You.

[Paul Turner]

Trying to think of possible GB+I courses that have been lost but could make the top 100:

Princes (original layout), Addington New, Tokyo?

[Tom Doak]

Paul T,

Since The Addington's existing course has never sniffed the world top 100 list, it's presumptuous to think their New course would have made it.  It certainly wouldn't have been a shoo-in, despite a couple of great lost holes.

Paul R,

I saw Doonbeg a year and a half ago, and was shocked by some of the design features -- the severe contours of the greens, the crossovers, etc.  I hear they have been making some refinements, which I think is appropriate.  I'd say it has a pretty good chance to make the GOLF Magazine list, because of its setting and some undeniably great holes, but I'm really curious to see what the other panelists think of its eccentricities.  When I saw it, it had more holes which would get a '?' in the Gourmet's Choice than any course which has made the top 100.

Others,

I'll be deliberately vague about where, but in the past year I have looked at SEVEN sites that I thought had the potential to produce one of the top 100 courses in the world.  (We've only signed up four of them so far, and are waiting to hear on the others.)  In addition, I know of at least five other projects in the works by other designers where their sights are set high, and the land is special enough.  (And I have no knowledge of what Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus are working on!)  

Of course, not all of these projects are even guaranteed to happen in the new economy -- and besides the money, permits and egos stand in the way.  We will all have to do great work to live up to the potential of those sites.  But the future is out there, and it's really good.

[Tom Doak]

In no particular order, the sites are in California, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Wisconsin; Manitoba; Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Ireland; Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania.  The last couple I've filled you in on, but I won't answer any questions about the others until they are happening.

[Paul Turner]

Tom D

Wondering if you've seen many photos of Addington New?  I've only seen the one of the 18th in the clubhouse and of course Simpson's drawing in his book of the 8th.  

Did The Addington Old get ANY support for Top 100? (I think Ran inlcudes it)  Or did no panelists make the effort to get there?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I'd say the top 100 pre- and post- would be very close in quality.

Lido, Timber Point, Laksers, Olympic-Ocean, CC of Havana and CK Hutchison's Turnberry -- these lost courses would very likely be included. Plus you must consider improved San Francisco, Pebble Beach, Bethpage, Yale, Riviera, Bel-Air, Cypress Point, ANGC and a number of Thompson's courses - some significantly improved.

The top 200 to 250 swings decidedly toward pre-War.

Lost courses like Addington-New, Royal Montreal, St.Peters-Mablethorpe, Tailor's Ocean Links, Cedar Bank, Boca Raton, Knocke, Princes and Tokyo. Improved courses Sharp Park, Lakeside, The Broadmoor, Manoir Richelieu, Hayling, Alwoodley, Moortown, Huntercombe, Hollywood, Engineers, Oyster Harbors, Ponte Vedra, Brook Hollow, a number of courses on the European coast, a number Heathland courses, the most famous Japanese courses and a number of the courses of the more ecsentric architects like Emmet, Strong and Travis (that've either been dumb-downed or lost all together).

After the top 250 or so the edge would probably go back to the post-War. Fifty years of courses is hard to ignore, especially the last ten.

[SL_Solow]

Tom Doak;  I assume the Wisconsin site is the same one that has been in limbo for several years.  What are the chances of it going forward?

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Thank you for answering my question about Doonbeg and the others.

Speaking only of courses that are already open, are there any other new courses that you think might be top 100 in the world material?

[Tom Doak]

Paul R:  Some people (Ran included) think the Norman course at The National in Australia should be in the top 100; I think they went a bit wide of the goalposts, but it's worth a point in Aussie football.  Other than that, and Friar's Head which I haven't seen, I really don't know of any new ones "on the bubble," but I haven't been getting around that much, either.

Tom M:  Don't know how you could really include Olympic-Ocean, a course that didn't last 18 months, as one of the great courses of the world.  "Test of time?"

Sheldon S:  The site I referred to in Wisconsin now belongs to another owner and another architect.  If it isn't top 100 material when it's done, they flunk.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tom
Artistic liscence. How old is Pacific Dunes? God forbid....

[Chris Kane]

Tom,

Have you given the Moonah course a Doak scale rating?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()