[Steve Lapper]

Tom,


 Congrats on Tara Iti! Although I've yet to see it and as such, unable to vote for it, everyone whose opinion I really respect waxes enthusiastically about the course. It's on my 2018-19 list!


Jason Topp,


   Having played both Ellerston and Trump Aberdeen, it's very reasonable to say both have enough merit to attain Top 100 status. Neither is perfect (which course is?), but both are examples of excellent designs executed on wonderful properties and deserve their respective slots. David Davis' reply was spot on, save for the rejoinder about courses that next-to-no-one can play making the list. If that was a qualifier, then the likes of ANGC, CPC, PV, Seminole, LACC, SFGC and many others would be conspicuous by their absence.


MCutterbuck,


 Your assessment of Teeth of Dog squares with mine, but we both reside in the minority. For reasons related to it's adjacent-to-the ocean and the quality of it's rest, it consistently rates higher than not IMO. I don't know that I'd substitute Gullane or Indian Creek over it, but there certainly are a number of other courses more worthy.


Jim Franklin,


  WBYC is close, but not "definitely" a Top 100 course. There are so many good US choices (and they certainly don't include the likes of Canyata, Medinah, Butler or Rich Harvest Links) to pick from just outside of our Top 100. In addition to the "bubble courses.,"( i.e Whipporwill, St. Georges, Old Elm, Wilshire, Meadow, etc).... To the best of my knowledge Spring Hill didn't sniff our Top 150.....nor should it....best left and suited for GD's criteria and list.


Rich Macafee,


   Your astute observation is correct. Most puzzling, but not inconsistent with the statistical margin of error for any of the magazines' over-worked, underpaid photo editors! I nominate GCA's own Jon Cavalier for the job(s).


John Kirk,


   Your "just making conversation" would have to include (and demerit) so many otherwise fine courses for either their repetitious of use of singular land feature, bad weather, or too hilly. I'd cheerfully remind you that great golf that appears on challenged, tight and undulating property reflects design excellence and routing ingenuity. The genius behind the likes of  WFW, WFE, Merion, Myopia, Eastward Ho, Somerset Hills and Old Town should remind us of what can be accomplished on smaller properties with and without hills and singular land features.  All that said, Pasatiempo deserves a higher spot!
 


David Elvins,


  Lost Farm may suffer from proximity comparison...and some other courses suffer similarly, but your question about whether Ellerston's rank would suffer with a neighboring Doak is already answered somewhat at the Eastern end of LI, Northern NZ, Northern Michigan, and Eastern Colorado.


  I don't disagree with you on why Bandon Dunes rates as high as it does, but it's hardly any "average course" despite being less dramatic than Pac Dunes. IMO (and vote), Bandon Trails deserved better.


  Mike Sweeney,


  Excellent point. You know I agree with you re: Galloway and am anxious to see Congaree early next year.. It should also be noted that the likes of Gozzer Ranch and Martis Camp are very worthy venues.


All,

  I think the most confusing part of our list is why a small number (3-5) of courses are still permitted to find spots on an otherwise well-curated list?? Like Tom, Schulzie, et.al. have all alluded to, the business tar that taints our list is apparent and seemingly embedded, despite the vocal protestation of many panelists (nearly every one ever found posting on GCA btw!)


   It is the sincere wish of this subset of panelists that this taint dies a swifter death than not, but it is beyond our fraction of votes.....for now. No matter, I'm otherwise very, very proud to say this list does a far better job, than any other periodical, of representing what is truly important in golf architecture.....fun and excellence..

[Mike Sweeney]

Steve,


Nice post, one more for future thought.


I am pretty sure that Cape Arundel is a "better golf course" than Garden City, both Travis courses. I played it last week with some nuts, and it has better land and better greens. GCGC has length for medal play and more dramatic bunkering, but if there was a "Match Play Top 100", I just can't see how Cape A would not be way up there.

[Jerry Kluger]

I don't know the comparison to the previous list but I am glad that Portrush is getting the recognition that it deserves - with the 2 new holes any criticism of the finish is gone and it is oh so good.

[David Davis]

Steve,


Excellent post, can't disagree with anything you've said there.


I should clarify my point as it may not have been clear. I'm just remaining diplomatic about whether a club with the membership of 1 that only allows some select people to visit should be on a list. Many think it should not, however, if I'm not mistaken there is also more than couple lists of top courses you can play. My opinion is that it most certainly belongs.


John,


Excellent comments and as always well thought out arguments about SFGC and Cal Club. Totally agree that Pasatiempo is way underrated. It may be hard to find anyone here (though there are always a few in each crowd) that would not feel the same.


As to the others, nearly all the great courses have one thing in common, interesting properties where the architect has basically hit a home run and made the most of the property they had to work with. Sometimes they sky has been the limit, i.e...Sand Hills or Ellerston would be two examples of this. Huge interesting property with no restrictions and cart blanche marching orders. other times there are great restraints which could be argued for both SFGC and Cal Club. The latter even needed a redesign due to losing out to the freeway if I'm not mistaken. The level of interest, creativity and ability those architects demonstrated in making those routing as amazing, fun and playable yet safe as they are is in my view one of the reasons they are so great and so highly esteemed.


At Cal Club the usage of the available features is really very well done for the holes you mention in my opinion. Try to imagine how it would be possible to improve on them.


As Steve mentioned Old Town falls into this category though in my view to a lesser extent and I'm a strong proponent of it being a glaring omission to the world top 100 as well.


 

[Jim Franklin]

Steve -

I'm talking US not World if that makes a difference.

[Jud_T]

1.  Can we stop dancing around the elephant in the room?  Mike DeVries is no longer a virgin! 


2. Kudos to one of our unsung heroes Frank Pont getting a nod.


3. For those keeping score, it's now Doak 5, C&C 5. 


4.  The European Club is, in fact, hard.  Seems more suitable to the Digest list, no?


5.  Nice to see Prestwick hanging tough at #100...

[Tom_Doak]

John K:  the genius of SFGC is that each of those parallel holes hits the topography differently, providing a variety of memorable holes.  Which is the dead opposite of Firestone.

[Cory Lewis]

Great to see Old Town move up to #59 in the US List.  I predict it will keep rising in future rankings.

[Kalen Braley]

Put me in the camp of a lover of Pasa as well.  Whatever minor faults its has on the front 9  are more than made up for on the epic back 9.


P.S. I have to agree with Tom D's comments from the other thread.  Even though it has a few "outliers", I can't recall a better list from another major publication.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

I'll take a run at a selection I'm not comfortable with.

California GC of San Francisco is ranked #73.  That's a bit high.  Holes 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 17 traverse up and down the same slope in a somewhat monotonous fashion.  The 12th hole is the only visually memorable hole on the course.  Pasatiempo is clearly better, with several holes more distinctive (2, 3, 11, 14, 16) than any hole at the Cal Club, except the 12th.  Furthermore, it's a bad weather site, the same weather conditions that made Candlestick Park such a tough baseball park.  It's also a bit too hilly for my liking.  With that said, the course is excellent, especially the front nine.  However, I consider Pasatiempo and Old Macdonald better, and Bandon Trails much better.  I would enjoy a reasoned argument for the Cal Club belonging on this list.

While I'm at it, I'll reiterate my comment that #25 San Francisco GC has ten long holes that are oriented east to west, or west to east.  They are a well varied group, but there are lots of parallel long holes, the primary criticism of Firestone GC's tournament course.   

Just making conversation.

Couldn't agree with you more. Obviously two excellent courses, but the back and forth nature of more than a few holes, at both courses, is a weak spot.

[PCCraig]

Jim Franklin,


  WBYC is close, but not "definitely" a Top 100 course. There are so many good US choices (and they certainly don't include the likes of Canyata, Medinah, Butler or Rich Harvest Links) to pick from just outside of our Top 100. In addition to the "bubble courses.,"( i.e Whipporwill, St. Georges, Old Elm, Wilshire, Meadow, etc).... To the best of my knowledge Spring Hill didn't sniff our Top 150.....nor should it....best left and suited for GD's criteria and list.

 

Having looked at the full list now, it's a good one on the whole.


I can think of quite a few courses on the Top 100 list that WBYC is significantly better than. Just as a local example, I'm not alone in my belief that it's a better golf course than Hazeltine or Interlachen. To me it's obvious that those get a lot of brownie points based on their history of hosting major golf events.

[Mike Hendren]

I cannot honestly state that Pasatiempo is better than Moraine.  Maybe a push.

[Mike Treitler]

How would you all rank the different publications in terms of their top 100 rankings?
Golfweek, Golf Digest, Golf Magazine... maybe some others I am missing.


I always enjoyed Golfweek's rankings over Golf Digest but don't really know much about Golf Magazine.   Seems to be viewed positively here on GCA.


Curious to hear everyone's thoughts. 

[John Kirk]

John Kirk,

Your "just making conversation" would have to include (and demerit) so many otherwise fine courses for either their repetitious of use of singular land feature, bad weather, or too hilly. I'd cheerfully remind you that great golf that appears on challenged, tight and undulating property reflects design excellence and routing ingenuity. The genius behind the likes of  WFW, WFE, Merion, Myopia, Eastward Ho, Somerset Hills and Old Town should remind us of what can be accomplished on smaller properties with and without hills and singular land features.  All that said, Pasatiempo deserves a higher spot!

Hi Steve,

I was quite sure you would respond directly.  Nice post.

Clearly, a course should not be evaluated on its weather, though a bad weather site can make course conditioning a challenge.  In the Cal Club's case, I'm not the only one who suggested their fescue playing surfaces were among the finest I have seen.

Similarly, a course on a hilly site should not be marked down because of the hilliness of the site.  It depends on how it is used.

However, I don't believe that a golf course should necessarily be rated higher because of the architect's routing ingenuity.  To clarify, if a golf course is on an extreme site, and the architect created something better than you could imagine with that site, I don't feel the course should be upgraded for that reason.  All that matters is the procession of eighteen consecutive holes, and the environment in which to walk.  No severe site is great for golf.  Both Pasatiempo and Cal Club are on fairly challenging sites, but well within what I consider reasonable severity.  I like the way Pasatiempo takes you out and back twice better than Cal Club's routing, but Pasatiempo might have a few more mundane holes.

The day I played Cal Club, a friend and I walked the course in 3 hours and 25 minutes, so it plays fast.  I was kind of gassed afterwards.

I pulled out a couple of old magazines to look at the ratings.  In the 1999 Golf Digest, Cal Club is not in the top 30 for California.  In general, it can't be found until recently.  I've heard it was not well maintained for years.  What conclusions can I make about this?  One is that conditioning, or a good restoration/renovation, can improve a course's rating dramatically.  Another is that Cal Club was under the radar, and contemporary thoughts about courses lift the Cal Club's course into the elite.  Finally, perhaps some bias is in play, whether it be for friends who worked on the redesign, or for the course's architectural pedigree, or even the excitement of an old course restored to glory.

 

John K:  the genius of SFGC is that each of those parallel holes hits the topography differently, providing a variety of memorable holes.  Which is the dead opposite of Firestone.

Tom,

Thanks, and congratulations for the great new entry on this excellent list.

If I'm not mistaken, San Francisco GC is built on old sand dunes, which probably accounts for the varied land forms on the east-west holes.  For your amusement, the 1991 Golf Magazine World Top 100 has San Francisco rated 18th, and Firestone (South) rated 47th.

[Ted Sturges]

Yeah, Doak's course next to Victoria National is a huge distraction. Can't tell you how many times I have heard guests whisper under their breath..."I should have played the Doak". Hurtful.

I for one really like Quail Crossing.  Great set of greens, and very fun to play (you can actually get around with one golf ball there, unlike VN).  Your "huge distraction" analogy might be more appropriate if VN was actually on the World top 100 list. 

[Nigel Islam]

Yeah, Doak's course next to Victoria National is a huge distraction. Can't tell you how many times I have heard guests whisper under their breath..."I should have played the Doak". Hurtful.

I for one really like Quail Crossing.  Great set of greens, and very fun to play (you can actually get around with one golf ball there, unlike VN).  Your "huge distraction" analogy might be more appropriate if VN was actually on the World top 100 list.

I'm betting you haven't played there in over 4 years. Quail us soon to become Boonville Municipal Course. I'm hoping Booneville is able to resurrect it......

[David_Tepper]

"I pulled out a couple of old magazines to look at the ratings.  In the 1999 Golf Digest, Cal Club is not in the top 30 for California.  In general, it can't be found until recently.  I've heard it was not well maintained for years.  What conclusions can I make about this?  One is that conditioning, or a good restoration/renovation, can improve a course's rating dramatically.  Another is that Cal Club was under the radar, and contemporary thoughts about courses lift the Cal Club's course into the elite.  Finally, perhaps some bias is in play, whether it be for friends who worked on the redesign, or for the course's architectural pedigree, or even the excitement of an old course restored to glory."

John Kirk -

The Cal Club post the Kyle Phillips re-design (which I believe was done 8-12 years ago) bears very little resemblance to the Cal Club of 1999. The dramatic improvement of the Cal Club's stature is not simply a case of better conditioning or an "old course restored to glory." It is due to Mr. Phillips' work and the efforts of the Cal Club membership & staff to keep the new design playing firm and fast.

As for the Cal Club site being "too hilly," I suppose it is a case of compared to what. Compared to SF Bay Area courses such as the Olympic Club, the Presidio, Lincoln Park, Green Hills, Tilden Park & the Peninsula Club, the Cal Club is not that hilly at all.

DT

[Jim Franklin]

Yeah, Doak's course next to Victoria National is a huge distraction. Can't tell you how many times I have heard guests whisper under their breath..."I should have played the Doak". Hurtful.

I for one really like Quail Crossing.  Great set of greens, and very fun to play (you can actually get around with one golf ball there, unlike VN).  Your "huge distraction" analogy might be more appropriate if VN was actually on the World top 100 list.

VN is a surefire Top 100 in my book and GM's most glaring omission. It is in my Top 20.

[Kalen Braley]

"I pulled out a couple of old magazines to look at the ratings.  In the 1999 Golf Digest, Cal Club is not in the top 30 for California.  In general, it can't be found until recently.  I've heard it was not well maintained for years.  What conclusions can I make about this?  One is that conditioning, or a good restoration/renovation, can improve a course's rating dramatically.  Another is that Cal Club was under the radar, and contemporary thoughts about courses lift the Cal Club's course into the elite.  Finally, perhaps some bias is in play, whether it be for friends who worked on the redesign, or for the course's architectural pedigree, or even the excitement of an old course restored to glory."

John Kirk -

The Cal Club post the Kyle Phillips re-design (which I believe was done 8-12 years ago) bears very little resemblance to the Cal Club of 1999. The dramatic improvement of the Cal Club's stature is not simply a case of better conditioning or an "old course restored to glory." It is due to Mr. Phillips' work and the efforts of the Cal Club membership & staff to keep the new design playing firm and fast.

As for the Cal Club site being "too hilly," I suppose it is a case of compared to what. Compared to SF Bay Area courses such as the Olympic Club, the Presidio, Lincoln Park, Green Hills, Tilden Park & the Peninsula Club, the Cal Club is not that hilly at all.

DT

David,


As well as Lake Chabot and numerous other courses in the San Jose area.  Golf in the immediate Bay area is almost all completely flat, or medium to severe hilly, there really isn't much in between unless you go inland to Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, etc.


P.S.  The fact that they could get Cal Club playing fast firm in that near constant damp location is really saying something.  I'd love to have a look at it some day.

[Scott Warren]

David Davis,


How is it possible that Barnbougle Lost Farm is a lesser course than Ellerston when Lost Farm is a better course than Barnbougle Dunes?!


Being serious about it, I know absolutely no one who preferred BLF to BD on their first visit, but quite a few who've played 10-15 rounds at each course and have Lost Farm in front (myself included).


Ellerston is a lot of fun, a unique proposition and maintained very well, but it doesn't have a single hole that can rival 4, 5, 8 or 14 at Lost Farm. Nor does Lost Farm have a hole as pedestrian as 9-11 at Ellerston.


I suppose the rankings, by virtue of most raters being one-and-done, maybe two-and-done, at remote courses, will continue to mean courses like Lost Farm sit far lower than they deserve to.

[Jerry Kluger]

Can someone give some more info about Fairfield - they say it is Raynor and Tillinghast - anything more definite than that as I really like both of those architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Can someone give some more info about Fairfield - they say it is Raynor and Tillinghast - anything more definite than that as I really like both of those architects.

Tillinghast re-routed several holes years after the course was built, turning the Biarritz green into a short par-4, among other things.  He did a bit more there than at Sleepy Hollow, probably 4-5 holes are Tillie's.  I don't know if their renovation works in the past 15 years have tried to marry the two bunker styles; when I saw it ages ago, the differences were easy to recognize.

[Jerry Kluger]

Are there other top tier courses with two architects on separate holes?

[Steve Lapper]

Can someone give some more info about Fairfield - they say it is Raynor and Tillinghast - anything more definite than that as I really like both of those architects.

There is a bunker restoration due to start there in the next week or so. I suspect they are seeking greater style continuity (as Tom alluded to). I'll be there in a few weeks and will report back then.

[Mike_Clayton]

David,MattM Scott.


I'm a big fan of Lost Farm - in a 10 round split with Barnbougle it's 5/5 for me - because it has so many world-class holes including 3,5,8,11,14,16 and 18. There are Australian courses ranked above that with fewer - and not one or two fewer. And the supporting cast is pretty strong - as well as the type of golf you can play there make it easily a top 100 course IMO.
It tacks the wind from different directions - as opposed to BD where the holes, necessarily, are generally either into or against the wind.
[size=78%]And bouncing the ball into so many of the greens is not only viable but the best way to play many holes, making it endlessly interesting to play.[/size]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()