[Tom_Doak]

can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.

I honestly don't pay that much attention to exactly what has happened in the rankings over the past 5-10 years.  In general, championship courses like Baltusrol and Olympic and Oak Hill and Inverness and Cherry Hills, and even Oakland Hills slip down the list when they're not hosting championships, and at some point they panic that they're no longer in the discussion and do a major facelift.  But they were all somewhat overrated because they WERE championship sites, so I think they're just finding their true place without that attention.


By the same token, I don't think that there should be ten Raynor courses ranked ahead of them.  The panels today are more skewed toward "panelists" and great players who would tell us whether those older championship sites still possess something special and should still be included.  (I used to get ballots from Nicklaus, Norman, Crenshaw, Player and Ballesteros, not to mention guys like Jay Siegel and John Harris; they're mostly gone now in favor of Bill Schulz's posse.)


Just as with championship pedigree, there are way too many panelists who are impressed by the designer label, and that tends to hurt Ross courses (because there are so many of them) and those with a more complicated design origin (like Medinah or Olympic).

[JC Jones]

I’m actually more interested in the golden age courses that stuck out in those years as shining examples of consistency and undeniable greatness that are no longer regarded as such.

Specifically which courses?

Some of the biggest sliders over the last 20 years include Canterbury, Colonial, and Baltimore.

[Tom_Doak]

Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers.  Five Farms, I can't explain.

[JC Jones]

can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.

I honestly don't pay that much attention to exactly what has happened in the rankings over the past 5-10 years.  In general, championship courses like Baltusrol and Olympic and Oak Hill and Inverness and Cherry Hills, and even Oakland Hills slip down the list when they're not hosting championships, and at some point they panic that they're no longer in the discussion and do a major facelift.  But they were all somewhat overrated because they WERE championship sites, so I think they're just finding their true place without that attention.


By the same token, I don't think that there should be ten Raynor courses ranked ahead of them.  The panels today are more skewed toward "panelists" and great players who would tell us whether those older championship sites still possess something special and should still be included.  (I used to get ballots from Nicklaus, Norman, Crenshaw, Player and Ballesteros, not to mention guys like Jay Siegel and John Harris; they're mostly gone now in favor of Bill Schulz's posse.)


Just as with championship pedigree, there are way too many panelists who are impressed by the designer label, and that tends to hurt Ross courses (because there are so many of them) and those with a more complicated design origin (like Medinah or Olympic).

I couldn't agree more that the branding is huge with this generation of raters.  Just because Yale and Chicago are amazing doesn't mean Fairfield or worse yet, Midland Hills, belong in any discussion.

[Tim Gallant]

can you think of a few courses that were squarely in the top 100 in the 80s and/or 90s that aren’t today, but should be? I don’t think it would prove my point but I think it would make for interesting discussion regarding whether those courses reflect the taste of today’s generation vs the taste of the generation that brought us new coke and clear Pepsi.

I honestly don't pay that much attention to exactly what has happened in the rankings over the past 5-10 years.  In general, championship courses like Baltusrol and Olympic and Oak Hill and Inverness and Cherry Hills, and even Oakland Hills slip down the list when they're not hosting championships, and at some point they panic that they're no longer in the discussion and do a major facelift.  But they were all somewhat overrated because they WERE championship sites, so I think they're just finding their true place without that attention.


By the same token, I don't think that there should be ten Raynor courses ranked ahead of them.  The panels today are more skewed toward "panelists" and great players who would tell us whether those older championship sites still possess something special and should still be included.  (I used to get ballots from Nicklaus, Norman, Crenshaw, Player and Ballesteros, not to mention guys like Jay Siegel and John Harris; they're mostly gone now in favor of Bill Schulz's posse.)


Just as with championship pedigree, there are way too many panelists who are impressed by the designer label, and that tends to hurt Ross courses (because there are so many of them) and those with a more complicated design origin (like Medinah or Olympic).

I couldn't agree more that the branding is huge with this generation of raters.  Just because Yale and Chicago are amazing doesn't mean Fairfield or worse yet, Midland Hills, belong in any discussion.

JC & Tom,


Those are interesting points. I do think there is something in the 'branding' as you say. My guess is that courses with a name brand architect are seeing rises because there is more discussion/information/content about the merits of these courses. Everyone knows what makes a Raynor course interesting, so they are able to stand on the tee and without hesitation say which template they are playing and judge it against the land it's on / other versions.


With other non-name brand courses, because there is less pre-existing knowledge for what makes it great, my guess is panellists will default to a few other criteria: visual appeal and conditioning.


Just a thought.

[Peter Pallotta]

If gca is an art as much as it is a science, and if our experience and subsequent judgement/rating of a course is more subjective than it is objective, and when many of the very top new-builds are public (not private) resorts and '2nd tier' privates are scrambling to stay relevant & viable, and if the ultimate measuring stick of the success of such golf facilities is a full tee-sheet or healthy members roll, then all the dynamics of copy-cat creativity and consensus opinion come forcefully into play -- especially in a time when the print & online social media environment is so tenuous that it is in absolutely no one's self interest to challenge the dominant trend/status quo or to risk writing reasoned critiques & criticisms instead of people-and-client-pleasing PR.
I can't imagine anyone writing 'The Confidential Guide' these days.
P

[JC Jones]

I can't imagine anyone writing 'The Confidential Guide' these days.
P

Huh?


https://www.renaissancegolf.com/203/toms-books

[Ira Fishman]

I took a brief tour through the GD Top 100 history.


Golden Age Courses That Fell Off and Now Back On:


Camargo


Golden Age That Were On At Least A Few Times and Fell Off:


Baltimore
Bel Air
Bob O Link
California Golf
Canterbury
Colonial
Holston Hills
Cascades
North Shore
Pasatiempo
Ridgewood
Salem
Sea Island
Wannamoisett
Yale


Modern That Fell Off and Now Back On:


Oak Tree


Moderns On for At Least A Few Times and Now Off (not a comprehensive list because starting noting halfway through):


Kemper Lakes
La Costa
Mauna Kea
Meadow Brook
NCR
Old Warson
Pine Tree
Cog Hill
Point of Woods
Sage Valley
Sand Ridge
Sycamore Hills
Torrey Pines South
Wild Dunes
Wilmington


Some facts:


Fishers Island was on early:  from 1969 to 1975 and then off for 15 years.
NGLA did not appear until 1985.
Shoreacres did not appear until 2001
The Valley Club first appeared in 1995 and has been off on on since then.


It will be interesting to see if some of the Golden Age that fell off re-appear following relatively recent renovations.  I have not played most of these courses, but the observation that conditioning has a big impact seems right.


Can always count on a rankings thread to prompt a lot of discussion even though a lot of us (me included) profess to not pay attention to them.


Ira

[Michael Wolf]

I agree with Sean A's earlier post that IF there is a future reexamination of this generations GCA tastes and decision making, the trend most exposed to second guessing will be the explosion of remote destination golf resorts. If oil hits $500 a barrel two decades from now, and flying to Barnbougle or Bandon Dunes costs 10x what it does today, I could see my sons generation tearing us up on their message boards for building such unsustainable playgrounds.


A somewhat similar historical marker (I think) were the Estate courses that were wiped out by the great depression.


Switching to a separate line of thinking - as an accountant, I'd be more interested in the pricing of greens fees over long periods of time, rather than the subjective nature of ratings panelists, as a measure of a courses popularity. Particularly in Scotland, where many of the new courses are purposely being built near hubs of already existing popular tourist courses, it seems like the paying customer will tell us over the long term which are the better courses. Will Trump Aberdeen be able to sustain a greens fee that's 2x Royal Aberdeen and 3x Cruden Bay? Will Castle Stuart be able to command 3x Boat of Garden or Nairn?


My final point, on social media's influence: the last few years have been disappointing to me that in most cases social media has increased the group think on a select few "darlings" , rather than provide better leads on undiscovered or forgotten gems. I don't really feel like I need any more drone flyovers of Elie, Sweetens Cove or The Cradle at this point. But maybe that's as much my own fault for who I've chosen to follow or not follow for new info. I do think lots of GCA posters, and Tom's updated CD's, are still among my best resources for good leads on new things to go see.


Michael

[David Davis]

1.  I played Shoreacres last fall.  I had a wonderful time.  The golf course was in spectacular condition, with greens rolling at 13 feet.  The course is built on a flat plain, with some interesting "internal contouring" that is well used in the course design.  However, I am not convinced that Shoreacres would be ranked in the top 30 in the U.S. (on most or all lists) had it not been for the expensive and exquisite conditioning.  If the greens rolled at 9 feet, it wouldn't be as popular.  By the way, I pulled my November 1993 Golf Digest out in case I needed to use it.  Shoreacres is not in the GD top 100 in 1987, 1989, 1991 or 1993.  And there probably goes my chances to ever play there again.

John, I also agreed with most of what you said. However, just to touch on your Shoreacres comments, you suggested it was exquisite conditioning and fast greens. While I can't read into what you mean when you say exquisite conditions I would only ad that what has really made Shoreacres great again and immensely increased the level of fun to be had there is the fact that Brian their SI together with TD's advice did several basic things to bring back the strategy and angles. This included increases in width by like 15 yds on either side of the fairways. 30 yds more width!!! On top of that they changed the lush conditions and firmed everything up. This brought back the ground game which really didn't exist there. They also greatly increased the amount of short grass and I believe reclaimed some of the greens back. Yes the club likes the greens rolling fast. Though that's not IMO what accounted for the improvements and return to Golden Age principles. I think the course would be awesome at 9 stimp. I just brought a group of 5 really good friends of mine, all Shoreacres members to Ireland on a trip and to a man these guys would also love the course rolling at 9 if all other things would be the same as now.


I'm sure there is a faction that want it running too fast...ie 12-13.

[Sven Nilsen]

JC:

Here's your answer.



Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers.  Five Farms, I can't explain.

Tom, do any of these courses make your top 100 (or so) list?  You can probably back in to the answer by using your Doak scores for each one. 

[Tom_Doak]

If oil hits $500 a barrel two decades from now, and flying to Barnbougle or Bandon Dunes costs 10x what it does today, I could see my sons generation tearing us up on their message boards for building such unsustainable playgrounds.

Michael

Barnbougle was built for golfers in Melbourne and Sydney; it's a one-hour flight and a drive for them.  It's completely unsustainable for Americans to go there, but less than 1,000/yr do so.

[Tom_Doak]

then all the dynamics of copy-cat creativity and consensus opinion come forcefully into play --

I can't imagine anyone writing 'The Confidential Guide' these days.
P

Well someone's gotta build some things worth copy-catting, and somebody's gotta tell everyone what to think.

[Kalen Braley]

JC,


In the spirit of Terry's post, let me also congratulate on taking things a different direction! 


As to your OP, there is no right and wrong for this stuff.  There are only trends, tastes, and the soup of the day kinds of things going on.  Think about how many top notch courses existed before 1990, (in thier various forms restored or not), and then think about how many exceptional courses have been built in the last 3 decades.  They can't all be in the top 100...some really really good to great courses are naturally going to find themselves on the outside looking in.

[Tom_Doak]

Golden Age That Were On At Least A Few Times and Fell Off:


Baltimore
Bel Air
Bob O Link
California Golf
Canterbury
Colonial
Holston Hills
Cascades
North Shore
Pasatiempo
Ridgewood
Salem
Sea Island
Wannamoisett
Yale

Key fact:  only one or two of these have done a highly-visible restoration in recent years.  The courses that have passed them by all have done so.


Other key fact:  who does the restoration has a lot of impact on the panelists.  To take just one example, I've heard nothing but good things about Keith Foster's work at Five Farms and Moraine, but it didn't move the needle with panelists as much as renovations by Gil or by me.  Whether that says anything about the quality of the work, or just the place we were doing them, I can't say. 


I do think the architects who are moving bunkers around in their so-called restorations are tainting the original brand, and of course that's a negative if the original brand is much stronger than the restorer's.


P.S. If you had to bet on one from the above list re-emerging in 2019, would you bet against George Thomas and me?

[Daryl David]

P.S. If you had to bet on one from the above list re-emerging in 2019, would you bet against George Thomas and me?

Nope.

[JC Jones]

Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers.  Five Farms, I can't explain.

Tom, do any of these courses make your top 100 (or so) list?  You can probably back in to the answer by using your Doak scores for each one.

Places like HarbourTown certainly did in the past but I’m not sure where he stands on them now.  And, it doesn’t really fit the idea of not having a named designer.

[Tim Martin]

Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers.  Five Farms, I can't explain.

I think Herbert Strong has an interesting enough body of work not to be deemed a “no name”. Places like Engineers, Inwood, Metropolis as well as Canterbury and some others should have him in the mix. You can say some of his work might have been too severe but never boring or unoriginal.

[Garland Bayley]

...except you don't publish it and nobody would read it anyway.  ...

[Ira Fishman]

Golden Age That Were On At Least A Few Times and Fell Off:


Baltimore
Bel Air
Bob O Link
California Golf
Canterbury
Colonial
Holston Hills
Cascades
North Shore
Pasatiempo
Ridgewood
Salem
Sea Island
Wannamoisett
Yale

Key fact:  only one or two of these have done a highly-visible restoration in recent years.  The courses that have passed them by all have done so.


Other key fact:  who does the restoration has a lot of impact on the panelists.  To take just one example, I've heard nothing but good things about Keith Foster's work at Five Farms and Moraine, but it didn't move the needle with panelists as much as renovations by Gil or by me.  Whether that says anything about the quality of the work, or just the place we were doing them, I can't say. 


I do think the architects who are moving bunkers around in their so-called restorations are tainting the original brand, and of course that's a negative if the original brand is much stronger than the restorer's.


P.S. If you had to bet on one from the above list re-emerging in 2019, would you bet against George Thomas and me?

I have seen Foster's work at Philadelphia Cricket; it is terrific.  Neither there nor Moraine were on any but the really old GD Toughest Lists so they have a long way to climb.  Baltimore Five Farms was a mainstay until 2005 so there could be a lot to your point about the "fame" of who does the restoration.


By the way, I would not have bet against MacKenzie and you, but Pasatiempo has not made it back into the Top 100 although it is coming real close.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

"Well someone's gotta build some things worth copy-catting, and somebody's gotta tell everyone what to think."

Yes - and in any generation (and any industry) the former are rare and the latter are legion - but it does seem that in the
current media environment few are taking the Woodward & Berstein approach and many more are going the Robin Leach 'Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous' route.
P

[Tom_Doak]

 it does seem that in the current media environment few are taking the Woodward & Bernstein approach and many more are going the Robin Leach 'Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous' route.

Even Woodward, sadly   

[Tom_Doak]

Canterbury and Colonial = no-name designers.  Five Farms, I can't explain.

I think Herbert Strong has an interesting enough body of work not to be deemed a “no name”. Places like Engineers, Inwood, Metropolis as well as Canterbury and some others should have him in the mix. You can say some of his work might have been too severe but never boring or unoriginal.

I agree.  Actually, I just finished writing a piece for The Met Golfer on Herbert Strong, which will be in their next issue.  It follows up my pieces on Emmet and Travis as "overlooked" designers.  Willie Park, Jr. will be next.  But, gut check, how many courses do those guys have in the GOLF DIGEST list??


To me it would make a lot more sense if more designers were represented in the lists, providing more variety, but it's been going the opposite direction since the courses started being ranked in order.  Panelists vote for name brands, and few want to risk being the guy to stick his neck out for Herbert Strong.  Especially since they can't tell familiar stories about this templates and his career path and look knowledgable about the subject, which is after all the main point for many panelists.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, do any of these courses make your top 100 (or so) list?  You can probably back in to the answer by using your Doak scores for each one.

Places like HarbourTown certainly did in the past but I’m not sure where he stands on them now.  And, it doesn’t really fit the idea of not having a named designer.

I have not rated it quite as highly as I used to, ever since I listened to Mr. Dye's inside-baseball critiques of his own work there and how impractical some of it was.  But I still love it, because it's so different.


I never really thought Canterbury or Colonial was a top-100 course.  Not because of the designers ... I just thought both courses were too straightforward, and resting too much on their tournament history.  It really set back Colonial's reputation when Annika Sorenstam decided that was the course that gave her the best chance of competing with the guys.  That should have been a point in its favor, really, but for most people it emphasized how its reputation for difficulty had evaporated.


Now that I think about Five Farms, really, it's just been crowded out by the people who insist on having both courses at Winged Foot and both courses at Baltusrol rated highly, and by Somerset Hills overtaking it in the pantheon of Tillinghast's best work.  In too many panelists' minds, there's sort of an unofficial quota of how many courses each of us can have out of the 100, so they start making sub-lists of the five best Tillinghast courses and the eight best Ross courses and so on.  [And of course everyone gets one or two favorite designers who are exempt from quotas and can keep adding to their list, like Bill Coore for Mr. Schulz.]  Tillie's quota has probably had to give up a spot to all the new courses that have been built in recent years.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()