[Tom_Doak]

I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.

If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.


But there does seem to be some bias based on whom the clubs have hired to restore them.  I'm not sure if the reason that my clients > Keith Foster's > Ron Forse's is due to the work we have done, the work the original designer did, or just our relative standing with the panelists.  A lot of the questions about the list so far (new courses and restorations) boil down to certain favored architects being infallible in the eyes of some panelists.  That's too bad, and unfortunately the process is just reinforcing those biases, as you can see when a brand new course is lamented for being "only" #80 in America before it had its feet wet.

[Tom_Doak]

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.

How would you differentiate Somerset Hills from, say, Crystal Downs, Fishers Island and NGLA in this regard?

Well all three of them are along sizable bodies of water and you know that's worth 50 places!


I would have said the same about Fishers Island that I said about Somerset Hills.  Many would lump in Crystal Downs on the same basis, but you know it's special to me - and I also think it is more challenging to a good player and there are more unique holes than the other two.


NGLA is in a different class, IMO, it's top-5 material for me.  It's easier than Crystal Downs but the scale of it is amazing and it has a much more influential place in history.

[Adam G]

   I wonder what happened to Yale to drop so much?

Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run

[Peter Pallotta]

Over the past 15 years of reading (and reading about) these lists, there seems to be a pattern, i.e. with some exceptions, most very good new courses debut high on the list and then steadily drop down in subsequent years. If that's actually a pattern, I suppose it's probably easily explainable in terms of the rating's process/dynamics. But what's interesting are those exceptions -- the new courses built over the last 15+ years that have debuted on a Top 100 list and then held there own as the years pass, and sometimes have actually more than held their own, rising instead of falling in the rankings. And those few examples seem to prove the old adage that great courses can only be fully recognized/appreciated after multiple plays. The corollary, if the adage is indeed true, is that the courses that debut high and then tumble down the list (or at least never go higher than their original ranking) may be very very good ones, but they are not great ones; their charms, for better or worse, are all evident after the first/one-and-only play.
Peter

[JC Jones]

I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.

If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.

I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

[/size]When one [size=78%][/size][size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]

[Roman Schwarz]

To Roman's point:


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes for the first time last month. I already can't wait to go back to the resort - they're really good. But I certainly think there's room to ask questions about their Top 100 validity.


I found Mammoth big, bold, and spectacular. It's fun as hell. I'm just not convinced that it's quite as discerning as a great course should be. On my play, it felt like the fine line between a good result and a poor result for an average shot might be just a little too skewed toward good results. It might be a little short on teeth. Then again, I really loved playing it!


Does Sand Valley have the great holes to truly cement its standing on this list? I love the ethos, I love the setting, and I think it's a good, strong golf course. Well worth an 8+ hour drive for me every couple years. But do you play one of the twenty best golf holes in Wisconsin when you play it? I'm asking genuinely - I think I need another play or two to really firm up my own thoughts on it.


Looking at what's not on the list, I certainly wouldn't rate either course above Pete Dye Golf Club, and it's a toss-up with places like Erin Hills, Kirtland, Canterbury, Crooked Stick, Beverly, Colorado GC, and Blackwolf Run. But it's not, like, crazy to me that Sand Valley's courses would belong to the exclusion of those.

As I was playing Mammoth, I had the same thoughts about how it wouldn't be to a good player's liking and self-wondered why that should be any worse than a really difficult course that only better players can handle.  But I think the other side of the coin for Mammoth is the re-playability.  If you put it in a "split your 10 rounds" question with a subset of all the Bandon and Streamsong courses, it would be tough to argue for more than 1 crack at it.  There's nothing wrong with that for a fun resort course people probably won't play often, but I'd want more to rate it more highly than some of its peers.


I think you nailed it on Sand Valley.  Sticking with same designer, I thought Hidden Creek is a good comp for it.  Though it's a stellar course, I don't ever recall anyone arguing HC is 100 Greatest.  You can rightly complain about what an 8000 yard course stands for, but I prefer Erin Hills because there are a few holes there I dream about.

[MCirba]

A lot of the questions about the list so far (new courses and restorations) boil down to certain favored architects being infallible in the eyes of some panelists.  That's too bad, and unfortunately the process is just reinforcing those biases, as you can see when a brand new course is lamented for being "only" #80 in America before it had its feet wet.

Tom,

I think we're saying the same thing here re: some architects with favored nation status, but also to Peter's point that courses often make a splash high up the list on first blush only to fall either gradually or precipitously over time.   Given the popularity of C&C's architecture, the cliff-top site, and the lack of much else new to talk about this year I would have expected to see their version of Sheep Ranch at least in the Top 50 if not Top 30 for it's initial foray onto the listing.   #80 doesn't give much room for the probably inevitable descent once the shine wears off and I'm trying to understand from those who have played it their overall impressions.   All I've read to date is the magazine(s) hype.

[Kalen Braley]

Doesn't Golf Magazine have the smallest rater pool compared to the other two big ones, Golf Digest and Golf Week?  If so with fewer raters, combined with presumably far less travelling, it could be that even a handful of "negative" or "positive" votes could have a major swing on a courses' position.

[Tim Gallant]

I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.

If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.

I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

When one [size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]

JC,

I can't speak for everyone, but this hasn't been my experience, and before I joined, Ran never asked me how many Top100s I had played. To give you the sort of idea for the courses I've seen this year, here's what I've seen that are new to me:

Dumbarnie[/t][/size] Fraserburgh[/t][/size] Murcar[/t][/size] Iona[/t][/size] Tobermory[/t][/size] Woking[/t][/size] Berkshire (Red)[/t][/size] New Zealand[/t][/size] Ardfin[/t][/size] There are exactly 0 courses in the above that have featured in the last world ranking. And Iona is not easy to get to either Covid has hampered some plans, and I'm hoping to get to Kington, Painswick and Minchinhampton soon, but time will tell. I don't go out to see these places because I think they are all T100 contenders, but I just love to see new courses and see things that are architecturally interesting! I do think your point has some merit in that if I was to do a trip to the States, I might easily choose a golf-rich place like Boston as I would be able to see a number of quality courses in potentially a short window. But I would hope to mix seeing a place like Kittansett with places like Oyster Harbors, George Wright and Plymouth and not let current positions influence my thoughts. That's why the geographical spread of panellists is so important. I would hope that myself and some of the other UK panellists are trying to see a lot of courses over here to ensure things like density biased don't skew results. It's never perfect, but it's not the closed loop you seem to think it is

Edit: I'll also note that the only two 'new' courses that I've seen this year Ardfin and Dumbarnie are not by the 'darling' architects that we all know and love. Clive Clark and Bob Harrison. It's important to not be myopic as you say.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, I would posit that you can get away with building damn near any green you want at this point. Which two par 3s at Prairie Club Dunes were over-the-top for you? I'm assuming 4. 14?


I don't see you getting straitjacketed for building a green like 4. Rob Collins built a pretty similar green at Sweetens' 4th that sorta put him on the map, after all. Now, part of the reason I love that hole so much might be because I hit such a great shot the first time I played it, but it was also a shot that doesn't happen without recognizing the influence of the architecture. Playing to a back right pin, I hit a low 4 iron that landed and released up the ridge in the center of the green and then fed probably 40 feet right toward the hole, winding up 12 feet or so away. The feel I came away with was that, while you could put two pins 80 yards apart on that green, you could probably also land two well-played tee shots about 10 yards apart near the green's center and have one feed to each of those two hypothetical pins for good birdie looks. And I liked that the slopes were strong enough that even a first time player could see and consider them, but that they still required a pretty exacting shot to really leverage to full effect. That in contrast to some of my questions about Mammoth Dunes, for example, where it sometimes feels like any ol' shot in the general vicinity of your target will end up just fine.



Noting that the course is over-the-top for your tastes is fair, and probably not surprising really. After all, the thing I love most about Dismal Red is that it is so much different from everything else in the Sandhills in that it feels restrained and compact despite its wild and wooly setting. And I love that juxtaposition.


At the same time, I've always loved a little dose of bombast, in pretty much every form of art. I love Apocalypse Now, the 1812 Overture, Fallingwater, and Tobacco Road. So yeah, the Dunes course is huge and full of centerline hazards and really wild slopes and it spreads over a huge piece of land with enough maintained turf that I fear for their ability to maintain it long term. But it's so much fun to play, and packs in so much variety. It really feels like it could be a totally different course from one day to the next, to a degree exceeding any other course I've ever seen.


And that's the part that I love most, and the part that keeps it in my personal top 5. My sole criteria is "Which course would I be most excited to be standing on the first tee of right now?" For me, there's no course that clearly beats it by that measure, and only a handful that rival it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.

81.  Fox Chapel

Any opinions on that? I've caddied for my daughter there. Have yet to play it, but will be next year. I don't really care if it's top 100 or not, but I am curious how some of y'all feel about whether it's top 100, next 100, or what.

Also, I'm planning a trip to Sand Valley and some nearby courses next July, right now. Literally in a messenger window beside my browser window.

[JC Jones]

I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.

If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.

I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

When one [size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]

JC,

I can't speak for everyone, but this hasn't been my experience, and before I joined, Ran never asked me how many Top100s I had played. To give you the sort of idea for the courses I've seen this year, here's what I've seen that are new to me:

Dumbarnie[/t][/size] Fraserburgh[/t][/size] Murcar[/t][/size] Iona[/t][/size] Tobermory[/t][/size] Woking[/t][/size] Berkshire (Red)[/t][/size] New Zealand[/t][/size] Ardfin[/t][/size] There are exactly 0 courses in the above that have featured in the last world ranking. And Iona is not easy to get to either Covid has hampered some plans, and I'm hoping to get to Kington, Painswick and Minchinhampton soon, but time will tell. I don't go out to see these places because I think they are all T100 contenders, but I just love to see new courses and see things that are architecturally interesting! I do think your point has some merit in that if I was to do a trip to the States, I might easily choose a golf-rich place like Boston as I would be able to see a number of quality courses in potentially a short window. But I would hope to mix seeing a place like Kittansett with places like Oyster Harbors, George Wright and Plymouth and not let current positions influence my thoughts. That's why the geographical spread of panellists is so important. I would hope that myself and some of the other UK panellists are trying to see a lot of courses over here to ensure things like density biased don't skew results. It's never perfect, but it's not the closed loop you seem to think it is

Edit: I'll also note that the only two 'new' courses that I've seen this year Ardfin and Dumbarnie are not by the 'darling' architects that we all know and love. Clive Clark and Bob Harrison. It's important to not be myopic as you say.

Tim, Im not saying Ran asked you that nor am I saying that he would.  I think you've misinterpreted what I've said.


Nonetheless, geographic diversity is something we agree on.  However, when putting out two lists I think we are talking two different types of diversity because, as you note, coming from the UK you're going to want to see primarily the currently ranked courses.  What Im saying is that all the fine work you're doing on the UK side should also be done in the US for the US list.


One of the things that Golf Digest got right, which wasnt much as I've very publicly said on here, was ensuring each state had coverage.  The good work of Golf Digest was the best in state lists.

[Tim Gallant]

I think there are some silly things about this list. 


Almost 50% of the courses would be considered to be in the Northeast and only 18 courses are public.

If you were saying those were silly things, I disagree.  There should be no quotas or social engineering for these lists. 


There is an "east coast bias" precisely because there are so many fine courses out there.  Courses like Barton Hills are "underrated" but that doesn't mean they belong in this list, any more than Winchester or Salem or Rolling Green do.

I agree there shouldn't be any social engineering for these lists.  However, I would argue that is exactly what is taking place.


There are many fine courses in the Northeast, just like there are many fine courses throughout the United States.  But, given the construct of the system, how many of the panelists either a) know about these course or b) have any desire to see them.

When one [size=78%]of the bona fides of a panelist is how many Top 100 courses one has seen, consider the opportunity cost of going to see a Barton Hills over a Ridgewood.[/size]

JC,

I can't speak for everyone, but this hasn't been my experience, and before I joined, Ran never asked me how many Top100s I had played. To give you the sort of idea for the courses I've seen this year, here's what I've seen that are new to me:

Dumbarnie[/t][/size] Fraserburgh[/t][/size] Murcar[/t][/size] Iona[/t][/size] Tobermory[/t][/size] Woking[/t][/size] Berkshire (Red)[/t][/size] New Zealand[/t][/size] Ardfin[/t][/size] There are exactly 0 courses in the above that have featured in the last world ranking. And Iona is not easy to get to either Covid has hampered some plans, and I'm hoping to get to Kington, Painswick and Minchinhampton soon, but time will tell. I don't go out to see these places because I think they are all T100 contenders, but I just love to see new courses and see things that are architecturally interesting! I do think your point has some merit in that if I was to do a trip to the States, I might easily choose a golf-rich place like Boston as I would be able to see a number of quality courses in potentially a short window. But I would hope to mix seeing a place like Kittansett with places like Oyster Harbors, George Wright and Plymouth and not let current positions influence my thoughts. That's why the geographical spread of panellists is so important. I would hope that myself and some of the other UK panellists are trying to see a lot of courses over here to ensure things like density biased don't skew results. It's never perfect, but it's not the closed loop you seem to think it is

Edit: I'll also note that the only two 'new' courses that I've seen this year Ardfin and Dumbarnie are not by the 'darling' architects that we all know and love. Clive Clark and Bob Harrison. It's important to not be myopic as you say.

Tim, Im not saying Ran asked you that nor am I saying that he would.  I think you've misinterpreted what I've said.


Nonetheless, geographic diversity is something we agree on.  However, when putting out two lists I think we are talking two different types of diversity because, as you note, coming from the UK you're going to want to see primarily the currently ranked courses.  What Im saying is that all the fine work you're doing on the UK side should also be done in the US for the US list.


One of the things that Golf Digest got right, which wasnt much as I've very publicly said on here, was ensuring each state had coverage.  The good work of Golf Digest was the best in state lists.

I’d agree on that and did enjoy that GD state lists.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.

81.  Fox Chapel

Any opinions on that? I've caddied for my daughter there. Have yet to play it, but will be next year. I don't really care if it's top 100 or not, but I am curious how some of y'all feel about whether it's top 100, next 100, or what.

Also, I'm planning a trip to Sand Valley and some nearby courses next July, right now. Literally in a messenger window beside my browser window.

Fox Chapel is wonderful. I would have no argument with anyone if it were in the top 100. The holes are imaginative, it uses hazards well, is well bunkered, and has a good collection of greens. It isn't necessarily a bomber's paradise, because straight really helps.

[Tom_Doak]

Fox Chapel is wonderful. I would have no argument with anyone if it were in the top 100. The holes are imaginative, it uses hazards well, is well bunkered, and has a good collection of greens. It isn't necessarily a bomber's paradise, because straight really helps.

I have no opinion of Fox Chapel specifically, but describing a Raynor course as "imaginative" made me snort.  Does it not have the same templates as all of the other Raynor courses?  Does it have any great holes that are not templates?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, I would posit that you can get away with building damn near any green you want at this point. Which two par 3s at Prairie Club Dunes were over-the-top for you? I'm assuming 4. 14?


I don't see you getting straitjacketed for building a green like 4. Rob Collins built a pretty similar green at Sweetens' 4th that sorta put him on the map, after all. Now, part of the reason I love that hole so much might be because I hit such a great shot the first time I played it, but it was also a shot that doesn't happen without recognizing the influence of the architecture. Playing to a back right pin, I hit a low 4 iron that landed and released up the ridge in the center of the green and then fed probably 40 feet right toward the hole, winding up 12 feet or so away. The feel I came away with was that, while you could put two pins 80 yards apart on that green, you could probably also land two well-played tee shots about 10 yards apart near the green's center and have one feed to each of those two hypothetical pins for good birdie looks. And I liked that the slopes were strong enough that even a first time player could see and consider them, but that they still required a pretty exacting shot to really leverage to full effect. That in contrast to some of my questions about Mammoth Dunes, for example, where it sometimes feels like any ol' shot in the general vicinity of your target will end up just fine.


Noting that the course is over-the-top for your tastes is fair, and probably not surprising really. After all, the thing I love most about Dismal Red is that it is so much different from everything else in the Sandhills in that it feels restrained and compact despite its wild and wooly setting. And I love that juxtaposition.

It was the first and last par-3 greens, and if I had built either of them I'd probably check myself into rehab 


I think there are a lot of new courses where the young designers and shapers would benefit from a hand on their shoulder (or two), instead of trying to build the golf equivalent of the 1812 Overture.  Maybe that's what your generation wants, but it won't hold up very long if every new course keeps trying to outdo last year's darling.  And especially if there aren't enough golfers who like the outlandish to support a place.  Twitter posts don't have a very long life cycle.

[Buck Wolter]

Tom, I would posit that you can get away with building damn near any green you want at this point. Which two par 3s at Prairie Club Dunes were over-the-top for you? I'm assuming 4. 14?


I don't see you getting straitjacketed for building a green like 4. Rob Collins built a pretty similar green at Sweetens' 4th that sorta put him on the map, after all. Now, part of the reason I love that hole so much might be because I hit such a great shot the first time I played it, but it was also a shot that doesn't happen without recognizing the influence of the architecture. Playing to a back right pin, I hit a low 4 iron that landed and released up the ridge in the center of the green and then fed probably 40 feet right toward the hole, winding up 12 feet or so away. The feel I came away with was that, while you could put two pins 80 yards apart on that green, you could probably also land two well-played tee shots about 10 yards apart near the green's center and have one feed to each of those two hypothetical pins for good birdie looks. And I liked that the slopes were strong enough that even a first time player could see and consider them, but that they still required a pretty exacting shot to really leverage to full effect. That in contrast to some of my questions about Mammoth Dunes, for example, where it sometimes feels like any ol' shot in the general vicinity of your target will end up just fine.


Noting that the course is over-the-top for your tastes is fair, and probably not surprising really. After all, the thing I love most about Dismal Red is that it is so much different from everything else in the Sandhills in that it feels restrained and compact despite its wild and wooly setting. And I love that juxtaposition.

It was the first and last par-3 greens, and if I had built either of them I'd probably check myself into rehab 


I think there are a lot of new courses where the young designers and shapers would benefit from a hand on their shoulder (or two), instead of trying to build the golf equivalent of the 1812 Overture.  Maybe that's what your generation wants, but it won't hold up very long if every new course keeps trying to outdo last year's darling.  And especially if there aren't enough golfers who like the outlandish to support a place.  Twitter posts don't have a very long life cycle.

For anybody else trying to get a feel, these are pretty cool flyovers



https://envisage.golf/tpcdunes/?hole=4


https://envisage.golf/tpcdunes/?hole=14

[JC Jones]

Thanks for posting those, Buck.  They might seem wild for the new, old Tom Doak but they seem just right for this guy.

[Mike Hendren]

So Jason, had you caught that 4-iron at Sweetens a little fat and pushed it a hair would your opinion of the 4th hole change once you played your pitch from a divot farm or had to take a drop from a drain grate?[size=78%] [/size]

[Ira Fishman]

Fox Chapel is wonderful. I would have no argument with anyone if it were in the top 100. The holes are imaginative, it uses hazards well, is well bunkered, and has a good collection of greens. It isn't necessarily a bomber's paradise, because straight really helps.

I have no opinion of Fox Chapel specifically, but describing a Raynor course as "imaginative" made me snort.  Does it not have the same templates as all of the other Raynor courses?  Does it have any great holes that are not templates?

One of the stark facts that sticks out from all US Course Rankings is the large number of Raynor courses given the contempt that some exhibit toward “template courses”. I am not a partisan in this battle because I have played only Yale and Old White which I take it are more MacDonald than Raynor.  But how does one reconcile the rankings of Raynor courses with the criticism/skepticism of him as an Architect?


Ira

[JC Jones]

A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.

[Tim Martin]

A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.

I wonder if anyone has gone to NGLA in the morning and scoffed at the idea of yet more templates in the afternoon at Southampton, West Hampton, Piping Rock or Creek Club?

[JC Jones]

A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.

I wonder if anyone has gone to NGLA in the morning and scoffed at the idea of yet more templates in the afternoon at Southampton, West Hampton, Piping Rock or Creek Club?

You’re the best, Timmy!

[Jason Thurman]

A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.

I got to talking Raynor with a few guys at this year's Mashie, and item 2 was definitely mentioned with an addendum: they're also almost all kept in superb condition.


It's hard to have a bad day on a Raynor course. I'm not sure how to rate his body of work given the staunch lack of creativity, but the templates didn't become templates because they're bad concepts. You're going to face a lot of interesting shots.

[William_G]

Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run

thank you

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()