[Tom_Doak]

As promised, I looked up the numbers from the GOLF DIGEST Best New voting in 1999, and with Mike Erdmann's spreadsheet help, we've plugged them into the ranking of America's 100 Greatest Courses WITHOUT THE TRADITION FACTOR.

Now these are not the actual 2003 GOLF DIGEST results ... certainly more panelists have voted on these courses since the year they opened, conditioning has changed, and so forth.  But it will shed some insight into what would happen if the Tradition rankings were dropped.


Within the top 50 (ranked without tradition) there are only two changes:  

Sand Ridge with 59.46 points would be at #14 (!) (Some voters who have seen it since 1999 obviously didn't think as highly of it, or it would have finished ahead of Victoria National and well within the top 100 even with Tradition.)

Lost Dunes is at #36 with 56.58 points, putting it right between Los Angeles CC and The Ocean Course.  

But look at the second fifty just adding in this one year of Best New voting:


 51 The Estancia Club  55.88
 52  Scioto  55.83
 53  Ocean Forest GC  55.71
 54  Riviera CC  55.58
 55  The Golf Club  55.56
 56  Blackwolf Run (River)  55.53
 57  Spyglass Hill G Cse  55.39
 58  Castle Pines GC  55.38
 59  Crooked Stick GC  55.24
 60  Valhalla GC  55.21
 
 61  Shoal Creek  55.15
 62  Black Diamond Ranch GC (Quarry)  55.00
 63  Sycamore Hills GC  54.98
 64  Long Cove Club  54.90
*65  Cape Cod National  54.88 ***
 66  Peachtree GC 54.80
 67  Colonial CC 54.74
 68  Camargo Club  54.74
 69  Interlachen CC 54.72
 70  TPC at Sawgrass (Stadium)  54.60
 
 71  Cog Hill G&CC (#4) 54.50
 72  Plainfield CC 54.48
 73  Grandfather G. & CC 54.46
 74  Laurel Valley GC  54.46
 75  The Homestead (Cascades)  54.42
 76  Kittansett Club  54.41
*77  Canebrake GC, Hattiesburg, Miss.  54.39 ***
 78  Maidstone Club  54.31
 79  Hazeltine National GC  54.23
 80  Wannamoisett CC  54.22
 
 81  Bellerive CC  54.16
 82 Aronimink GC  54.12
 83  Jupiter Hills  54.04
*84  Bay Harbor, Michigan  53.95 (no points for walking either)
 85  Shoreacres  53.86
 86  Eugene CC  53.84
*87  The Trophy Club, Indiana  53.81 ***
 88  Mauna Kea G Cse  53.74
 89 Canterbury  53.70
 90  Harbour Town  53.54
 
 91  Baltimore CC (East)  53.52
 92  Greenville CC (Chanticleer)  53.52
 93  East Lake  53.34
 94  Pine Tree GC  53.32
 95  Stanwich  53.32
*96  Cuscowilla   53.32 ***
 97   Congressional  53.30
*98   El Diablo, Florida  53.30  
 99   Pasatiempo  53.25 ***
 100  The Dunes G. & Beach C.   53.12

 Atlanta CC  53.08
 Desert Forest GC  53.02
 Sahalee CC (South/North)  53.01
 Old Warson CC  52.94
 Point O'Woods G & CC  52.85
 Salem CC  52.69
 NCR CC (South) 52.59
 
The executive summary:  eight of the Best New Courses from 1999 would elbow out eight of the current America's 100 Greatest ... no, actually seven courses from 1999 which aren't on today's list, PLUS Bandon Dunes, Whistling Straits, Victoria National, and Rich Harvest Links which made the 100 Greatest.  Sadly, based on the GOLF DIGEST numbers from 1999, Wild Horse finished well out of contention at 51.01.

If you add in the last twenty years of new courses, a lot of them will be elbowing each other out of the list ... Cuscowilla and El Diablo certainly wouldn't stay with those numbers ... but it's likely there could be five more courses within the top 50 that aren't in their top 100 now, and I suspect that as many as the last thirty listed above would fall.

Which is why GOLF DIGEST is likely to hold onto some sort of Tradition factor in their rankings for a few more years.

[tonyt]

Coming from the wine industry, I can partially see the need for tradition to be relevant. In judging or ranking the very best wines (as a general ranking list, not a one-off wine show judging), the track record of a wine is crucially important.

A new winery releasing it's third or fourth vintage of premium Cabernet may produce a wine arguably better than a long term benchmark wine, and do so a couple of years in a row. But the older estate has a proven reputation for it's wines being able to age very well in the bottle, taking on wonderful mature characters when 5-8 years old, and the better vintages easily being able to age for over a decade (or two) and grow into a marvellous gem.

With the younger estate, we have no idea how their wines will age, no matter how good they are, because their terroir (vineyard site, microclimate, soil composition), and their subsequent winemaking techniques have never been exactly replicated and tested over a number of years. Their good young wines are too young for us to see how they age gracefully over time. So no matter their obvious quality, we can't be sure of their very long term stature. Although we can of course get a fair idea and be able to make an educated prediction.

And so to relatively new golf courses. Courses opened less than five years can certainly be identified for their quality immediately. But some intrinsic measure of their worth is unavailable to us. Sure, Merion doesn't need to rely on Mr Ouimet to be a traditional gem, but it has needed time. Time for us to understand it, and to truly appreciate how awesome it really is. Same with others.

So if your favourite young courses are ranked lower than you'd like, one would like to think they won't have to wait for a fifty year anniversary of a great US Open moment. But just enough water under the bridge for people to be able to turn their gasp of surprise and delight, into a warm, knowing smile. A feeling of high regard for a good friend, that has been through a lot with you and seen the relationship grow.

[Carlyle Rood]

Tom:

Do you think there may be a little honeymoon bias introduced by the excitement of opening a new course?  There really isn't anything like walking a course for the first time.  The grass is perfect.  Gosh, even when we reopened our home course after rebuilding the greens, I couldn't get over how marvelous a green without ballmarks looked.

Carlyle

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Thanks for posting the info. I would hope people would kep in mind what you've previously said -- tradition points are ALREADY factored when people play any of the so-called "name" courses. When you add tradition you're double-dipping the point totals!

TonyT:

I hear what you're saying but let me add this: You can postpone the immediate "bounce" that "new" courses often have by reimposing a waiting period -- no less than two years would seem to be fair. But, continuing with some form of "bonus" points as I mentioned above (by using tradition) is only going to pad the overall total of the aforementioned "name" courses.

Let's not forget some of these name courses are really just hanging on by their fingernails and benefit from being in close proximity to their more well deserving neighbors.

What this proves is very clear to me: GD believes there needs to be some sort of "adjustment" to prevent the wholesale changes that it's ill-informed panel believes must be done. I chuckle at what the magazine wants to do because the simplest answer is to get panelists who know what quality golf is really about.

[THuckaby2]

Tom:

Thanks for posting the info. I would hope people would kep in mind what you've previously said -- tradition points are ALREADY factored when people play any of the so-called "name" courses. When you add tradition you're double-dipping the point totals!

That may well be true for some raters, but I refuse to believe it's true for all.  Yes, it is human nature is to be awed, but we are directly cautioned NOT to let this happen.  At least I was...

Now regarding:

"What this proves is very clear to me: GD believes there needs to be some sort of "adjustment" to prevent the wholesale changes that it's ill-informed panel believes must be done. I chuckle at what the magazine wants to do because the simplest answer is to get panelists who know what quality golf is really about."

That's one conclusion, but certainly not the only one.  It could also be that the GD editors have way more time, energy, resources to devote to assessing tournament history and architectural significance, given golf is their livelihood.

You didn't think I'd just let this slip by, did you, Matt?  

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak:

It is very difficult for a member to comment on his home course, especially when you spent so much time on site during construction as I did in the case of Sand Ridge.

Friendships are formed and the natural tendency is to want to support all the people who made the project possible.

But, honestly, when Sand Ridge received such a high ranking the first thing I did was create a spreadsheet and do a ranking without the tradition points. Obviously, it was a lesson in how people can be influenced by something new, especially if raters made visits in the fall when the whole area around the wetlands at Sand Ridge can be so visually stunning.

I remember one visitor comparing the course to Shadow Creek. "Shadow Creek is no where as nice as this place" he said.

Then, too, I remember running into an assistant golf professional at Newark Airport who had just spent several months in Ireland working at the Old Head. "It's the greatest course in the world", he proclaimed. What surprised me was how stunned he was when I asked about specific features that made the course special. He couldn't cite a single green or bunker worth study for golf architecture fanatics.

So, in theory I support the concept of "traditionless ratings". But, I doubt it is real easy for any group of raters to get it right. Courses with strong visual appeal are likely to get extra credit. Courses with multiple example of shots interesting to play over and over again may never be appreciated.

For all its aesthetic appeal, I believe the single best architectural feature at Sand Ridge is the 15th green. Take a person there for the first time and you can expect him to shrug. You can't see what makes it special. Too subtle. Play it 50 times and your appreciation grows immensely.

Tom, a big part of me is sympathetic to the man who spends all week in an office and is delighted by stunning views. But, I wish we could do better identifying those golf holes and courses with features that will hold interest year after year.

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff and well said, Tim.

My only little nit is with a course not having "a single green or bunker worth study for golf architecture fanatics."

Why is this necessary, on its own?

I only ask because golf architecture fanatics have got to make up well less than 1% of avid golfers, with the percentage being even less if all golfers period are considered.  Why should interest to this tiny minority be important?

I know one easy answer:  because greens and bunkers worth study for gca fanatics are likely BETTER greens and bunkers for all to play out of and on....

But does it go beyond that?

I have a really hard time with making "architecture" the sole and only thing considered, as you can likely tell from any of my rants.  It's important, it's just not the only thing that matters to golfers as they play the game.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tom H:

When 60 Minutes tires of Clinton v Dole you and I can come forward with our weekly blather on the merits / lack thereof of ratings!  

I'm sure the network would bounce our "traditional" discussions toot sweet!!!

[Doug Wright]

tonyt,

I like your analogy. Also quite erudite. Thanks for posting it, and look forward to more.

All The Best from a Wine Aficionado,

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, Matt.  Feel free to call me an ignorant slut when we do our point/counterpoint.  

TH

[Carlyle Rood]

I wonder if some of the ratings are diluted because they're compiled by too many people.  Statisticians will point out that the larger the sampling, the smaller the likelihood for error.  That may be true when you're sampling quantitative data; but, when your sampling opinions it may be just as true that people are more susceptible to "going along with everyone else."

I think it's more interesting when one person, or a small group of people, rank things.  They're usually more committed to their choices, and will defend them more passionately.

An example would be the Doak Scale.  It's just Tom's opinion; but, it's compelling as hell.  Do you think Golf Digest would hand out a '0' on their scale?!  I fell out of my chair when I read that.  (I wish I'd seen that review before I played in the Mid-Amateur qualifier at this club.)

What would rankings look like if Pete Dye did them?  Or John Daly?!  

I once read Greg Norman's Top 10--airports.  It was actually pretty interesting.  I found it highly entertaining, and I appreciated it because it was unfiltered by other panelists.  (By the way, No. 1 was Hartsfield Airport?!)

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom H,
I know what you are saying, but when I read other rankings for wine or cigars, do I really care what the "average" cigar smoker or occasional wine-drinker thinks? No.

Why then would I want a rating that was made for them? I want to know the feelings of experts, and I am free to agree or disagree.

Therefore, it would seem that assembling a panel of experts to judge golf courses would make sense too. Assembling a cross-section of golfers is what Places to Play and Zagat does.

For better or worse, ranking of golf courses should be left to those few who have the qualifications. If you accept that architecture makes a great course - not the overall experience - then I think you judge on that. If you want to know which course the average golfer will enjoy (factoring in cart girls, clubhouse, tradition) than look at the Places to play.

Why can't the two be separate? Nine of the top 10 courses are extraordinarily private, so why should whether the average golfer would like the clubhouse be a factor?

[Carlyle Rood]

Ben brings up an interesting question.  What are the top 100 golf courses based on beer cart girls?  

[THuckaby2]

Ben:

You're ascribing thoughts to me that I most definitely do not have.  I don't have the energy to fight this fight again, though.  I've made my feelings clear on MANY other threads on this subject.

I've said many times, Ben - the "best" course ratings would be compiled by a devoted group, small or large, for whom this is their only, full-time pursuit.  This is never going to happen.  Thus we have what we have, and none of it is bad.  None of it is perfect, either.

My main point here is that "architecture" in a vacuum is not what golf is all about.  Not if you actually play the game, anyway.  It is very important, it's just most definitely not the sole and only thing that matters.

Please don't make me fight this fight again... go read some of the MANY other threads on the subject!  I am getting tired, oh so tired... strength fading.. need nutrients...    

TH

[THuckaby2]

Carlyle:  I will say this, as I have said to others - the discussion of cart girls begins and ends with Troon North, outside Scottsdale, AZ.  They must import ASU coeds for such, taking the cream of the crop, and if you've spent any time on ASU campus you know how mind-boggling this is... They gals there damn near made the overpriced condo-canyon golf there worth it.  Almost.  

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

To me, things that are "worthy of study" are those things which sustain interest over a long period of time.

Often, a golf hole or course can make a big initial impression. Usually, it has to do with appealing to the visual senses.

But, how do you create holes that are even more fascinating 15-20 years after you first saw it. Take #6 at Ballybunion, for example. From a visual perspective, it really isn't the least bit appealing. But, years after first seeing I still haven't figured out where to aim my tee shot. And I still don't really know how to play the approach.

Now, maybe that sort of thing will only be interesting to a small percent of golfers. I don't know. But, when you can't quite ever figure things out, you have something pretty cool.

[THuckaby2]

Tim, having been on the receiving end of stuff like this, I am uniquely attuned to how "fun" repeated questions are, but please realize I trust your opinions implicitly on all things golf, having learned so much from you as I have.

With that as a backdrop, I do have other questions.

1. Features at new courses are not worth study?  That might be implied in your statement that "things that are "worthy of study" are those things which sustain interest over a long period of time."  I can't believe you mean this to be exclusive, but please do set my mind at ease.  The present tense of "sustain" ought to settle this, I just want to make sure.

2. I fully agree that holes such as #6 Ballybunion, which one may NEVER fully "figure out" are great holes without a doubt.  I tend to love these holes most dearly of all.  But that is not the question... the question is does a course necessarily HAVE to have holes "worthy of study" to be worth playing?  I'm not gonna ask if the requirement is there for greatness, I'm not sure of the answer to that but let's just start with the previous.  

Again, my goal here is to learn from you.  

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

My only little nit is with a course not having "a single green or bunker worth study for golf architecture fanatics."

Why is this necessary, on its own?

I only ask because golf architecture fanatics have got to make up well less than 1% of avid golfers, with the percentage being even less if all golfers period are considered.  Why should interest to this tiny minority be important?

I have a really hard time with making "architecture" the sole and only thing considered, as you can likely tell from any of my rants.  It's important, it's just not the only thing that matters to golfers as they play the game.

TH

Those were the thoughts I was referring to. You asked, "Why should interest to this tiny minority be important?" I was giving my opinion. Using the analogy of wine and cigars, I gave you my opinion why architecture should be the most important.

You could similarly say that whether a Napa Valley Cab is full-bodied or not, does not matter to a wino. I was saying it SHOULD matter to raters.

I know your thoughts in other posts; I was just referring to your belief that architecture should not be the only thing.

[THuckaby2]

Ok Ben.

You've completely lost me.

Yes, architecture should matter to those doing "ratings".  That's pretty obvious.  I've said many times it is very important.  But then you know that, right?

But given that so much more than what we would classify as "architecture" is important to those who play the game, why should architecture be ALL that matters?

Are we rating courses for people who play the game or not?

If you've read my many other rants on this subject, then you know I also fully support a separate list of "achievements in golf course architecture."  That would be very worthwhile to certain people.

It just wouldn't be all that matters to real golfers, the group comprising the vast majority of people who care about the game at all.

What am I missing?

TH

ps - love the wine analogy, HATE HATE HATE wine snobs.  If I taste a wine and like it, that's all that matters, and I could give a rat's ass if some "expert" tells me it sucks.  I suppose the same can be said for golf courses... if I play it and enjoy it, it really doesn't matter WHY, nor does it matter what any magazine says about it. What this has to do with course ratings I have no idea, I just felt compelled to say it because if you think I'm strident about this golf stuff, just get me started on wine!  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I don't mean to imply that new courses do not have things worthy of study. They may or may not. Moreover, sometimes the things worthy of study are obscured. They are not obvious. The example I gave of the 15th green at Sand Ridge is a case in point. The visual surroundings are far more likely to attract people's attention. The subtley - I'll even say brilliance of this green - can be missed altogther. But, I suspect that ten years from now I'll still be as confused during putts on this green as I am on tee shots at Ballybunion's #6.

My point is not to be "exclusive". Far from it. Let me give a California muni example: the short par 3 #5 at Recreation Park in Long Beach (which interestingly plays both uphill and downhill - where else do you find that?). Playing downhill at about 105 yards it can be incredibly difficult to hold the green, despite the fact that you can look at that green and never understand what makes it so difficult. It just is! I could stand there for hours with my sand wedge and have a delightful time trying to hit the right shot. There is nothing stunning. No beauty. No beach or ocean view. Just a very tricky golf shot. That's the stuff worth seeking out.

Now, what makes a course worth playing? That is a different question altogether. My local muni probably has one good golf hole. That's enough for me. Why? Because I love getting out and it is only five minutes from where I live!

What I suspect you are really asking is "what makes a course worth traveling to see?". Here you have an entirely different question. For me, it has to have something special. But, that can be many different things. I'd love to see Rustic Canyon because all I've heard about the concept of the course. I wanted to see Stonewall 2 because the club is one of my favorite places in golf. I'd love to see Cape Kidnappers because of the feeling of adventure doing so would probably provide. I enjoyed seeing the Kingsley Club because of how much effort Mike DeVries obviously put into the bunkers. I'd love to see Friar's Head (again) because all I've heard of Ken Bakst's commitment to let Coore & Crenshaw's talents flourish. I love to see places like Prestwick and NGLA because of their place in the history of golf architecture. Ditto St. Andrews. I love seeing #4 at Spyglass because I can't stop thinking about Robert Trent Jones smiling and maybe laughing as people play the hole. I love seeing Cypress Point for the sheer beauty of the place. And I love going back to Ballybunion and having people say "welcome home".

So, don't get hung up on what makes a course worth seeing. Set your own standard. Don't worry about explaining it to anyone else. If you prefer stunning beauty over something just tricky, no worries whatsover.

[THuckaby2]

That is wonderful stuff and sage counse - thanks, Tim.  I get it most definitely.  The bottom line is a great thought to keep in mind for us all:  

"So, don't get hung up on what makes a course worth seeing. Set your own standard. Don't worry about explaining it to anyone else. If you prefer stunning beauty over something just tricky, no worries whatsover."

That really is a good summary of this whole silly "rankings" argument.  If it's fun for you, it's fun period.  Golf course aficionados get jazzed by the study, others could care less and just want fine conditions or a nice view or whatever.  Neither way of looking at this is necessarily wrong or right.  As for me personally, I tend to like everything and every course you mention Tim is very worth seeing to me, for all the reasons you state... On top of that, I tend to want to see all new courses in my area just to see them period...

It is a great big beautiful world of golf, as a wise man once said...

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()