[Jerry Kluger]

I was wondering what the rankings of courses would look like if they were based strictly on design.  Suppose tradition, conditioning, and all of the other factors were left out and we judged a course strictly by its design including routing, shot values, hole variations such as short and long par 4s, reachable versus long par 5s, short and long par 3s, doglegs left and right, etc.  In other words, is the design itself going to stand the test of time?  I think that Pine Valley would easily pass such a test and remain on top of the list but what about the others, are there some that come to mind which would clearly fall in their ranking?  

[THuckaby2]

Such a thing would be fun to see, Jerry.  I'd also say that necessarily any assessment of "design" would have to include all the obstacles the architect had to overcome to build the course, his efficient use of land and resources, the budget constraints he had - all things listed in a post made by Jeremy Glenn in a different thread yesterday.  Such a list could be called "Best Achievements in Golf Course Design", and it would be a useful tool to assess the work of people in the industry.

It would have as much or as little meaning to real golfers as they put in "architecture", however.... as all those things you are excepting out most definitely do have meaning to golfers.  Still, it would be a very interesting list, best compiled by architects, developers and people in the industry, if they could be trusted not to let self-interest cloud their assessments.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
They do have a ranking that sort of does what you are asking. Its called Golfweek's America's Best. But don't you think that is what the Golf Digest ranking is trying to accomplish? I mean, If you aren't rating the courses for their architecture, what criteria are you rating them for? (This is a question, because it was my understanding that the Golf Digest Critieria was created for architectural substance as per Ron Whitten)

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

If you sincerely believe these are the only criteria considered by Golf Week, than more power to you.  I'd have to believe human golfers consider far more than these simple issues, and you GW guys are human, right?  Sometimes I wonder, given how infallible you find yourselves...    And if you want to make a worthwhile list, quit wussing out and separating out modern and classic.  Show some stones.

As for GD, the criteria used make it very obvious this goes far beyond "architecture", whatever Mr. Whitten (who is not in charge of this) says.

TH

ps - insert proper smileys -   - hopefully it is understood this is all in good fun and part of the good-natured shit-giving I love to have with you GW folks.  If this was going to Dave Wigler or a few others, I wouldn't have to add this - with you Tommy I guess I still need the disclaimers!  But after this, can we get rid of such?  

[JohnV]

If you take Golf Digests rankings for Shot Value, Resistance to Scoring and Design Variety and just add them up (no doubling of SV) here is the order, along with the GD order to the right.

Order      Course      GD Rank
1      Pine Valley      1
2      Shinnecock Hills      6
3      Oakmont                   4
4      Pebble Beach      5
5      Augusta                   2
6      Winged Foot West      9
7      Cypress Point      3
8      Merion East      7
9      Pinehurst #2      12
10      Bethpage Black      30
11      Medinah #3      13
12      Olympic Lake      16
13      Victoria National      49
14      Sand Hills                   38
15      Pacific Dunes      47
16      Muirfield Village      18
17      Crystal Downs      23
18      Oakland Hills South      8
19      Southern Hills      15
20      Wade Hampton      37
21      Oak Hill East      10
22      Seminole                   14
23      Country Club (Clyde/Squirrel)      11
24      Quaker Ridge      20
25      Whistling Straights - Straights      71
26      Bandon Dunes      62
27      Prairie Dunes      25
28      Winged Foot East      32
29      Los Angeles North      27
30      Prince                   73
31      Shadow Creek      48
32      National Golf      19
33      Olympia Fields North      24
34      Golf Club                   57
35      Spyglass Hill      43
36      Butler National      42
37      Inverness      17
38      Ocean Course      70
39      Honors                   58
40      Riviera                   26
41      San Francisco      28
42      Blackwolf Run River      79
43      Fishers Island      34
44      Baltusrol Lower      22
45      TPC Sawgrass Stadium      67
46      Crooked Stick      54
47      Forest Highlands Canyon      72
48      Plainfield                   45
49      Long Cove      77
50      Sycamore Hills      100
51      Garden City      29
52      Valhalla                   87
53      Peachtree      51
54      Cog Hill #4      60
55      Scioto                   31
56      Cherry Hills      21
57      Chicago                   33
58      Colonial                   35
59      Castle Pines      68
60      Double Eagle      85
61      Bellerive                   61
62      Black Diamond Quarry      95
63      Hazeltine                   53
64      Rich Harvest      99
65      Shoal Creek      64
66      Homestead - Cascades      39
67      Harbour Town      65
68      Estancia                   97
69      Ocean Forest      96
70      Quarry at La Quinta      88
71      Milwaukee      40
72      Somerset Hills      41
73      Wannamoisett      44
74      Canterbury      48
75      Stanwich                   89
76      Congressional Blue      63
77      Atlanta                   86
78      Camargo                   66
79      Jupiter Hills - Hills      75
80      Desert Forest      80
81      Greenville                   94
82      Baltimore East      55
83      Interlachen      36
84      Pasatiempo      91
85      Mauna Kea      84
86      Maidstone      59
87      Aronimink                   52
88      Eugene                   83
89      Laurel Valley      59
90      Pine Tree                   81
91      Dunes                   78
92      NCR South      93
93      Sahalee (South/North)      98
94      Grandfather      92
95      Salem                   69
96      Point O' Woods      76
97      East Lake      74
98      Kittansett      50
99      Old Warson      90
100      Shoreacres      82

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, You take things so personal! I'm asking you a question, so quit being so defensive!

Wasn't Golf Digest's critieria set by Ron Whitten?
I'm asking, Does it have something to do with Golf Architecture? If it doesn't, what does it have to do with? Remember Tom, I'm asking YOU! Not trying to prove anything!

[THuckaby2]

Looks pretty good to me, JV - thanks for the effort in any case.

Of course I'm sure at least someone will come out of the woodwork now and say how full of shit even this is....  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

You ask me direct questions, asking for my knowledge, in a public place, and this is somehow not personal.  Your grasp of logic is interesting...  

I have no inside knowledge of how GD works, as I've said many times here I am just a peon rater, one of 800 odd.  You know this, but I guess I'll reiterate it since you asked.

So I don't know who set the criteria, I just know what's there now.

And yes, it has SOMETHING to do with architecture, as I've said about 500 times on here, architecture is a large part of what should be involved, just not the TOTAL SOLE ONLY THING that ought to be considered.  The other criteria that GD uses do matter to real world golfers, and those things are outside of what you and I would call "architecture."

Again, add disclaimer.  I am not "taking this personally" as you seem to imply - I find no offense - I continue to smile.  As I said to Paul Turner on another thread, hopefully you are as well.

TH

[JakaB]

How can you trust Tommy when he appears on the cover of SuperintendentNews under an assumed name....best design for who if I might ask..........Pine Valley is not a hackers course.....Pebble is not for the poor or moderately middle class like me.......and Rustic cain't get a vote...Pajaro is the best design I've played this year...yum, yum, yum...I just love that place.

[Tom_Doak]

Actually I don't think Ron Whitten can be blamed for the GOLF DIGEST definition of "a great golf course."

From 1969 the magazine offered a similar definition which was written by the late founder, Bill Davis.  When Ron got involved and wanted to start doing the rankings by actually counting votes, I believe the editors told him to take Davis' definition of a great course and get the panelists to rate courses in those categories ... so the magazine could be seen as consistent with their old list.

Ron had to write definitions for each of the criteria used by GD.  For example, one of Davis' keys was "Resistance to Scoring," but Ron tried to minimize brutally hard courses by writing the definition "How tough but fair is the course?"

In my opinion, Davis' original definition of a great course was in error and that's why the magazine struggles with fudge factors to keep their list halfway consistent and halfway reasonable.

It would be great if raters could judge the merits of a golf course designer's work but I don't believe any system, including GOLFWEEK, comes anywhere near that.  There's still a lot of bias based on the architect's name and the site he was given.  Frankly, I don't know how you could say whether we did a better job with Pacific Dunes or Texas Tech -- the two had such completely different starting points that it's impossible to compare them strictly as "designs."

[John Nixon]

Such a thing would be fun to see, Jerry.  I'd also say that necessarily any assessment of "design" would have to include all the obstacles the architect had to overcome to build the course, his efficient use of land and resources, the budget constraints he had - all things listed in a post made by Jeremy Glenn in a different thread yesterday

Tom - if what we're after is the top achievements in design we can only look at the design. Should we consider the obstacles various painters had to overcome in determining who the great painters are? You're basically saying we should judge design from an elementary school perspective rather than an adult "real world" perspective, ie: you get credit for the amount of effort expended, when you should get credit only for what you've actually produced.

My guess is Pete Dye will face far fewer obstacles in getting a course built the way he envisions it than some unknown newbie with no reputation. The playing field is tilted in certain architects' favor from the start.  

[JohnV]

JakaB, the Tommy impersonator was actually on the cover of Sports Illustrated's Golf Plus edition I believe.  And given his recent woes, I think the jinx got him.

My question to you is: As a member, do you think that Victoria National is the best designed modern course in America as the numbers above seem to say?  Is it better than Pajaro?

[THuckaby2]

Nixer:

You may be right, you make very valid points.  If we're judging design of golf courses, those things just do seem to matter to me... of course as golfers they don't matter for squat, but if I am trying to pick the "best" golf course architect, based on his results... well... those things do matter, a lot.  Paint and canvas are readily available to all painters pretty much equally....  

Jerry's idea as is would make for a fine list also.  I just find it falling short a little of what golfers care about one the one side (ie tradition, ambiance, walking do matter) and how the work of architects and developers ought to be evaluated on the other (ie add in all that other stuff).

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tom D.:  many thanks for the clarifications.  You are obviously one of the best, if not THE best source for all this!

And obviously I concur with you re how well raters evaulate a designers work.  That's not what course raters today are being asked to evaluate, I would think.... what I propose would do such, and as I say none of us raters are qualified to participate.  It would have to be done by people in the industry, trusting you all to look beyond self-interest.

That would make for a very interesting list... but as I say, would be then worth the most to people in the industry... what the magazines do each in their own way are worth more to "golfers".

Again, this is just my take... the whole site here seems to think I'm full of crap, so take my words with an ocean of salt!  

TH

[John Nixon]

Tom - I agree; if I'm having a course built I certainly want to find the guy who gives me the most bang for the buck. If I'm only looking at design for its own sake, then I don't worry about site constraints, obstacles, etc.

Personally, I look at design for its own sake. Therefore, JohnV's list based on shot value, resistance and variety comes closer to what I think the top 100 would look like if I were, in some fantasy world, ever to be remotely familiar with more than a couple of the courses on the list.  

[JakaB]

JohnV,

The only modern courses on the list I have played are Victoria, The Ocean, Bellerive and Valhalla...the breakfast at Pajaro blew them all away.   My son just brought home his school pictures yesterday and I am still too shocked by how good looking and confident he was to comment on architecture today....

[THuckaby2]

That's cool, makes great sense, Nixer.  This just also goes to show that there are many very valid ways to look at this whole "best courses" idea, although others would try to argue otherwise....  

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Nope...still not right...

Any list that has Medinah #3 and Olympic Lake ahead of Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes is flawed, IMHO.  

Back to the drawing board.

[THuckaby2]

If your damn list would show some nads and even make this comparison (re Sand Hills anyway) we'd have a fair fight, Mike.  Until then, pipe down.

 

TH

[Jerry Kluger]

The point here is whether the design is great and not whether the piece of property is great or if the course is in great condition or whether it has a great clubhouse, etc.  I have always had some doubts about ratings because there are so many things which influence a rater when they visit a course; especially when they play it only once.  How they are received by the course, what the clubhouse is like, how the course is conditioned, are all things which can influence a rater even if they are trying to be as objective as possible.  On the other hand, someone trying to evaluate a course design can be much more objective.  A person can look at how the course is routed, what is the variation in length of the holes, how are the holes shaped, and so on.  You can have a great piece of property and design Pebble Beach or you can design Torrey Pines.  You can design Pine Valley or you can design Pine Hill.  When you try to limit yourself to the course design then I think you can be more objective since that is your ultimate goal.  For that matter someone like Tom Doak evaluating a course based purely on its design would have far more validity than the rater who gets the opportunity to play a course steeped in history and tradition, and in immaculate condition.  Golf course design takes a tremendous amount of imagination and talent and does not have to follow certain rules but clearly some designs are better than others.  To my mind in order to recognize a great golf course you must first recognize great design.  My major concern has been that many of the ratings are biased far too much toward what I call the old masters and not enough toward today's stars.  Pete Dye has made a mark in course design which in years to come will rival any of the great designers and I think that in time others will also be recognized as their portfolio increases including Tom Doak, Jay Morrish, Tom Weiskopf, etc.  Perhaps it is Fazio's dedication to create his own legacy that causes some to question his work, but I think that when we look at some of his designs his talents are surely worth recognizing.  I think these ratings would be far more valuable and credible if we had the raters limit their criteria to areas which are not so subjective.

[THuckaby2]

Fair enough, Jerry.  Though its no fault of your own I'm sure, you've just reiterate the cental idea of an argument that's been going on in many other threads here for the last week or so... so I will not state my case yet again.

There are many ways to look at this, and yours is very valid.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

Touche!

[Jerry Kluger]

While there are instances where most would challenge the results, the fact is that when we use a more objective standard that more of the modern courses rise toward the top of the ratings and perhaps more would enter the picture.  

[THuckaby2]

Yes Jerry, that may be true.  But whose objectivity is paramount?  Who's to say that modern courses absolutely, definitely deserve to rise in the rankings or be included prematurely?

The point is that is ONE way to look at this, but there are others.  No particular way is necessarily right or necessarily wrong.  People value many different things in golf courses.

TH

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I agree with you that there is no one best way but having studied art history we sometimes forget that the old masters don't have a lock on talent or genius.  We can't leave the present and remain in the past otherwise we will just have repetition which is not what we are seeking.  What has happened to GD's best new courses for last 10 years and where are they in the rankings?  Some of them burst onto the scene and then suddenly disappear.  Is it because the newer courses are even better or is there are bias toward the older courses with their tradition, maturity, etc.  As we all know GW has tried to separate the modern from the classical which is a good idea but is a bit of a cop-out.  I think that Sawgrass or the Ocean Course make quite a statement for modern golf architecture  and shouldn't be looked at any differently than say Pinehurst #2, Seminole, Baltusrol, Plainfield, etc. simply because of tradition or the name of the designer.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()