[TEPaul]

"From the tee, I look towards the green, and beyond to the ocean.  It's a pretty damn boring view."

That just might be the most remarkable statement I've seen in the years I've been on Golfclubatlas which I think was from the first day of its existence.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Carlyle,

Camped out here on another cold morning in NYC looking at my view of other apartment buildings, I would really like to see some of the non-boring views in your life !!

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think Carlyle just forgot to add the smiley faces:  
 

.."(17th)It's a pretty damn boring view."  

[Tom_Doak]

Carlyle:

The problem with awarding bonus points for Tradition is that most observers have already factored it into their other ratings.  You yourself moved up Pebble a few notches in your opinion because of the history there ... and then GOLF DIGEST would add a few more points to the total you gave it.

Places like Seminole, Augusta, Merion and Pine Valley always get the benefit of the doubt from the raters, because of their history and because they're already recognized to be in the top ten.  They don't need ANOTHER boost.

When you get back to Georgia, head over to the Chanticleer course and get back to us on how much its Tradition inspires you.  Nobody is really arguing that GOLF DIGEST is propping up Pebble Beach ... it's the bottom of their list that's a farce.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Sadly, golf course architecture has never come close to scaling the heights it achieved between 1911 (when C.B. Macdonald opened his ideal course on Long Island) and 1937 (when Perry Maxwell constructed the first nine holes at Prairie Dunes).  A look at any of the rankings in contemporary golf magazines reveals that an overwhelming majority of the top courses were created during this Golden Age.  Recently, Golfweek magazine resorted to splitting their rankings into two eras, operating under the valide premise that it is not possible to compare more recent design work with the classics of the past

So how did this happen?  What made the Golden Age such a special time, and why hasn't anything since measured up to the superiority of this era?

Geoff Shackelford, "The Golden Age of Golf Design"; pg. 3

The above quote is the very reason why Tradition (as well as Walking for that matter) should NOT be used in ranking a golf course.  Those non-architecture related criteria distort the merit of the golf course.

Rankings can be used to judge three things:  

First, as they are used now, they rank the total "Golf Experience", of which the physical golf course plays a part, and the actual architecture plays an even smaller part.  Yes, the hairs were standing up on your neck as you stand where Tom Watson stood is a very valid part of the "Golf Experience", but it has nothing to do with the golf course itself.  The "top 100 golf course in the world" rankings should be renamed "the top 100 golf experiences in the world".

Second, if you want to rank golf courses, then get rid of Tradition and Walking, and make damn sure Ambience rates only the golf course, not the clubhouse or the drive in or anything else.

Third, if you want to rank the architecture, then take into account what the architect had to deal with (ie. the site, the budget, etc...), both good and bad.    The current rankings can't even come close to doing that.

Rankings should be used for claims such as "golf course architecure has never come close to scaling the heights it achieved (in the Golden Age)"

Why hasn't anything since measured up to the superiority of that era?

Because of a 10% free bonus for being from that era.

[TEPaul]

"And BTW, the posted photo should be in the GCA.com dictionary under "Skyline Green"."

redanman:

Close but no cigar. What needs to be in the GCA.com dictionary under a "skyline green" is a green that has behind its top visible profile nothing but sky. What's behind that top visible profile of #17 in that photo appears to be water, wouldn't you say?

[Carlyle Rood]

Tom:

I think I see what you're saying.  Some courses are actually benefitting twice from tradition.  Most likely, some tradition points are getting tacked on within "aesthetics" too, for example.

You couple that with the number of people contributing to the survey and you could get an extraordinary bias.

I'm not sure how you would go about getting rid of that though.

[Tom_Doak]

Carlyle:

You get rid of it by refusing to double the bias, by eliminating Tradition points.

It doesn't bother me a bit that many panelists are influenced to some degree by Tradition ... I don't see how anyone could go to Garden City or Merion without being absorbed by respect for our elders.

GOLF DIGEST's tradition points are something else entirely.  They are a crutch to keep the list from changing too much.  They're awarding points to courses for having been on the GOLF DIGEST list before ... that's how Chanticleer gets its Tradition points, and that's what keeps it on the list.  [Some would argue that it gets them from its Robert Trent Jones heritage, but I doubt it ... check through and see if they're giving those points to all 600 of his courses.  If they are, that's stupid, too.]

I don't mean to pick on Chanticleer too much ... I've never even seen it ... it's just an obvious one because it pretty much has no Tradition by any other definition than GOLF DIGEST's.

[henrye]

You make an interesting point, Tom, but one needs to remember that the list is Golf Digest's and theirs to manage and issue.  If you know and understand the effects of how they rate, then it strikes me as though they are being transparent and fair.  I think it's clear that "Tradition" is a major point in their rankings and why not, if that's the way they want it.

Another thing: if you think it's fair to include tradition for the top courses, then why is it unfair for the ones lower down the ranking?  Seems to me it should be applied consistently.

[John_Conley]

Tom:

I think I see what you're saying.  Some courses are actually benefitting twice from tradition.  Most likely, some tradition points are getting tacked on within "aesthetics" too, for example.

You couple that with the number of people contributing to the survey and you could get an extraordinary bias.

I'm not sure how you would go about getting rid of that though.

Carlyle:

I am sure how to get around it.  Read my thread "Why GD is wrong.." and you'll see that I take exception to the statistical validity of their process.  They effectively QUADRUPLE the Tradition category (check the separation in other categories versus Tradition and you'll see what I mean)!!

Jeff Sagarin laughs when the RPI comes up regarding college football and basketball.  He also uses wins and losses, strength of schedule, and doesn't look at any different data - it is just applied differently.  Similarly, I laugh at the obvious misuse of their Tradition grade.

Either do away with it since it is also factored in under other categories or reduce it to 2 points Max like walking.  As I've said, the GD panel does a great job.  The Maradonna-like "hand of God" that comes in at the end makes a shambles of the bottom half by unfairly punishing new courses.

Matt Ward is right about the "why" behind this.  Perhaps better education of the panel, a longer incubation period, or a higher number of visits before eligibility are in order.

(P.S.  It isn't just Shadow Creek that debuted so high.  Muirfield Village and Haig Point are two other examples I can think of.  For that matter, throw in Sand Ridge.)

[John_Conley]

Tradition is an entirely valid criteria when rating golf courses.  Frankly, I just don't understand everyone's objection to it.  This game's foundation is rooted in tradition and history.

Just so there is no confusion...

My objection is that it is too subjective to have a lot of sway in the final word on whether or not a course is great.  Would you like to argue that Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes AREN'T great golf courses?  Someone doing that would immediately have no credibility with me.

(A decade ago a classmate kept telling me the ACC was superior to the Big East in football because of "tradition".  Sagarin rankings and a quick observation indicated they were equal.  If Clemson, NC St., and Wake Forest lined up across from West Virginia, Boston College, and Miami, tell me how "tradition" helps kids finish blocks and make tackles.)

Moving on to the "Tradition" category of the Golf Digest rankings, take a look at the scores and you'll see how badly they misapply their own criterion.  Scores range from 7 to 9 in almost every category, yet a place like Pacific Dunes "gives up" 8 points to Oakmont - negating potentially whopping advantages in every other category.

Also, the scores themselves are hard to figure.  As has been pointed out, an ORIGINAL U.S.G.A. club scores relatively low here.  How?  Oh yeah, tradition means different things to different people.

Drawing another analogy from sport, when you can't define criteria you'd use for an award... better off not having the award.  Best example?  "Coach of the Year"  It implies that someone is a great coach.  If so, how does Matt Doherty - national Coach of the Year in a sport with 323 Head Coaches - lose his job over performance just two years after winning the award?  Oh yeah, he didn't recruit ANY of the players and inherited a pretty successful UNC team.  Ask a fan what defines a great coach and you'll get too many different criteria to track.  Give me Dick Bennett or Bo Ryan, two guys who win WITHOUT players, over Lute Olson, Roy Williams, and Mike Krzyzewski any day.  Those guys are recruiters and program managers, not coaches.

[THuckaby2]

To Jeremy Glenn:

Damn I swore to myself I'd say out of this crap this week, but I just can't stand for misconceptions.... Thus:

1. Re "First, as they are used now, they rank the total "Golf Experience", of which the physical golf course plays a part, and the actual architecture plays an even smaller part.  Yes, the hairs were standing up on your neck as you stand where Tom Watson stood is a very valid part of the "Golf Experience", but it has nothing to do with the golf course itself.  The "top 100 golf course in the world" rankings should be renamed "the top 100 golf experiences in the world"."

You say potatoes, I say potahtoes.  I say what Watson did on 17 matters, and Carlyle confirms.  I'd have to guess Carlyle and I represent the vast majority of people who play Pebble - this "tradition" and the historical events that occured there do matter.  So why shouldn't Pebble get "credit" for this?  It affects the playing of the course... You call that "golf course experience", I call that "golf course" - because I am concerned with the playing of the game, as the VAST majority of people are when assessing golf courses.

Re:  "Second, if you want to rank golf courses, then get rid of Tradition and Walking, and make damn sure Ambience rates only the golf course, not the clubhouse or the drive in or anything else."

Go read the definition for ambiance, it's on the GD site.  Clubhouses and drives in have NOTHING to do with this, or at least shouldn't if one does this correctly....

Re "Third, if you want to rank the architecture, then take into account what the architect had to deal with (ie. the site, the budget, etc...), both good and bad.    The current rankings can't even come close to doing that."

RIGHT ON BROTHER!  There should be a separate ranking of "Best Achievements in Golf Course Architecture", and damn right all this should be included.

That list would matter to people in the business without a doubt, and would have great value.

Just don't ever call it a listing of the greatest golf courses - it would be to people in the business, but it would leave out way too much and include things of no importance to people playing the courses.

TH

[henrye]

I'm probably stepping out too far on a limb here, but if one was to rank the 10 greatest buildings of all time, or the 10 greatest pieces of artwork, or even the 10 best musical pieces of all time, would tradition play a part?   I suspect that all the modern architects, artists and musicians/composers would concede that they are likely to fall well down the list.  Tradition plays heavily in the psyche of individuals evaluating an art form - fair or not.  Golf digest breaks the categories down, and this is where the questions arise.  If there were categories in evaluating art, would we not also see some element of tradition used to protect the classics?

[John_Conley]

Henry E.:

They recently ranked the 50 Best Rock n' Roll songs of all time to commemorate the 40th or 50th year of rock. (Don't ask me, I'm only 35.)

Only one song from the last decade made the list (possibly "Smells Like Teen Spirit") because the "panel" of voters was comprised of classic rock musicians, whose music was popular 20-40 years ago.  HELLLLOOOO!!  That makes NO sense.

Such a list is flawed and we know it.  Isn't that how GD handles the mysterious "after-market" modifications to the "factory" Top 100?

If Metallica, Pearl Jam, or Sum 41 wrote the best song tomorrow, the answer you'd like to see when asked if it is a great song is "Time will tell."  (I wouldn't need to make that distinction. If it is a great song now it won't be any better when it is as old as Greensleeves.)

GD seems to be saying "Time will tell" will all of the new courses on their list of the Top 100.

Shinnecock and Cypress Point are great courses that are old and were designed by William Flynn and Dr. Alister Mackenzie.  They are not great courses BECAUSE they are old and were designed by William Flynn and Dr. Alister Mackenzie.  There is a difference.

[Mike_Cirba]

John Conley;

Speaking of new courses fighting against the "tradition" category of GD's listings, how good is Shark's Tooth in FL by Greg Norman?

I see it's ranked just under Pine Tree as the 5th? best course in Florida.  Have you played it, or heard any buzz?  That's fairly impressive for a debut, especially considering the higher weighting given to courses for age.  

Also, what part of Florida is it in?

[Lou_Duran]

And I thought that Lent lasted through this week!

Mike C.- Shark's Tooth is about an hour east of Destin/Ft. Myers.  Mark Fine has played it, and liked it enough to recommend it to me.  I played Camp Creek (Fazio) which is nearby, and liked it a lot.  I had a tee time at Shark's Tooth which I canceled because of the long drive from Ft. Myers where I was vacationing with my family, and a $150+ guest fee for my then teenage son.  Several people in the FL panhandle area I spoke to liked Shark's Tooth a lot, but preferred Camp Creek.

Caryle- what's there not to like about 17 at PB?  Did you step to the back tee and imagine Nicklaus's 1-iron hitting a back pin in a 30+ mph wind?  What pains me is the level of play that we witnessed on that hole and 18 tee during our recent visit.  Why anyone would play $350 to play PB in a scramble without the possibility of communally hitting a green in regulation is beyond me.  It probably has to do with the evils of corporate entertainment, but whatever it is, it is damned near sacrilidgious.  Perhaps one of the reasons #17 does not excite you is its flatness.  I find that except for the area from 6 to 10 at PB, it lacks the ideal elevation changes and rolling topography of CPC, and perhaps that is one of the reasons I like the latter so much better.

[John_Conley]

Mike, Lou:

Regarding the state lists... I don't think the "Tradition" hand lifts these at all.  I think they take the Top 100 and then order from there.  Like Tom Doak says, at some point the relative placement isn't as significant.

Shark's Tooth was not open when we vacationed there almost two years ago.  I tried to tour it with Tim Rose, but a road was out and the county was working on it that day.  I've heard it is terrific.  Tim is now in charge of marketing/membership sales for them.

Camp Creek was wonderful.  I played with Member #7 when there was no 8.  That area between Destin and Grayson Beach is the nicest part of Florida.  Can't wait to go back.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Tom H.,

How on earth can some guy chipping in improve a golf course?  Is the 17th a better hole because of it?

Are we rating golf courses or experiences?

Don't get me wrong.  I have nothing against rating experiences.  I just find it silly to pretend that one golf course is better than another because of a chip-in.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeremy;

I guess that begs the question whether it should be called "America's Greatest Courses", or "America's Greatest Golf Experiences"?

I would agree that all that touchy-feely stuff that sends tingles down our spines are already transferred by golfing osmosis and peer influence into the other rating criteria, and it becomes double-counting, by definition..  

The fact that it's applied so inconsistently and questionably just puts the double-whammy on it, and skews the results in a really dubious way.  

[THuckaby2]

Tom H.,

How on earth can some guy chipping in improve a golf course?  Is the 17th a better hole because of it?

Are we rating golf courses or experiences?

Don't get me wrong.  I have nothing against rating experiences.  I just find it silly to pretend that one golf course is better than another because of a chip-in.

Read my post again, Jeremy.  I can't make it any clearer.  Golf occurs on a golf course.  The playing of it is a set of experiences.  To me it seems just plain logical that everything that effects the experience ON THE GOLF COURSE is part of the assessment of said course.  So yes, Watson chipping in makes Pebble a better golf course.  Ask anyone who's played there and has any sense of history.

I also lay out a different way to assess those in the great profession of golf course architecture.  That would be an assessment of skill in designing a golf course, yes indeed.  But would it capture everything the golfer faces or enjoys?

I'm sorry if this is somehow unfair to people in the profession now... Just be patient... it's this way for all art, as Henrye says.

TH

[Carlyle Rood]

Tom H.,

How on earth can some guy chipping in improve a golf course?  Is the 17th a better hole because of it?

Jeremy:

It was the U.S. Open.  The chip denied Nicklaus his 5th U.S. Open.  It was one of the most monumental golf shots of all time.

In 1983, Calvin Peete holed a bunker shot on the 17th hole at Atlanta Country Club en route to a 63 and a victory in the rain-shortened Georgia-Pacific Atlanta Golf Classic.  I was there.  It was very exciting; but, not exactly the same thing.  So, yes, some guy chipping in doesn't necessarily make a golf course great.  However, some guy chipping in to beat Nicklaus and deny him a record 5th U.S. Open--that's a little special.

[Paul_Turner]

Yeah, each time I travel to Ireland, I stand on those great links and think "hmmm great stuff, but I where's the fine tradition of top pro tournaments?  I think I'll have to downgrade them compared with the famous Scottish and English links."  

[Carlyle Rood]

Yeah, each time I travel to Ireland, I stand on those great links and think "hmmm great stuff, but I where's the fine tradition of top pro tournaments?  I think I'll have to downgrade them compared with the famous Scottish and English links."  

Nicklaus removes his yellow sweater to drive the 18th at St. Andrews.

Watson pinned against the road hole wall while dueling Ballesteros.

Nicklaus draining a fifty-footer on 18 at Turnberry to make Watson hole his birdie putt.

And I'm only referring to moments in the last thirty-five years.  You think there might be a little more nostalgia on these courses?  How many courses can you walk with Old Tom Morris?

No one is suggesting that these courses wouldn't be as well-designed if they hadn't hosted major championships.  But to deny the historical relevance or importance of Scottish courses is absolutely absurd.

[Chris Kane]

Carlyle,
Read Paul Turners quote again, carefully, and you'll see that he's talking about Irish courses

[Paul_Turner]

Carlyle

Have you misread my post, or are you stating that I should downgrade the great Irish links?  That's a notion that I find "absurd".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()