News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Tom Doak

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2003, 12:20:55 PM »
I'd like to know how Apache Stronghold was handled.  How many more raters went there first-hand in the past year?  And did their votes drag it down, or was the course "hand-removed" as someone intimated?

It doesn't matter too much to us right now, as long as anyone reads down to #2 on the list we look pretty good.  But it would certainly matter to my clients.

And how is it going to be handled in the future?  If a couple of panelists voted the course way down because of conditioning problems, will those votes still count once they get it back in shape?  This is the problem with rating or not rating a golf course based on conditioning.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

JohnV

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2003, 12:27:03 PM »
Tom, there is a long article in this week's Golfweek talking about the history and troubles at Apache Stronghold and how it is making a comeback.  In the article, Bradley says that it has been removed from the list pending a comeback to form.  The article is an excellent one on what can happen at a golf course when the architects and other consultants aren't listened to and some unfortunate events occur later.  It sounds like things are turning around and I look forward to getting back to AS whenever I'm in Arizona.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/courses/31929.asp
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Slag_Bandoon

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2003, 01:23:01 PM »
JohnV,  That's an informative article by Klein.  I never knew the whole story until now.  I love the course and hope that the changes bring the people and praise back.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Dan Belden

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2003, 01:32:29 PM »
Coming to the defense of Apache Stronghold.  I played it in January, and the greens were the best in AZ that I had played, and that includes alot of private Scottsdale courses.  Even though the fairways were a little rough, the dryness made the course play the way it was designed.  It should be in the top 100 modern courses, irrespective of what might happen in the future.  I think leaving it off the list is a black eye for the people at Golf Week, and diminishes the list.  
   Now if I can just get Tom to admitt that the tee shot on number 8 is not quite right(hehe).  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2003, 01:46:36 PM »
Dan,

The article states that the tees and greens were never an issue.  It was only the fairways/rough.


John,

I was just about to post the link to the article to back up my earlier mention.  Another article mentions the removal of the Rees' Pieces at Atlantic I referred to.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Dan Belden

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2003, 02:20:22 PM »
Scott:    The fairways played much better then they looked.  I was there with three other guys, two of them pros, and everyone commented that it didn't look particluarly good, but the course itself played fine.  
  I also just got my golf week in the mail, and it is good that GW included an article about the course and why it was not included in the list.  I still maintain that it should be in there.  The course played hard and fast, and I would rather play it that way and have it looks like it does, than for it to be all lush and green and playing like a marsh.  Give me hard and brown anytime.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2003, 03:04:36 PM »
There first thing I noticed when skimming thru this list is that Dye is a beast....8 courses in the top 20!!

When they count the number of courses per architect why do they count the restoration work? I mean last time i checked Rees Jones did not design Bethpage.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Bill_Norton@Kiawah

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2003, 03:25:09 PM »
I'm Mike Vegis' counterpart over at the private Kiawah Island Club.  He normally does enough posting for the both of us combined ;), so I rarely join the discussion.  However, I thought I'd add a little perspective on two points that had been raised:

1) Regarding how a course ends up on the cover, Golfweek didn't share its rationale with us.  But I suspect that the primary reason was that Cassique is the highest newcomer to the modern list, as Mike pointed out.  The fact that Cassique is the first Tom Watson course to be ranked also makes it noteworthy, as does the fact that it hosts the Palmer Cup matches this July.  And it probably didn't hurt that we offered Brad Klein access to previously unpublished aerial shots by a world-class photographer, Steve Uzzell.

2) Regarding whether exposure helps a course, certainly it shouldn't hurt if the course is maturing well, as Cassique has.  But exposure is not what gets a course on the list.  Case in point: almost all of the raters who played Cassique also played its sister course, Fazio's River Course, which was in the modern top 100 just two years ago and has only improved in its conditioning since then.  If exposure were the determining factor, then River would be back in there today.  In my enormously biased view it should be, but Fazio's already got 17 others on the list.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2003, 04:29:35 PM »
While it is fun to discuss the merits of how various courses place in the rankings, I also think it is good to just realise that being on the list distinguishes them as being in a class that exemplifies quality or excellence.  I won't let myself get too taken away by the occurence that a course I particularly like jumped ahead of some other golf course team of professionals (designer-builders, superintendent, clubhouse pro and staff).  They all knock themselves out to provide quality golf experiences, and if they come in 18, 56, 57 or 94, they are to be respected as being recognised by a consensus of knowledgeable critics as doing things right.  

If anything, I note that you could probably combine the maintenance facilities of Sand Hills, Wild Horse, and Red Mike and not have a facility as big or full of assets or number of employees as any one of the other top courses.  The designers ought to be proud, of course.  But the people that maintain the courses and present them as the wonderful venues they are, really need high praise.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Matt_Ward

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2003, 05:01:07 PM »
Kudos to GolfWeek for having a detailed public listing by each state. A few comments to offer:

*We-Ko-Pa in AZ is a fine club -- don't know if I would put it as high as 3rd in The Grand Canyon State but it's definitely one to play when in the area. Good job by those who supported its inclusion.

*What happened in Colorado? How come GC at Bear Dance in Larkspur is complete left off the top ten? That's a major omission. Ditto the omission of Devil's Thumb in Delta -- yes, the course has a few holes that are facing some turf problems but the overall element of strategic design far outweigh a number of the candidates listed here.

*What happened in Florida with the omission of Ocean Hammock in the top ten? The course is one of the Golden Bear's best and it doesn't even sniff a mention. In my book you can start with TPC and then go with World Woods / Pine Barrens and then include Ocean Hammock.

*How does either The Trophy Club or Purgatory get left off the top five in the Hoosier state? I like the first two selections -- although not at the very top but the bottom three mentioned are not superior to the designs of Tim Liddy and Ron Kern respectively.

*In Nevada -- how does The Wolf Course at Paiute Resort come in 9th? I can easily make a case the course is easily within the top five. Play there on any afternoon when the wind picks up and you'll know what I mean.

*Although I love Sand Barrens in NJ -- it's not 3rd best. A top ten no doubt but not that high. Twisted Dune was recognized for 2nd but it's really the #1 layout in the state. Sea Oaks and Marriott Seaview Bay at 9th and 10th? Puhleeeeeeze.

*How does Bethpage / Red fail to crack the top ten in NY State? It certainly has more pedigree and character than about four of the other finishers that did make it. Anyone venturing to Bethpage and trying to play the Black would do themselves a big favor and teeing it up on the Red.

*In Pennsy -- Great Bear is only 9th. Surely someone jests! The layout is vastly underrated and trumps at least 4-5 layouts rated ahead of it.

I'm running low on time and I'll post more later ...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

JakaB

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2003, 05:09:03 PM »
Matt Ward,

I might question if Purgatory is top five in Indianapolis...and without question and with no need of debate...not anywhere as good as French Lick or even Otter Creek....for an architecturally biased magazine to not have French Lick as a top five public in Indiana....just spooks me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt_Ward

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2003, 05:18:03 PM »
JakaB:

Your point about French Lick is a good one. It does make you wonder about the due diligence and scoring that's applied by so many divergent people.

Just keep in mind this -- when you have different people playing different courses the likelihood is you will get nothing more than a basic crunching of numbers. I know it's tough to get a real in-depth cross-comparison by people who have played a healthy distribution of courses because our country is so vast, but I know I'm scratching my head over a number of final outcomes.

When I look at a state as rich as the Hoosier State is in public courses I have hard time imagining how The Trophy Club and Purgatory are not as good as at least three of the courses that were in fact chosen. I'm not saying that TC and Purgatory are definite top five selections but given what's been listed I can make a strong case for the both of them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2003, 05:29:56 PM »
In the Confidential Guide, Tom Doak states that TPC Sawgrass and PGA West are basically the same course.  Many of the holes at Sawgrass looks similar on tv to what I played at PGA West last November, so I ask how does one come out at 17 and the other 82 or so?  Is it significant that PGA West is basically the same as when it was designed, while Sawgrass, which I understand was orginally supposed to be the "anti-Augusta" with waste areas and junk around, has been Augusta-ized and is apparently quite different from the way it was supposed to look.

Jeff Goldman

ps.  How does the Irish course get ahead of the meadow-valleys?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
That was one hellacious beaver.

JakaB

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2003, 05:29:57 PM »
This French Lick thing is out there....I live near the course and understand why it is underappreciated by people reared in the same culture as me...but I don't know how it can miss when being reviewed by an educated national audience...and I know for a fact it got an audience.   Let me be the first to say that I apologize to the ghosts of French Lick for not making the drive as often as I should...and am ashamed at the days I spent playing other bland venues in a cloud of ignorance...but I've never pretended to know a thing about whats good...I expect more of the raters.   My godman...its a classic Donald Ross...where is the bias when you need it.

I've never played any of the top five listed...so my comments are really without merit...if that is a surprise.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2003, 06:13:12 PM »
Jeff:

The Irish course is better than the Meadow-Valleys, although, IMHO, neither is deserving of making this list.  Also, the River course should be much higher on this list - perhaps #7 or 8.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2003, 06:39:04 PM »
Paul,

Why do you think the Irish course superior to the meadow-valleys?  I know a lot of the front 9 of the meadow course is manufactured and a little plain, and 10 is a one of the worst Dye holes I've seen,  but 2, and (especially) 4 are really good holes with some fun choices, most of the rest of the front 9 is at least good, and 11-18 are terrific.  14, 15, 17 and 18 are four of the best holes on any of the 4 courses up there; natural-seeming, fit into the land, and tons of fun to play.  I can't really say that about any of the holes on the Irish course.  In addition, it seems a bit of a hodgepodge, totally manufactured, but neither parkland or treeless, lots of water hazards that seem artificial, with par-5s that are similar and nothing special, and the par-3s all seem to play the same direction.  I haven't played near enough courses to say how they rank, but I play the meadow-valley course 4-5 times for each foray onto the Irish (its less crowded too, seemingly overshadowed by the River Course).  I'd like to know your thoughts.

Jeff Goldman  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
That was one hellacious beaver.

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2003, 06:52:57 PM »
Jeff:

While a hand-full of holes on each course are pretty good, neither the Irish nor the MV course are top-100 worthy.  

As I've told many people, when you get to Kohler, always schedule the MV course before the River, and the Irish before the Straits course.  I've played them both in that order and in the reverse, and it is always better to build up to the climax than to climax and and then hit the let-down .....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2003, 07:39:58 PM »
Mike Vegis - Congratulations on the move to #15.

Now... if you get the credit you deserve for all the work and effort your resort has done to make The Ocean Course one of the most walker friendly resort courses in America you should move into the top 10.

As you know, I played there a few weeks ago and was amazed at the serious commitment to walkers. The forecaddies, the shuttle between nines... it was all very impressive. Now, I understand a walking caddie will be included with every guest fee at no additional charge! WOW! I don't know of another resort anywhere with the balls to make that kind of move. Kudos to everyone at Kiawah... I can't wait to get back.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2003, 07:48:07 PM »
Paul,

I agree completely with you on the order of play.  I get up there often from Chicago because of my golfing partner-nephew in Mequon, and we usually play the Meadow course (I'm footing the bill), with the river course for special occasions.  I try to play the straits twice a year or so (I'm not a walker).

Jeff
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
That was one hellacious beaver.

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2003, 08:26:37 PM »
Jeff:

I mentioned the River course, at #17, being ranked too low.  IMHO it should be top 10, without a doubt, and maybe as high as #6 or 7.  Your thoughts?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2003, 08:45:34 PM »
J Olsen,
 Why is Mayacama overrated in your opinion?

Scott B,
 Kingsley Club at #56, do you think that is too high or too low?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2003, 09:35:14 PM »
Paul,

Again, I haven't played enough great courses, modern or otherwise, to judge where the River Course should be ranked.  I'm not a member of a club, and usually cruise around the Chicago public courses if I'm not headed north.  That said, the River Course is my favorite of the 4 up there, ranking ahead of the Straits basically because I prefer courses that use the land (or appear to) rather than being totally manufactured.  That's why I find 3, 5-13 and 16 to be such great holes.  I think my recent trip to Pinehurst, where I played Donald Ross courses for the first time, reinforced this view, as did last summer's trip to Banff and Jasper.  To me, the weaknesses of the River course (such as they are) are in the more obviously "manufactured" elements - the mounding between 1 and 2, 4, although a great green, seemingly out of place, as is 14 (again a fun hole, though).  I much prefer it to PGA West, La Quinta Mountain, Sawgrass and the other Dye courses (with a few similar holes) that sit on less-good land.  Agree/disagree?

Jeff Goldman
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
That was one hellacious beaver.

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2003, 10:10:34 PM »
Dan,

You said you played Apache S in January, but this is for the 2002 calendar year, I believe.  The conditioning for most of the year was not good as a few here have reported at various times.

Ed,

Under.  Despite not having played it.  ::)  I was going on others' opinions/glowing reviews here.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2003, 08:45:18 AM »
Jeff:

Good observations.  Personally, I prefer Whistling Straits over the River course, but not by much.  After Pete Dye GC, the River is his next best work (IMHO) because, as you say, he uses the great land movement to his advantage.  TPC at Sawgrass is spectacular, and probably is the next on my list of Dye works.  PGA Stadium suffers, in comparison, because it was just meant to be difficult - which it is - but while it's fun to play one time, it's not a course you need to go back to.  The River course is the opposite - once you've played there, you want to return again and again.  The only really "bad" hole there is the 14th.  Now if they could just remove that hole (and maybe even 15) and replace them with a couple of the excellent holes on the Meadow Valley's course, you might be onto something ....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2003, 09:52:51 AM »
Paul,

I hear you.  I know this has been talked about before, but have you seen the new tee grounds they are building for a few of the holes at the Straits?  Some of them (1 and 17 come to mind immediately) look hellacious.  I hope they have the guts to use them.  And return to BWR for the Women's open sometime.

Jeff
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
That was one hellacious beaver.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up