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.


Tom Doak

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2003, 12:26:19 PM »
Bulle Rock is 83rd among modern courses ... a bit surprising since GOLF DIGEST will probably make it in the top 75 of all U.S. courses in their next ranking.  (Though I'd be more inclined to side with the GOLFWEEK placing there.)

Also, is Caledonia now the ONLY Mike Strantz course in the GOLFWEEK list?  Weren't there four of them just a couple of years ago?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2003, 12:52:00 PM »
With all due respect I have to question Brad Klein's comments in his opinion piece in the March 1 GolfWeek regarding Rustic Canyon. Are we to believe that a facility can be held back because it's clubhouse is spartan and that it has a non-pleasant driving range?

In my opinion, this is really a reach because the essence of what needs to be assessed is the golf course. If the ownership at RC decided to include a 50,000 square foot clubhouse and have the perfect setting for a range what does one think the green fees would be now? I can tell you with some sort of confidence they would not be as low as they are now.

I can name a few examples where facilities have threadbare clubhouses and pedestrian practice facilities. If you want poor driving ranges just check out the "Saving Private Ryan" field that exists at Bethpage State Park. The balls are donuts and the field is completely devoid of any grass -- you also hit from mats that are angled and the stalls are really poor in overall quality. However, when I go to Bethpage I don't factor in the driving range and if the clubhouse were no more than a trailer I could frankly care less.

How Rustic Canyon didn't crack the top ten among public ocurses in California is strange indeed. There is more detail on how the course is prepared with the exception of at most a handful of other public courses in the state. I was also a bit surprised about the lack of inclusion of Desert Willow's FireCliff Course in Palm Desert and The Champions Course at the SCPGA in Calimesa.

A couple of other comments on the public listing ...

*How does Saratoga National -- the superb Roger Rulewich course in Saratoga Springs, NY not even make the top ten in The Empire State? Did any of the raters actually play it? I'd be most interested in their comment.

Also, have people REALLY examined the consistent mediocre turf conditions at Montauk Downs State Park? There is no way that Centennial or The Concord is a better overall design than Saratoga National and I've played 9 of the 10 presented.

More to follow ...

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Steve

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2003, 01:59:22 PM »
Quote
This list is unmitigated garbage. The raters for this magazine don't know what they are looking at and Klein adjusts all the numbers anyway. There are so many mediocre courses on this list it is astounding.

Too HIGH: World Woods Pine Barrens. Black Diamond. Sanctuary (not in the top 1000). Mayacama. Firestone. Atlantic. Secession.

Too LOW: The Golf Club. Desert Forest. Kapalua. Old Memorial. Bulle Rock.


r Olsen, how can you possibly feel Secession does not rate even in the top 1,000?? How many times have YOU played Secession, what did you shoot, what was so terrible in your opinion for it to not make it into YOUR top 1,000?

Something tells me you have never played there.

And...East Lake is NOT a Classical Course. Donald Ross has left the building.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Not timely enough to be of genuine interest
« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2003, 11:05:00 AM »
GOLF Magazine greatly impressed when it unveiled Sand Hills to the golfing public at (something like) 14 in the world after SH had just opened. Same again for PacDunes and its stunning debut.

Sure, time can make some early prognostications of 'greatness' appear flawed (Shadow Creek/ Golf Digest) but so what? The Shadow Creek top ten ranking created much healthy discussion.

Now take Golf Week. It is both the only annual ranking and the first ranking out each year. In the ideal world, its process/people should be adept and nimble enough to highlight the best modern that opened for play the year prior. If they can't, why do it annually?

And yet, three exceptionally fine modern courses - Friar's Head, Rustic Canyon, and Hidden Creek - are absent from GW's 2003 modern rankings. These courses may make it in 2004 but such an event is no longer news.

Isn't it fair to hope that an annual modern ranking will reflect the 'hot' architects (i.e. those that at present are doing the very best work, assuming such work exceeds the top 100 threshold)? If I look at GW's 2003 modern ranking, I would assume that C&C did little last year to add to their resume. Yet, that perception is grossly inaccurate.

I can't help but wonder if Golf Week's ranking is missing its opportunity to be more interesting (and therefore more meaningful)? Perhaps its ballot deadlines are too far in advance or its requirements for # of raters to see a course are too rigid but whatever changes need to take place to make the GW modern ranking more timely, I'm in favor.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Hy Tech

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2003, 12:10:06 PM »
Perhaps Golfweek could use a computerized updating system, where they incorporate the Internet, email and the wonders of technology to allow them to compile their votes near the time this widely-anticipated, universally read issue comes out, giving panelists more time to see all the necessary courses?
 
Charge each panelist, say, $100 for such a system.  ;)


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #55 on: March 02, 2003, 07:15:59 PM »
Jeff:

I have seen the new tees on the Straits course, as well as a bunch of new bunkering and some other changes.  I was fortunate to have met Mr. Dye there one day during this process.  It was quite a magical day and I shot a 75 from the blue tees! :) :)

A return visit to Blackwolf for the Women's Open would be great.  Great for the fans, but maybe not the players since I believe +6 won it, didn't it?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"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

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #56 on: March 02, 2003, 07:31:31 PM »
;D

Why can't all these ratings "providers" start over with a clean sheet of paper, get real, and present the data that they really have collected and characterize it openly and honestly?

I guess it doesn't sell?

there is no way they can defend their lists other than saying its mine and if you don't like it too bad.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2003, 12:01:07 PM »
Paul,

Meeting Mr. Dye must have been terrific, and the 75 equally so (I, on the other hand, was thrilled with an 84 from the greens last year, possible only because I hit every fairway on the back 9, and even though a 9 on 4 (death march) prevented a much better score).  How did you play 10, 11, 17 etc.?

As for a return to BWR, I doubt they would go for it, but it set an attendance record and the high score was mostly a result of big winds on Saturday and nerves on Sunday.  Also, I now find it interesting that the USGA had no trouble moving up the tee on 10 (1 on the River course) on saturday and sunday because of the wind - is the Women's Open second class because it doesn't get the same treatment as the Men's?

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

J_Olsen (Guest)

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2003, 12:20:53 PM »
I have played Secession several times over several years, Steve.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag Bandoon

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2003, 01:18:51 PM »
 Consider The term "Modern Course".  We have courses in the list from architects that are no longer in the field.

Being that golf design is all encompassing artistically with innumerable theories and thoughts, could there be another list that covers maybe only the Last 5 Years?  Or, at least, change the modern list to practicing archies?  Or would this just turn into an even bigger marketing mess with these ranking schemes?  Do we need the standard of courses from 40 years ago to guage value of new products?

Should this have its own thread?  

Also, archies, please don't place your head under the dozer blade just to get your courses on the "Classic" list.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2003, 04:13:54 PM »
I can only wonder if The Bridge  ;D, Lost Canyons / Sky and Nantucket had enough reviewers to rate them for possible consideration? Incidentally, Lost Canyons didn't make the top ten public in California. Interesting. Ditto Pinon Hills in New Mexico.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

"Guest"

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2003, 06:29:21 PM »
Matt:
I can play Lost Canyons for free and still, I rather would pay to play Rustic. That's why it didn't make California's Top 10 IMO.

Lost Canyons, in a word, is annoying.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2003, 06:34:22 PM »
Guest:

Please tell me what's "annoying?" Did you play Sky or Shadow or both? I don't doubt the charm and fun in playing RC (how it missed being rated is also puzzling) but Sky is a wonderful contrast and quite fair. I have a much less opinion of Shadow because the playability feature is indeed compromised because of the terrain on many of the holes. Your thoughts are appreciated.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2003, 08:36:12 PM »
Matt,
Lost Canyons Sky was ranked sixth on the ten public courses in 2002, so I think it had an adequate sample.

Severe land is the biggest detractor in my eyes. Also three par fours 1, 10 and 17 are basically the same hole and I do not think any of the three are particularly good on there own.

What characteristics did you think set it apart? I prefer La Quinta Mountain to Lost Canyons and it also fell out of the top 10 public in California this year.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

"Guest"

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2003, 09:33:13 PM »
Matt:
Sorry, kid stuff got in the way...So why does Lost Canyons annoy me?

I’ve played ‘em both a bunch, and, like I say, only because it’s free.  
I’m annoyed at the money people have to pay for it.
I’m annoyed most times I play target golf.
I’m annoyed that even if I was a triathlete, I probably couldn’t walk it.
I’m annoyed at both the 18th holes.
I’m annoyed at courses carved into land that is about as suitable for golf as Pam Anderson’s tiny 5’3” body is suitable for DD bolt-ons.
I’m annoyed the wasted money on that clubhouse; LC mgmt. thinking that golfers would think they got more value for their round with the plush furniture.
I’m annoyed with that driving range, which goes uphill so that I can’t tell how far I’m hitting it.
I'm annoyed that no one else feels the way I do about LC.
Other than that, I’m a happy camper.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Robert Harrison

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2003, 10:24:57 PM »
Thanks for posting this, saves me and many people I know from having to subscribe to Golfweek the rest of the year for stats. Though it is odd that a publication which prides itself in sharing every stat about PGA Tour players possible, won't publish the numbers for the ranking. It seems rather incongruous with the publication's editorial policy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2003, 08:07:18 AM »

"Guest"

 If it makes you feel better, I know at least 2 people who share your annoyance with LC, at least the Shadows portion of it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2003, 08:14:42 AM »
Craig,

I'll third that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2003, 08:51:39 AM »
Can someone provide GW's top 10 public courses in CA?  I can't find it anywhere on the website... thanks.

BTW, I ain't touching Lost Canyon / Rustic comparisons again with a 29 and a half foot pole!  

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JohnV

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2003, 10:08:46 AM »
Tom,  Here you go:

1 Pebble
2 Spyglass
3 Pasatiempo
4 PGA West - Stadium
5 Barona Creek
6 Bailey Creek
7 Saddle Creek
8 Torrey Pines - South
9 Rancho Santa Fe
10 Spanish Bay
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Baily Irishcream

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2003, 10:18:45 AM »
What's Bailey Creek? All I can find is this:

Golf Today ranks
Bailey Creek 17th Best Course
in Northern California!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2003, 10:21:13 AM »
Thanks, JV.  Oh man, would I have some disagreement with this list... #1-4 are fine, but then after that it gets pretty crazy.  However, I guess this thread isn't the place for it.  Maybe those interested can discuss in person next week...

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JohnV

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2003, 10:33:07 AM »
Here is a link to their website:

http://www.baileycreek.com/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2003, 10:39:17 AM »
Now just how did you guess the one I had the most "question" about, JV?  I haven't been there and the funny thing is I don't know a single soul who has... obviously some GolfWeek raters made it out to Bailey Creek though!  There's literally zero "buzz" here about the course... not like other new ones, such as Darkhorse, anyway... very interesting.  Number 6 is a pretty damn high ranking... looks like I have another "must see."

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: 2003 Golfweek Top 100 Modern Courses
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2003, 11:01:34 AM »
What am I going to do with you people?   ::)

Here linky, linky.....

GW's top public courses in each state:

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/courses/31927.asp


Dunlop White's article on course presentation:

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/courses/31853.asp

Brad's summary of new lists:

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/courses/31928.asp

Brad's article on Apache Stronghold's exclusion from lists due to grass problems:

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/courses/31929.asp

Brad's Highs and Lows of 2002:

http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2003/features/reviews/courses/31930.asp
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back