[GeoffreyC]

Paul- neither of your choices piss me off. As they are today I'm not sure either would be in the top 50 if I also had to consider courses I have not played but whose reputation was beyond reproach from what I could gather (ie- Oakmont, Fishers Island, Augusta-which I've seen but not played). They are both within the 50 greatest in the US that I have played.  Bethpage to me is still Tillinghast's grandest scope and scale and routing but the greens and yes the changes put it in question when you go to the elite 50.  Yale is a tragic loss from it original greatness.  As it is today it is not within a top 50.  Had the group of amateurs on the committee for restoration listened to George Bahto then it would sit proudly within the elite 50.

[larry_munger]

Tom Doak, not that you need any help but wasn't the list oringinally posted Golf's list, not your personal list, we all know NGLA would have been much higher.

From all I have read off Matt Ward's likes, it is clear that being a ball buster is off the first order, myself like many here love those green surrounds. WFW is maybe top 15 for me, many courses that I would rather play every day.

[Paul_Turner]

Geoff

I think Yale is still good enough.  Eventhough many of the bunkers have been spoiled, it's not a course that relies on them much.  It has hardly any fairway bunkers and the greens are a super set in both contour and position.  But I agree, the course has no chance of inclusion as it is, I guess it's just too scruffy-it's The Addington of the US!

[GeoffreyC]

Paul- very kind of you Re: Yale

However, making the short hole bunkers 5 feet shallower changes greatly the character and fear of the hole.  Similarly, the bunker on 6 is further from the green, wider, shallower and far less intimidating to the 2nd shot then intended.  The humps and bmps removed from #2 green in the name of "more accurate putting" and its right greenside bunker change the character of the hole.  The fearsome bunker on the 7th hole is no longer as is the road hole bunker on #4 that required play out backward in past days change the character of teh course.  I could go on but I think the point is made.  Ran would argue and I agree (and you obviously do as well) that the great architecture of Yale GC shines through even those insults to its character but it currently IMHO is not a top 50. I'm wishing fruitlessly I fear that someday it will.

[Paul_Turner]

Geoff

Yep, I agree, that Yale would be significantly better with those features properly restored.  But at least the greens, almost in their entirety, are as Raynor built them.  And so much of the course's appeal, to me, is in the general routing over the terrain (i.e rugged) and its greens.  Although as Tom Doak points out, perhaps it's a little bit too demanding for the duffer.

Honestly, in my 3-4 years in the US, the only courses that I've played that are definitely better are:  Pine Valley, Pacific Dunes and Prairie Dunes; with Bandon Dunes and Pasatiempo about the same.  So I prefer the current Yale to:  Plainfield, Maidstone, Piping Rock, Lehigh, Manufacturers, Sleepy Hollow, Aronimink, Ridgewood (walked only).  So that's still pretty good company!

[golfguy5610]

Fishers out. Seminole really overrated, but probably should remain, same with Cypress with its unmemorable front nine. Merion another underwhelming course.
In with Alpine CC in NJ, a Tillinghast gem

[golfguy5610]

Hey Matt Ward, maybe you missed the cape holes at Maidstone, in addition to the current bunker restoration. What exactly was it about the course that had you laughing? Also, boy wonder, it's a little more than "down the road" from shiiny and NGLA.

[Mike_Cirba]

Golfguy5610;

Please, please, please tell me that the bunkers at Maidstone haven't been "restored".  Please.  

When I played there about three years ago, the bunkers were about perfect.  They were so integrated with the natural surrounds and terrain that they looked to have been there at about God's Day Three.

I saw a recent picture where they looked....ok...I'll risk the wrath and aggravated discussion that comes with it....but in the USGA's magazine about the coming US Open at Olympia Fields and in an accompanying piece about architect Willie Park, there was a picture of Maidstone where the bunkers around the 8th green looked mysteriously like....

Rees Jones bunkers.

God forgive me.  

I had been so hoping that it was simply a case of not being able to tell a damn thing from pictures...

[larry_munger]

Does this mean that the scorecard at Maidstone now lists the Open Doctor as a co-designer? Maybe Matt Ward is right?

[Jonathan Cummings]

The front nine at Cypress is over-rate??!  I'm about to follow Tommy!

[AtlanticPacific]

Fishers out. Seminole really overrated, but probably should remain, same with Cypress with its unmemorable front nine.

GolfGuy,

Did you have an accident in the ocean as a child?

[GeoffreyC]

Paul

I agree with your argument but for Plainfield which in its current state is better IMHO.  Also, I prefer Yale and its architecture to both Bandon and Pasatiempo.

BTW- Greens at #'s 2, 3, 5, 6, 16 and 18 all changed from their originals!

[buffett_guy]

I have played a grand total of 1 of the top 50. The one I played was Cascades and was voted out by at least 3 posters so far. All I can say is that if Cascades is voted out I can't even conceive of how good some of these top 50 must be. Because Cascades is phenomenal! Maybe it's a tad short by modern standards (don't ya' hate that).

Something to look forward to!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

You're right -- it's plenty of opinions no doubt. Let me clarify a few points.

First, I rate courses -- NOT architects as some are wont to do on GCA. I don't care about what someone did in the past or their last job -- I DO CARE what they are doing with the existing one that I just happen to be playing at that point in time. I really enjoy the works of so many different types of architects because variety is the spice of life and I also believe that a number of young architects today are very gifted and are no more than one site away from being noticed as a real talent.

Let me also point out that every architect I've met has an ego -- some have ones the size of Alaska. They all think they know more than the other guy. I try to separate the "hype" or self promotion with a desire to understand the finished product. At the end of the day I just hope my opinions are informed if people disagree. I also hope I have the wherewithal to change my mind when it's clear it's needed.

Second, I can't speak to your ability to travel and see a number of the new courses that have opened recently -- as an active golf media person I travel because it's part of my job description -- in a given year I probably take in in about 30-40 new courses per year. I also try to play courses with a range of handicaps whenever I can because it allows me to better understand the dynamics on how a course integrates the challenges for all types of players.

Tom -- there is a tendency for people to put "classifications" on people who review and I believe those who see me as one who favors "ball busting" type courses is in for a small shock. I like all types of courses -- I do have courses that rely less on length -- Merion, Hollywood, SFGC and Valley Club of Montecito among my personal favorites, to name just four. However, I also like courses that push golfers to play at a very high level and where driving (distance and accuracy) is a primary thrust of their presentation. A number of architects seem to forget this and build / design "dumbed down" courses that are more for the eye than for the clubs.

Among the best examples of new courses I really enjoyed are Black Mesa and Whisper Rock. Black Mesa is routed in such a fashion that the golfer must handle all the situations that make for a deluxe 18 holes of sheer quality. Whisper Rock is the heir apparent to the success that Desert Forest first introduced to the desert by Red Lawrence a number of years ago. The layout is really "desert-minimalism" if there is such a term because it doesn't try to cry out and announce itself as so many desert courses attempt to do. It will be most interesting to see how things pan out on their next course together.

Regarding a few other courses -- it saddens me when such a distinguished course like GCGC is driven by leadership more interested in how a course looks as opposed to how the course should play. GCGC must be played when it is near rock like conditions because the bounce is so fundamental to the overall greatness of the layout. When I see tee shots hit and then roll just a few yards (5-10 yards) something is wrong. Ditto with approach shots that literally stop on command. All this does is favor the power player who can hit full out and know that shots will stop.

When I rate a course the marriage between how a course is prepared and what was initially created by the architect should work in concert with each other. I'm not expecting courses to be in peak conditions everyday, however, when they clearly go AGAINST what they were originally fashioned to be then I have serious questions on what is being done.

Tom, you said in your book Confidential Guide that if people can agree about 80-85% of the time on courses and their selection for some "ratings" purpose then chalk up the rest as a difference of opinion. I agree with that. For the most part our lists really are not that different. I also hear very well your comments on Arcadia Bluffs but still like it because the impact the Lake plays upon shotmaking when you're there. One last thing -- I also understand your comments on Hollywood but please realize that Somerset Hills also lets down in a number of ways (i.e. the closing hole, to name just one instance).

However, I'm not one to be politically correct and believe that if course "x" from years gone by was on the listing of highly rated courses then it should forever be there. I don't buy that because there are a number of outstanding new courses that merit that type of lofty assessment. That's why I'm quite tough on courses from my "neck of the woods" because a number of them get the added benefit in being in such an environment. I don't doubt a number of them deserve their standing but others profit from just being "in the neighborhood."

P.S. Tom, one last clarification -- I rated courses in groups and WF / West was in the same grouping with Sand Hills and NGLA. Just because you saw the name ahead of them was not done by design -- they are all in the same grouping. I dropped Pebble Beach down to my second ten because I don't see the course as being at the very highest of levels. The first few holes at PB are indeed less than what they can be and I am well versed in how the course tries to build the kind of fanfare it so wonderfully does as you start with the oceanside holes at #6.

Mark Fine:

Oakland Hills is a fine course -- does it still have "fire" needed to corral the top players. I'm not so sure. We shall clearly see next year with the Ryder Cup. Look at the result from last year's US Amateur and the course doesn't hold itself up as the monster when Hogan played it.

Regarding conditioning -- GCGC needs to return to what made the course great. The Black would not have made my top 50 if conditions had not improved because you can't completely divorce conditioning from the final product. If that was so I'd throw in Yale.

Larry Munger:

If you study my listing you'll see a mixture of courses and styles. But I won't shy away from the fact that I also believe you have to some courses that make you work for the score. And, tee game intensity is part of that equation.

[Warren_Henderson]

Tom Doak,

I have just come upon this thread and read through the many opinions regarding personal Top 50 Rankings. I, like Peter Pratt, would like to know what your take is on Arcadia Bluffs. Your comment was:

I HAVE been to the Pete Dye Golf Club, The Kingsley Club, Arcadia Bluffs, Milwaukee CC and Skokie and while all of them have some good points (except for Arcadia) I would never give any of them a look at the top fifty ...

It is my understanding that you have not played the course and if I recall your only visit was at the tail end of construction. I am a firm believer that there is more to learn from constructive critisim than courteous compliments. So based on your limited exposure and having not had the opportunity to play the course, please expand on your comments, in particular why Arcadia does not, in your opinion, have any good points.

I look forward to your comments.

[Chris_Clouser]

Matt,

I like your list.    The only thing I noticed was you didn't have 50 courses.  46 I think was what I counted.  But that's okay.

I haven't played a vast number of the ones listed in the top 50 that started this thread but from looking at it I doubt anyone could take off the Country Club as no one plays that course unless they are in the Open.  I was surprised that Colonial wasn't in the original list though.

The one I have played that I would remove would be Scioto and would replace it with Old Town.  Old Town has one of the more enjoyable routings that I've seen.  Scioto seemed to be almost sterilized to me when I saw it a few years ago.  

[Matt_Ward]

Chris C:

My mother always told me to leave a little room for dessert.  

That's why I have only 46 personal courses in my top 50 thus far. You have to leave some room for new additions and given some of the "new" courses I've played, and will play this year, there's a good possibility they may have some "new" company.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

Thanks for posting your Top 50.  While we don't always agree, I think it takes some cuyones to list yours and you explain yourself well and take the criticisms of others in a spirit of healthy debate.

Speaking of Garden City, as you know, I played that day with you in mid-summer conditions and I'd like to point out that my ball plugged on the 10th fairway (after no rain for days).  Obviously, that is a condition that is not conducive to the architecture of any course, and I'm hopeful and almost certain that day was an unfortunate aberration.  Perhaps Patrick can reassure us that a strange act of vandalism has permanently damaged the sprinkler system.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

The sad part about it is that too many courses -- particularly those that are vastly respected here and elsewhere are gearing themselves more to how they "long" rather than how they "play." I have to ask doesn't the leadership of these places understand the pedigree of the place?

You see I'm firmly convinced -- although a few clubs likely care little -- that if you use the ratings as a way to highlight what's important you can i-n-f-l-u-e-n-c-e the manner by which things are done.

There are a number of elite clubs that for some strange reason ALWAYS get rated rated highly even if things are amiss. What's the problem in dropping them lower or altogether if circumstances warrant?

The issue becomes one of looking at things the way they are NOW. Too many people fixate on the notion that if course "X" has always been rated then ipso facto it must always be rated. That is rubbish.

There are a number of fine courses that young and developing architects are creating today. I'm not suggesting that many of them are worthy of a top 100 or 200 status, but it behooves people who impact upon the selection process to keep an OPEN MIND to that very possibility.

Does that make sense?

[Scott_Burroughs]

I never put my $.02 in.

Of the original 50 on the list, I've only played 11.  Taking out is harder - WW (PB), than adding - TOC.

[Digs]

As a newbie to this site, I find this particular thread of the most interest.  What I find strange about this topic is that there are only a handful of courses that are in debate.  Is that due to people only having the chance to play certain courses and so there is a lack of knowledge of particular courses.  I also see a love/hate relationship to certain architects and new/old designs.  All that aside, I myself have not played all of the courses on the list, but I can say that I would take out Riviera and World Woods for Valley Club and Pasatiempo all day long.  Good case in point of my previous statement.  No one debates about Crystal Downs (rightfully so), yet they do debate Pasa and Valley.  Personally I enjoyed Valley more than Pasa.  Kingsley Club and Arcadia Bluffs seem to be a hot topic of love it or leave it.  Having played both and Crystal Downs all in the same week, I would have to say they are all very different layouts, yet exceptional courses (by far the best golf in Michigan) and if I am going to leave Crystal in than I would have to agree with Matt and put in Arcadia and Kingsley.  
Tom, I am also curious what your opinions are of Kingsley and Arcadia?? 90% of the people I talk with enjoy them more than Whistling??  You also mention people not putting new courses in perspective, yet you vote for Lost Dunes??  You also ask Matt not to vote on a course if he has not played it, yet you talk of courses you admit to only visiting??

[Doc]

Mr. Doak?

[Tom_Doak]

Yes?  I've been away for ten days playing golf and working.

I've already said I would never put Arcadia Bluffs or The Kingsley Club in the top fifty courses in the US.  I'm not going to do their architects a disservice by discussing why in this forum.  I will say I doubt Mike DeVries himself would mention The Kingsley Club in the same breath as Crystal Downs, as several people here have done.

It's difficult for me to separate courses I've played from those I have seen, especially since I'm already in print about many of the lattter anyway, but I tried to be faithful to this within my recommendations for the top fifty.  One benefactor of this was Whistling Straits, which I haven't played either.  I've only seen it once, before it was open, and my first glance was that it didn't belong in the top fifty, either ... I actually thought a lot of the shaping at Arcadia Bluffs was handled better, based on my two visits there.

I've played Lost Dunes about thirty times so I do have some perspective on it.    Yes, it's my own course, and it takes some balls to list two of my own courses among the top fifty ... but a lot of modern architects would list more than that of their own work.  I answered as honestly as I can, though you are certainly entitled to consider the source there.

I was surprised to see Matt saying in his last post that he uses his voting to make a point, such as making a point about the conditioning of Garden City.  (I played it last weekend in sopping wet weather and it was indeed soft, but I'm told it was hard as a rock for the Travis Memorial.)  I think that probably also sheds some light on his inclusion of so many new courses.  At the end of the day, Matt is simply more willing than most to put new courses in the elite -- I just wonder if any of the new courses he would have had in there 5-10 years ago are still in, or if they have all fallen by the wayside to make room for newer ones that will eventually suffer the same fate.

PS  Later I will post GOLF DIGEST's list of the top fifty courses c. 1981.  Everyone says these lists never change, but you won't believe what they had back then!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

The wilingness to rate should mean IMHO the wherewithal to keep an open mind. There are a number of people (they know who they are ) who take the tack that "x" course must always be rated because it "always" has been. I don't believe in that, but let me also mention that I don't throw out gems from the past UNLESS there are gems from today that exceed the ones previously listed.

Let me also point out that as you stated fromt he outset the listing of courses should be from the perspective that a person has indeed played the course. Looking at photographs / aerials, and even walking to a lesser extent -- doesn't cut it in my mind.

Tom, when you say you were "surprised" by my inclusion of conditioning let me point out my reasons. First, I am a big fan of Garden City Golf Club. I would clearly have the course in my personal 50 but I have been to the facility a few times over the years (not just one spot visit) and it seems for some strange reason that the turf isn't the "rock hard" track that it should be. In a number of cases the course was soft because of the addition of rain through man's hand -- not from Mother Nature. I stand behind what I said that are times when club leadership is more concerned with how a course "looks" rather than how it should "play."

Yes, GCGC is usually in top shape, however, the integration of firmness, in concert with the design elements, is what elevates GCGC to a higher level. When the former is missing the latter becomes less of the challenge it was originally envisioned and is sadly compromised.

I also believe the ratings dimension can be used to shape the reality of where golf is today. I have had the wherewithal over the last 20 years to see many of the top courses that come forward each year -- usually between 30-40 per year -- sometimes upwards to 50-60. Many people don't do this with the exception of the more exalted "name" courses (i.e. Bandon and Pacific Dunes, are just two that come quickly to mind). I truly believe that there are a number of outstanding "new" courses that clearly are dynamic and worth their standing and are a credit to the designers of today who have not forgotten the past but are clearly making a statement with their own efforts. I keep an open mind to these developments. Some people are reluctant to change their minds and believe these "new" courses must be around for "quite some time" BEFORE they can join the elite level. This would be the same as saying that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens must wait some prolonged period of time before being elevated into the Baseball Hall of Fame. In my mind -- Bonds and Clemens are no-brainer additions NOW. In some of the new courses I've played I would say the same for them because they are that good.

Tom, if you really analyze my listing you will find that the truly "great" courses are in fact listed -- most of the others that didn't make the "top 50" would likely be in therange of 51-100 and a few of them would not get listed at all.  I also take exception to the fact that the architect of a course can in fact rate his own courses -- that's a clear conflict of interest. Ditto people who are members of a club who then list these clubs.

One last point -- Tom, I am not some sort of fickle person (you know the jump on the bandwagon approach) who switches to the latest "fad course" because I keep an open mind on what's happening today. Look closely at my list and we will be likely in agreement a very high percentage of times. But I do keep an open mind, at least I think so, regarding what's happening in course development. I see my listing as a fluid one because as time marches on so does change. Some of the old "classic" courses simply believe they will always be included no matter what happens. That is rubbish and quite arrogant in their sense of things.  Let's realize this there are a number of outstanding architects today who are finally getting their crack at good sites in order to demonstrate their ability level. In the smallest of cases these "new" courses have really struck me as being the "current" gems in the game today and if they are supplanted by other "newer" courses to come then so be it. Like they are wont to say on Wall
Street -- past performance is no guarantee of future performance -- so it is with course evalution IMHO.  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I do not know why I am jumping into this one but it is too tempting for me not to say something stupid here.  The reality of ratings and rankings is firm and established and will never go away.  The energy that goes into them seems wasteful.  What does it accomplish in terms of what is good for the game?  Some say that rankings can be used to punish a course, or elevate a particular style or trend, which I am certain this is true based upon what happened at Doral, not that the rankers purposely were trying to punish it.  It seems to me that golf writing, of which the rankings are such a big part of their publications, reached its peak by making more people aware of the golden age of design.  Who did this?  Shackleford, Klein,Whitten, Doak?  It seems they have played a huge role in making the everyday golfer aware of the golden age, and they have taught people about that period, about the virtues of that period of architecture and its pedigree going back to TOC, not through rankings, but through books and articles.  Maybe Wind did this in my early years when I read everything about the game, but I just do not recall any one golf writer during the 60’s and 70’s having that type of impact on me about the master architects.  Today it is a well-worn path and there are many followers writing books about the masters thus enriching the subject started by the earlier writers I mentioned.  This type of analysis has done more for golf than any other writing, so this whole ranking and rating business seems so trivial, and wasteful of decent talent possessed by some writers today.  

Unfortunately, I think the rankings and ratings have been turned into a self serving vehicle for some to extol their virtues and knowledge about golf architecture because of all the courses they have played in performing their rating and ranking duties.  Self serving in the sense that the rankings/ratings business helps them sell their publications, and therefore they must assert their expertise by playing all of these courses and then vomiting out their expert opinions about golf architecture based upon playing the courses.  Others capitalize on the rankings and ratings business to propel them into the design business.  The logic goes that because I have played all of these great courses, my opinions on golf architecture are more fully developed than others, and I know the secrets of design that can make a great course.  This is all assuming that in the course of their having played all of these courses that they have the mind, and the creative spirit to understand what they have seen.  It is a little bit analogous to the people whom deprive their kids of medical treatment because they say they are children of God and all they have to do is pray away their child’s affliction.  Because they pray and read the Bible everyday we are to assume they possess something more extraordinary than the rest of us.  Who is to say that they have tapped into God anymore than the more humble person next door.  For all we know, God may think they’re a bore, and stopped listening to them long ago.   I suspect most of these raters and rankers have gained much from their access to all of these great golf courses but it is a big stretch to think that they possess any special knowledge from having done so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()