A new list....what's wrong with it?

[Ted_Sturges]

Golf Magazine's Top 100 World/Top 100 US list is now on the news stands.  This will certainly prompt some discussion from this group.

While this list is a much better compilation of good architecture than GD's list, it does include things I can't agree with.  I'd be interested in hearing other's views on what they agree with, and what they disagree with.

I disagree that:

1.  NGLA is the 14th best course in the US (please!), or the 23rd best course in the world.  If there are 22 courses in the world better than that one, I have much to look forward to!

2.  What is so special about Oak Hill, Medinah (3) and Inverness that keep them among the top 40 courses in the US.  (I liked the second course at Oak Hill better than the championship course).  These all seem rated too high to me.

3.  Though I am a big Raynor fan, I am amazed at the continued rise of Camargo and Shoreacres.  I think Yeamans Hall is clearly stronger than Shoreacres, and Camargo is in the same general area as Yeamans (yet YHC resides 35 spots below these two).

4.  Scioto at #42 in the US and # 72 in the world?

5.  How can Victoria National not be among the top 100 courses in this country?

6.  Yale continues to drop, but perhaps they deserve to with the new bunker work.  What a great golf course this was.

7.  Kingsbarns #46 in the world?  Victoria National is much better.

Comments please!

TS

[John_Conley]

"Tournament" courses probably do well with their panelists because so many of them are competing golfers.

Golf Digest's panel is very large, so I think many types are represented.  GOLF and GOLFWEEK have around 125-175 panelists; the former mostly players and the latter mostly regular golfing guys.

A Touring pro may be unimpressed with some older courses with much architectural merit.  I pored over all the scores last night from Ocean Forest.  Nearly all of them fell in from 70-75, with more on the high side of par.  Contrast this to the same event in 1993 at Interlachen, when that great course had a little more trouble defending itself.

I believe Oak Hill and Medinah fit the "U.S. OPEN" mold of today, while several great courses like National Golf Links or Yale may be in the mold of yesterday.

Finally, regarding all rankings... I think some place far too much importance on the placement within the ranking than they should.  National is ranked among the top 25 courses in America by them - isn't that enough?

(I know somebody is going to say that Matt Lauer and Bryant Gumbel are not competitive players, so let me save you that post.  Their inclusion on the GOLF panel seems to be the exception as I recognized many names - including Ran Morrissett.  Perhaps the greatest compliment I received from an architect about my involvement on the GOLFWEEK rating panel is that, "the other magazines don't have guys like you that care as much and travel all over to see new and different courses.")

(Guaranteed to prompt a response from Golf Digest panelists that post here - I understand your point, but with so many panelists it is likely that not all are as motivated as you are.  One that I know personally probably doesn't play 10 total rounds each year, let alone new and worthy courses.)

[Matt_Ward]

Ted:

I am often amused when courses are rated because simply they are designed by an old grand master from yester year and are automatically deemed "classic."

I am not a supporter of Shoreacres because I simply don't believe it offers the kind of quality golf you find on other Raynor courses such as Fisher's Island and Camargo, to name just two.

John is correct in saying that certain courses continue to place because of their "name" and because they have hosted key championships. Clearly, courses that host major championships are not automatically solid because other factors were used in determining their selection ($$ for the sponsoring group, etc.). A good example is the ongoing PGA Championship at AAC. Why a major is being held on this course is beyond the likes of mere mortals like me to understand.

As a GD panelist I travel quite frequently (thanks for your plug John!) and try to keep on the latest trends in new course development.

There are many new courses that have opened in the last few years that should be rated very highly. You mentioned Victoria National and I agree without a doubt -- it's probably TF's best original design.

Since I live in the greater NY / NJ metro area I am a big critic of many overly rated courses from within my area. Yes, they are good, but the competition in other parts of the country has been very intense and often are overlooked because people fall back and say that "so and so" course must be rated because it always has been rated. I don't buy that and don't believe that rationale can be defended.

[Tom_Doak]

I doubt enough of the GOLF panel has seen Victoria National for it to have had a chance this time.  Then again, I've seen it, and I didn't vote for it among the top 100.  There are EASILY 100 courses in America which I'd rather play.

[Mike O'Neill]

If Wild Horse (Gothenburg, NE.) is not included, it is a real shame. Dan Proctor and Dave Axland hit the nail on the head out there. And Dick Daley would not hitch his horse to just any old wooden post. Of course, as Bunker Hill's biggest fan, I am biased.

[jim_lewis]

Tom Doak:

Your comment that you did not vote for Victoria National as top 100 in the U.S. got we to wondering whether you voted for ANY Fazio courses. If you did , would you be willing to tell us which ones?

[Tom_Doak]

Jim,

Unfortunately, I didn't keep a copy of my ballot this year, or I would give full disclosure.

I'm sure I voted for two Tom Fazio designs among the top 100 in the world [Shadow Creek and World Woods - Pine Barrens].  

I can't remember how many more I put among my top 100 in America.  Maybe two or three -- Wade Hampton, Black Diamond, John's Island West?  I used to be a big fan of Wild Dunes, too, before it was paved over.

I must admit to having not seen several of what are reputed to be Fazio's best courses over the last ten years:  Sand Ridge, Forest Creek, Maroon Creek, Galloway National, or Pablo Creek.  [I only know one person who's seen the latter.]  Any of them COULD belong, but, there are a lot of great courses in America by other designers, too.

Victoria National just looked hard on hard, like 20 Pete Dye courses I could think of.

 

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

Thanks for you response. For my money, you can scratch Wade Hampton off any top 100 in the world list. It is habitually soggy and awkardly routed. I also object to the tree blocking the entrance of the left half of the green on the par 3 #17. It barely makes my top 10 Fazio list.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom, I take it that you rode around and didn't play Victoria National?

What about Fenway GC? Didn't you see it last year, I think after the work was complete? I saw it after the ballots were due in but what an easy choice for inclusion.

Wonder why Stonewall took such a hit? Is that a direct result of the club's love of growing the thick rough in?

Where were Lost Dunes and Apache? Not enough panelists, I suppose.

I'm glad to see Bel-Air in there. Despite the brutalization to almost every hole  , the back nine still possesses a wonderful run of holes - it is hard to imagine how AWESOME that course must have been.

My glimpses of 6/7 of the holes at St. Louis CC make me wonder why that course fell off the US top 100 - the property looks more than ideal, as do the holes.

Cheers,

[Paul Perrella]

  Ran,
  The most pleasant surprise of all the courses I've ever played was Fenway. It may,IMO, be the best Tillie course anywhere and that, I believe, would put it comfortably on the list. There was a knock on another thread about its length but I found the green complexes made any shot into the holes a challenge.

[Tom_Doak]

Ran,

I'm sure neither Lost Dunes nor Apache Stronghold nor Fenway has a quorum of votes.  I saw it 3 or 4 years ago, so not in its restored state.

My guess is that Stonewall fell because a couple of the people who had it rated highly took it down a notch, when they cast votes for Pacific Dunes.  That shouldn't happen, but it frequently does:  when an architect comes out with something new and better, his older work doesn't look as fresh or original.  [See:  Wild Dunes.]  Frankly, I don't think ANY of the GOLF panelists have been to Stonewall in the past two years, so it's not about the long grass, which they cut back significantly this spring.

[Mark_Fine]

Ted,
Nothing is "wrong" with the GM lists.  They are just different than my own.  But as with GD's and others, there is quite a bit of overlap.  So be it!
Mark