GOLF magazine top 100

[ForkaB]

Dan

To me "overall golfing experience" includes the club itself and "history" is not confined to golf course architecture, but the entire game.  There is not a club in East Lothian that comes close to Muirfield in this category, and one could argue that it has more significance than its only possible rival in the British Isles which lies just a short hovercraft ride away zcross the Firth of Forth.  The HCEG is older than the R&A, was the first club to codify the Rules of the game, and left it's imprint not only on East Lothian but Leith and Musselburgh, where golf was played before North Berwick got the idea, and well Gullane became the gleam in some farmer's eye.

As for pure golfing history, there really should be no argument.  I think we'll remember the feats of Vardon and Hagen and Cotton and Nicklaus and Trevino and Watson and Faldo long after we've forgotten Lawson Little's amateur win at Gullane or the fact that Crenshaw failed to qualify at North Berwick for one of the recent Muifield Opens.

I love North Berwick as much as you, but this love is not blind to the fact that over 1/2 of its holes are no better or worse than the majority of holes on at least 20-30 links courses in Scotland, IMHO.  Quite frankly, if it weren't for the "Pit" hole I'd probably not rank NB anywhere nearly as high as I do.  Silly, perhaps, but that's just me.  Gullane I find to be a great walk not "spoiled" but certainly not significantly distracted by the outstanding quality of the golf.

Just my opinions, of course, but you did ask......

....and I didn't even talk about the world's best locker room, the feeling of peace and serenity that one gets sitting in the lounge with a large port in one hand and pen to do the Times crossword puzle in the other, or the fact that Muirfield's 1909 Amateur featured the "Dornoch Invasion" that enlightened the "world" that great golf was, surprisingly to most of the assembled, to be found north of the River Tay........

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

Once again, you are right on the mark.
Muirfield is a very good golf course, but
in no way deserves to be in the Top 10 in
the world.

Having just played my 3rd and 4th rounds
over its links, I think it comes by its
reputation for all the wrong reasons - the
Honorable Company, the exclusiveness, one
of the few all-mens clubs, etc. etc.

Our group of 16 men played it this trip.
Not one of them really liked it.

My best description of Muirfield is "that
I respect, but don't like it."

[Paul_Daley]

Muirfield is in a priviledged position. So much of its historical "donk" value, can be traced to: being on the Rota, the presence of Greywalls, its love of foursomes, difficulty of getting a game, its expense, absence of a pro-shop, and a marketing policy of NON-MARKETING. In addition, the early association with Edinburgh's BAR elite, has given it plenty of the old "heave ho." This continues today.

The effect of this combination is so subtle, many don't realise the impact is has on their personal rating.

For my money, Muirfield is a World top-20 course, but only by a narrow squeak.

However, I do beleive its bunkering is among the best I've seen.

Ran: I like Royal Troon too.

Jim: Thanks for mentioning NSW and Kingston Heath to the guys.

[SPDB]

Just a question, and not in indictment, I promise. Stirring the pot. Since there has been some discussion on this thread about potential conflicts of interest that exist on the Golf mag. rating panel, the following occurred to me:

Tom -
I'm wondering if there wasn't a conflict of interest in the way Pacific Dunes was included in this year's 100 Greatest list.

That you designed the course, sit on the committee, and were in a position to invite Golf Mag. panelists to play months before the public, do you think that the confluence of these factors may have created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest?

I understand that a number of considerations needed to have been taken into account:

1. The fact that Pacific Dunes is a special golf course, and your desire to have it recognized on a list with other courses of similar quality.

2. A sense of urgency in that the planned public opening would not have made the Golf Magazine deadline.

3. That because it opened in 2001 (albeit after the deadline), it had every right to be included on the 2001 list.

Out of an excess of caution, might it have been safer to just wait until the next publication of the list? That you could wield considerable influence both in access to the course and to the golf panel, can you see how some might consider this indicative of the conflicts that plague the list's integrity?

To be totally honest, i don't really care - I think all that matter's is the quality of the course, but I'm just trying to get to the genesis of people's dissatisfaction with the methodologies and panelists employed by Golf Mag.

Also don't misinterpret this posting, i am a great admirer of your work, and I cannot wait to play this course, although I fear I will have to for quite some time.

Sean

[SPDB]

don't want to be considered anonymous
-Sean Berry

[Tom_Doak]

Sean --

Perhaps some people would have preferred if I hadn't invited some of the GOLF Magazine panelists to play Pacific Dunes early.

I expect fellow [competing] architects would be at the top of that list.  However, many of them do exactly the same thing.  Rees Jones and Jack Nicklaus [or at least, Golden Bear's publicity dept.] know who the panelists are who have liked their previous work, and they make a special effort to get those people to see their new work.  That's the way the business works, and it's just another reason it's so hard for unknown architects to become better known.

I have no reservations about inviting people to see my course early.  [If I did, I certainly wouldn't have come on here and told everyone what I did.]  They're welcome to vote for it or against it, and with two courses in the US Top 100, it's not like I've stacked the deck.

The only people who think there's a conspiracy are the people who haven't been to Oregon yet.  No one who's seen the course has had any bone to pick with me.

Jeff Lewis:

GOLF DIGEST just got a quorum of votes on Fisher's Island in 2001.  In fact, most of the recent additions to their list [other than Best New winners] debuted on the GOLF Magazine list first.  Bryant Gumbel may not be getting around much, but there are other panelists who do:  hence the immediate inclusion of Kiawah Ocean, Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, and Pacific Dunes soon after their opening.

Perhaps Sand Ridge and Victoria National will make the GOLF list in two or four years' time.  But, it's also possible that they are just a phenomenon of the hyped-up GOLF DIGEST Best New list.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Sand Ridge is typical Fazio (great member's course on a secluded site) but Victoria National is the real deal.  It's a Top 100 for sure on my list.  
Mark

[SPDB]

Tom -

Thoughtful answer. I guess it would be ideal if all the courses that were rated were public, and the rating teams could come unannounced, unnoticed and thus be totally objective.

Like I said in my last post, I can't wait to play Pac. Dunes, i salivate over the pictures I have seen, and by all accounts you really have a legacy to be proud of in pac dunes.

[SPDB]

Tom -

Thoughtful answer. I guess it would be ideal if all the courses that were rated were public, and the rating teams could come unannounced, unnoticed and thus be totally objective.

Like I said in my last post, I can't wait to play Pac. Dunes, i salivate over the pictures I have seen.

[SPDB]

Tom -

Thoughtful answer. I guess it would be ideal if all the courses that were rated were public, and the rating teams could come unannounced, unnoticed and thus be totally objective, not that they aren't now, but at the very least there is an appearance of impropriety.

Like I said in my last post, I can't wait to play Pac. Dunes, i salivate over the pictures I have seen.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Tom,
First of all, the Fisher's reference is a cheap shot. We all know that it is one of a handful of courses that are especially difficult to play, no matter how hard one tries. Second, I think we can all agree that courses have a tendency to get hyped when they are new and that, most of the time, only the quality courses retain their high marks. I am not sure, but I think Digest used to have a five year rule before any course could be ranked. I think that is a great idea, even if five years is a bit excessive. And, if we are going to throw around the term "hyped up", how about Old Head's top 100 ranking two years ago, which was laughable, and the debut at 46 of Kingsbarns, a wonderful course that has the POTENTIAL to be a top 50 course about 10 years from now.
Without question, both magazines' approaches have some flaws. But I wouldn't trade the experiences I have had playing the GOLF World list and the Digest US list for anything.