Shackelford on GD Rankings...

[HR]

Should we expand the list to 250! Rank the top twenty-five in order and 26-250 alpabetically?

[HR]

I bet I could sneak a Dallas course in the top 250!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Appreciate yuour feedback!

Your analysis on Nantucket is good, however, I still believe the work by Rees is solid and given its location a spectacular result.

Tom -- I place a great value on the land a course occupies. The setting of Nantucket island and the sweeping vistas the course provides is truly stunning.

I also believe Rees did not get carried away with the traditional "containment" mounding you often find at his designs (i.e. Atlantic, Rio Seco, et al). At Nantucket you must keep the ball in play even when the winds are sweeping the area.

I will not minimize that course preparation is also an element that moved my thoughts regarding Nantucket. The course was firm and fast and the player must constantly gauge the bounce of the ball. Too often courses of this type are over-watered and become nothing more than point-to-point airborn encounters.

Consider also the routing of the course. You never go in the same direction for more than two holes and both long and short holes have been positioned to make the player deal with wind that favors and is against you.

Tom, I don't know how much dirt was moved but you make it sound like Rees moved "heaven and earth" in order to create the site. You make it sound like Rees created "tee-pee" elevated greens and tees and an assortment of moguls and other such artificial elements. Such criticism should be directed at nearly all of the Florida courses that are dead flat and propped up by artificial mounding.

Nantucket in my mind is one of his 2-3 best designs that I have played. I also would rate in that company Olde Kinderhook in the greater Albany, NY area and right behind that twosome I would place Pinehurst #7 (although the green shaping I believe wasn't caried thru by Rees).

Honorable mentions to Cascata & Rio Seco (Las Vegas area) and possibly Quintero (Founders Course / Peoria, AZ). I have not played what many people consider as Rees best course -- Ocean Forest which will host this year's Walker Cup Matches.

Yes, I would place Nantucket, Bulle Rock and the Sky Course at Lost Canyons in my personal 100 best I've played.

I would also include Skokie. Keep in mind I appreciate the work by Raynor at Shoreacreas but I am often amused that there are certain people who look for the "subtle and understated" elements that I often find as being deadly dull and unimaginative. This is obviously a matter of opinion and styles that are preferred.

Among the Raynor courses that I would include in my personal 100 are Camargo and Fisher's Island, to name just two. The land in both of these cases is stellar and the holes are a wonderous mix that in my opinion is lacking in Shoreacreas. Shoreacreas in my mind is a good course but not at the top 100 level given today's competition. Again -- that's just my opinion. I back that opinion up by saying that I have played 90 of the current 100 Greatest by GD and a range of courses from throughout the nation.

Tommy Naccarato:

If the Open comes to Torrey Pines please let me know so I can jump off the cliffs that abut the course. The Southern California area is clearly a wonderous place to host an Open. Torrey Pines is definitely not the place unless there is a massive and major face-lift.

I appreciate your comments on Lost Canyons. If Dye did not do the work I can appreciate that fact but I still enjoy what has been provided.

At Lost Canyons you CANNOT steer the long shot. You must assess candidly and truthfully what you can achieve. Also, the psychological  elements of "risk and reward" are clearly present.

I am a realist to understand that logically getting any sizeable crowd of people to traverse the site (rattlesnakes included!!!) will probably prevent that from happening. I believe the course is good enough to host -- even if the logistics of staging a modern Open in the 21st century prevent that.

FYI -- just returned from Wisconsin and played Pete's work at Whistling Straits. The Straits course is a gem and I only hope the PGA will set the course to play to a minimum of 7200 yards in order to test the game's best. Incidentally, the four par-3's at the Straits are beyond mere words. Pete has the ability to design par-3's and make them holy terrors for those lacking courage and shotmaking. When the pin is in the right rear on the 12th hole I believe it is a hole that ranks with the best of short holes (total length is 166 yards). The finishing sequence is also thrilling. Too bad the course conditions were only slightly above average. The fescue fairways are shaggy and not as firm and fast as those at Kingsley.

The Irish Course, on the other hand, is a creation more suited to the ability / talent in a overusage of the bulldozer. There are several good holes but when an architect throws in a blind par-3 (13th hole) you have to wonder what water he's been drinking.

One last comment -- if anyone is looking to play Whistling Straits bring along a good book to read because play is SLOW. There are too many people playing the course who clearly cannot play the game at any reasonable level or from the most appropriate  tee box. When you throw in the daily breezes that blow off Lake Michigan you only add to the ultimate frustration they encounter and what you must endure in watching the parade go slowly through each hole.  

[T_MacWood]

Matt
If the firm condition of Nantucket was its greatest design attribute (that and the variety of direction), how do you rate it in comparison to Sankaty Head?

I must disagree with you on #7, I think the course is a dull forgetable design. An awkward routing, especially on the front (numerous long walks), with many holes (and greens) of similar character -- didn't I just play this hole? One of the holes that stands out in my mind is the odd ball 7th, an iron lay-up short of wetlands followed by an approach over an unnatural berm. The mounding, the bunkering, the water hazards  all lacked appeal. Another missed opportunity.

Shoreacres is a combination of dramatic ravine holes and flattish land featuring a serpintine stream/ditch. I do think the course may be a touch overrated, but it is hardly dull or unimaginative. You might consider the land near the entrance and clubhouse subtle and understated, but there is nothing subtle and understated about the architecture on that land -- well maybe in comparison to Bulle Rock.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
I want to make no mistake about it. No way am I advocating a US Open at Torrey Pines, but in reality, if Bethpage Black is the success it seems it is going to be, look for Torrey Pines to be a candidate.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

You know better.  Torrey Pines isn't in the same league as Bethpage Black.

It must be that you need another trip to the Northeast!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
Where am I saying Torrey Pines is in a class of Bethpage Black?

I would just as soon have a US Open at Lost Canyons then at Torrey Pines. In fact, I don't care for Toreey Pines-South, as I feel it is so overated and boring. In fact, I have played TP-North the last three times I have been there.

What I am saying is that it is a known fact that the USGA is wanting a US Open in one of the populated centers of these United States. It spells nothing but $$$$$$ for them and they have all of the ammenities such as hotels, restaurants, other activites to make it a grand success in a Super Bowl like atmosphere. The only thing they don't have is a golf course that is capable of challenging the world's best. So what to they do? Hire the US Open Rx and pretty much give him carte blanche. Where do you think they are going with this?

Quite obviously Southern Hills isn't in a class of Bethpage Black, and it certainly isn't in a class as Shinnecock. Still, they just took the US Open to Southern Hills. And then there is Hazeltine. Do you think it is in a class such as Bethpage Black?

The Century Club of San Diego has one thing on their mind--remodeling a very overated oceanside facility that can impress the selection committee of the USGA into giving them a shot at hosting the best world class golfers for four days in June.

Personally, I think this is all starting to resemble the way a city goes after a Super Bowl.

[TEPaul]

Pheww--it's always tough sledding for me reading these ranking topics. It seems like the same points are always made, the same problems are always cited and the same conclusions are always drawn.

From all of that it still looks to me like all these lists are really to sell magazines, period, although the lists are  couched in the determination to foster discussion about architecture and thereby help the public's understanding of really valid architecture! Still a bit of a stretch to me!

I'm convinced more than ever that the best thing for golf architecture and to foster intellegent discussion and understanding of golf architecture would be to institute Rich Goodale's Michelin-type star system!

There just has to be at least fifty courses in the world or even in the US that could be considered to have really excellent golf architecture. Why does that group of great courses have to be butting heads with each other year after year to deterimine who should be #1 or who should be in the top 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50?

They have to do it not because one is  clearly superior than another that also might be really excellent, they have to do it because Americans have to feel that there is a #1 (with almost anything) although they are never really going to be equiped to figure out how to determine that--not with golf architecture anyway!

I have nothing whatsoever against the panelists (although I have no idea at all who they are or what they really know about golf architecture) and I have nothing really against the criteria (or whatever it is--although I don't fully understand it).

I think the thing to keep in mind for people who analyze golf architecture and attempt to rank it somehow is that golf architecture can be very different and also very excellent. An open treeless Old Course can be just as valid architecturally as a piney Pine Valley. There are so many combinations of elements in golf architecture that can be used and interchanged to make up real excellence in golf architecture.

And in the end of the day the differences, the variations, the unexpected looks and feelings from one to the other is part of the essence of the product and the art.

There are a number of golf courses in America I would put on an equal footing and ranking for the excellence of their golf architecture. Then they wouldn't have to compete with each other for some dumb and totally undeterminable top spot. Golf architecture is probably too subjective for a top spot determination anyway.

If really good golf courses were ranked together with something like a 3 star Michelin ranking, I believe people would come to see what it is about them that might make them UNIQUELY great architecture--albeit different from another great one.

And I'm certain that if a Michelin Star system would be used, eventually some of my members would stop insisting that we need total tree separation at my course because Pine Valley (who was #1 for many years) has tree separation.

I tell them that Pine Valley was a golf course that was built in the Pine woods of New Jersey and ours was not. Ours is a different look and style than Pine Valley. If they could see an NGLA ranked at the same level as Pine Valley it would be more understandable that golf architecture can be many different things and still excellent.

The constant listing and striving for #1 has made both discussion and understanding of golf architecture more confusing and more misunderstood, in my opinion. Ultimately the American lists of the Greatest courses is not good for proper discussion or understanding of golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

But I will never deny the Americans lists are very good for selling golf magazines.

I think it's time to really call a spade a spade or at least to explain to Rich Goodale (and me) what would be wrong with or better than a Michelin-type star system.

[jim_lewis]

Tommy:

You say that "Quite obviously Southern Hills is not in the class of Bethpage Black". I am wondering what you mean by that. If you mean they are entirely different courses, I agree completely. But, if you are suggesting that Bethpage Black is a superior course to Southern Hills, I would be interested in hearing why you see it that way. They are both very fine courses, but I can assure you that I would prefer a return visit to Southern Hills over a return visit to Bethpage. Maybe we (you and I) played them at different times of the year.

For whatever it is worth, GOLF DIGEST ranks SH #15 and BB #46. Our own GOLFWEEK ranks SH #19 and BB #30 among CLASSIC courses. I am o.k. with both of those rankings.

In any event, I agree that neither is as good as Shinnecock HIlls and both are far, far, far better that Torrey Pines (either course) which has little to offer other than a great veiw of the Pacific and the whales and hang gliders.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim,that is a fair question, and I think a lot of it has to do with personal preference.

I think Southern Hills is just completely inundated with trees that chokes-off the golf course, and had me thinking of comparisons to Sahalle. Not forgetting the great green complexes, an obvious strength and ultimately failure at holes 9 and 18 at Southern Hills, it clearly wasn't the restoration and prepration I was hoping to see and certainly nothing compared to the restoration efforts that have been attained at Bethpage Black.

Certainly a selection committee should have voiced that concern before awarding it a US Open.

It will be interesting to see where Bethpage ends up once panelists from all three magazines hit Bethpage after next year. Just like Pebble Beach, I'm sure its stock will rise, and for BB aficianados and dominions of public golf such as myself, it will stay there.

[jim_lewis]

Tommy:

I don't know of a better public (not to be confused with daily fee or resort) course than Bethpage Black, but I don't give it extra credit because it is public. I hope it performs well during the Open, and if it does, it may get a boost in the rankings. On the otherhand, if the wind doesn't blow, the pros may score well there because of the flattish greens, and its one major weakness may be exposed.

I think too much has been made of the trees at Southern Hills. They certainly give an advantage to the player who can shape their shots (a lost art!), but they are not nearly as intrusive from ground level as they appear when viewed from the air. In fact, I don't think they are as much in play as those at Cherry Hills and not nearly as objectionable as at Sahalee. At least, most of the tree branches are trimmed up enough that you can play out from under them.
Then there are the greens. That is where Southern Hills has a big advantage over Bethpage. At Southern Hills the challenge really begins as you near the greens whereas at Bethpage the greens are the one place you have a chance to catch your breath.

I can understand that some might prefer Bethpage Black, but it was your declaration
that SH is "Quite obviously not in the same class as Bethpage Black" that struck me as an exaggeration that is unfair to Southern Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Lewis,

I would agree with you, the trees at Southern Hills are not as intrusive when you are playing the course, versus the camera shots from the Helicopters during the Open.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim,
You know, putting down Southern Hills is grounds for revoktion of my Dead Architects Society card. I better watch it.

Actually, now that I think about it, and make no mistake about this, I wasn't putting down the course so much as making note of the location and the celebration. Still, I feel that many trees should have been razed at Southern Hills.

On my tour of the prairie, I will make sure a visit will be at hand to see the greens and celebrate them as they should be. Maybe I can even fell a tree or two!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Can't answer about Sankaty Head because I have not played the course. Nantucket is not your typical Rees Jones design (i.e. containment mounding, etc). The routing is exceptional and the holes have the versatility to hold up regardless of what direction the wind is blowing. There's also enough length to give the longer player all he can handle.

You say Shoreacreas is a touch overrated. I say it's overrated BIG TIME! One man's subtle can be another man's boring / dull.

Yes, the ravine does come into play on several holes, but overall the course is located on flat and uninspiring land. I don't mind 3-4 short par-4's but there are too many at Shoreacreas. I can name a number of outstanding courses of similar length in the metro NY / NJ and Phila areas that are clearly superior to Shoreacreas and in many cases have a pedigree design history.

I'll say it again if you want to see a classic course that has been renovated in a superb fahsion take a ride over to Skokie. You won't be disappointed one bit.

One last comment --

Bethpage Black takes a back seat to very few courses. I have played Southern Hills (three times) and the Black a host of times.

Southern Hills is a fine course but the Black has now been updated to reflect the trends that are taking place in golf today.

The tee shot, both length and accuracy, is needed at the Black. Bethpage will not crown a 2002 Open champion simply because he can putt "tricky" greens. The player will have to be a superb ball striker, particularly with the driver. At 7300 yards and a par of 70 the Black is ready for all comers and I'm sure will more than justify its selection for the National Open.

Is it better than Southern Hills? Well, how the course comes through the 02 Open will decide plenty -- about the standing of Bethpage Black and whether publicly owned courses have a place in hosting future major championships. We shall see . . .

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'm sorry to here you were so disapointed by the uninspiring terrain at Shoreacres. I do think the course may be a touch overrated, but it is still worthy of Top 100 consideration. Of course I'm not as preoccupied with the difficulty of the test as you may be. I think that Shoracres benefited from an article in which Pete Dye was asked what were the most influencial designs of the century.

ANGC
Chicago
The Country Club
Garden City
Merion
NGLA
Oakmont
Pinehurst #2
Riviera
Shinnecock Hills
Shoreacres

I assume you were equally disapointed with Chicago GC, which is on an even more ordinary site? Garden City?

I am an admirer of Langford's work, you might want to check out Ridgemoor, Glen Oak, Park Ridge and Riverside in Chicago as well. And a couple of interesting ones in Ohio Clovernook and Portage. I believe the first I heard of Skokie was 16 years ago in a piece written by Ron Whitten profiling hidden gems, which I assume was in some ways targeted to GD panelists. His other recommendations included Crystal Downs and Yale, one out of three ain't bad.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Appreciate your comments.

I have played Garden City GC but not Chicago GC as of yet. I enjoyed Garden City and feel it one of the very few courses that excite the senses inspite of the fact that the terrain is for the most part ordinary.

Please realize I do appreciate courses that may be short in length but offer REAL character and change of pace type holes. I do look for courses that have some type of "bite" but that can take shape in any number of ways (i.e. bunkering strategy, green contours, etc.) beyond increased hole distance.

I don't see it in Shoreacreas. That does not mean by a long shot that I think the course is poor. I just don't see how it got enough support for GD's Top 100 since I also am a member on the panel.

When you have shorter courses I look to see how holes are routed in order to vary the length and direction of the challenges presented. Too much of Shoreacreas is on uninspiring land with minimal changes in green contours, bunker placement, etc. I would caution people who often use the word subtle to make sure that elements of substaniality are also a part of that discussion. When people say "less is more" there might be courses where "less is less."

The historic courses you name are sure to be prized and I agree they have had a tremendous impact in golf. But just because these courses HAD an impact years ago does not mean to say they automatically deserve a seat at the table when compared to all the quality courses that have come on board since then.

A good example of a course with minimum length but high marks on overall character is a layout in my home state -- Somerset Hills. Here the layout is blessed with top flight property and the mixture of holes is seemlessly done by the genuis of A.W. Tillinghast even though the 18th hole is a blah finisher. Two other courses in my home state I would also rate with Shoreacreas that are also of the same yardage include Forsgate / Banks Course (Jamesburg, NJ) and the recently renovated Atlantic City CC (work by Tom Doak). Sleepy Hollow in Westchester / NY is also in my mind ahead of Shoreacreas.

I appreciate the other courses you highlighted in the Chicago and Ohio areas. If you like Langford I truly believe you will be amazed by the renovation by Ron Pritchard of Skokie. In my mind Skokie should be on anyone's Top 100 list -- the layout is first rate and the improvements are completely noticeable.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I didn't name the courses, Pete Dye did.

You do not appreciate the routing of Shoreacres? What year did Pritchard restore Skokie, if I'm not mistaken its been a few years ago? Is it difficult to battle natural biases as editor of NJ Golf? Nantucket does not have containment mounding?

Gib
What do you know of the history of Del Rio?

[BY]

Nantucket doesn't have the typical mounding?

I must have been at a different golf course, but I did like the Nantucket that I was at!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom & BY:

Nantucket does have mounding, but the mounding in my opinion is not so obstrusive as you find at other Rees Jones designs. I guess in the final analysis we agree to disagree on how natural the site is and whether the architect's hand was too hands on given the qualities of the site.

Second, although I have the highest respect for Pete Dye and I can appreciate his listing of courses that have had a major impact on course design ... that does not mean that I would automatically include all the courses he has listed in a Top 100 ranking -- particularly Shoreacreas.

I appreciate the qualities of Shoreacreas but I don't believe it's on the level others do. I don't have the year Pritchard finished his work at Skokie, but I don't believe it was that long ago given what I was told. If anyone knows the exact year I would appreciate finding out.

Your comment about bias because of being editor of Jersey Golfer is noted. However, I have to disagree. I often am the toughest critic of courses from the NY / NJ metro area because of the hype many get at the expense of courses throughout the nation. As a GD panelist I travel quite frequently to all parts of the country and look at the merits of the courses I review rather than the states where they are located.

Nonetheless, I still believe Somerset Hills is a great example of a course that is short but located on sweeping land that stirs the blood to play. I am also a big fan of Raynor's other designs at Fisher's Island and Camargo, to name just two.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
It was a question, not a comment.