Course Rankings

[Sam Sikes]

At what point will there be a third classification of golf courses in the rankings. i.e. classic, mid-modern, modern.  Obviously, the contemporary modern courses will not be considered modern forever, but moving the classical classification date would defeat its own purpose.  Will Doak, CandC, DeVries, etc. make up a new classification of golf courses at some point.  

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm not so sure a new classification is warranted. Since it's only GW that distinguishes between when a course was built. I could see the date moving, though. But even that type of a suggestion, would likely be met with those immortal words of Donald Trump.

[cary lichtenstein]

Sam has the seed of a very good idea here.

What if a new category was created called:

               "Non Walking Courses"?

This way, we could dispense with the walking/routing argument and rate this class.

[Sam Sikes]

I only pose the question because I feel that the Golfweek ranking is the most legitimate.  Comparing classic courses to modern ones is like comparing apples to oranges.  Additionally, I feel that ranking golf courses is like rating women, as I have been using the Doak scale for years.  Many girls just don't realize how awesomely good a 6 is.  How can you compare one course to another unless you break it down into individual characteristics i.e. Pine Valley's green complexes are better than CPC, or Brook Burkes boobs have better shape than Denise Richards  It would be extremely difficult to reach a consensus on who is more attractive overall, as it is a matter of opinion.  Furthermore, as you cannot compare classic and modern golf courses, you cannot compare classic women to modern women, because what is thought to be attractive has changed fundamentally.  If you need more information than that I can surely explain, but for now, in the era of modern classicism I find it difficult to compare Shadow Creek to Pacific Dunes as each value a different approach to the game.  The 90's was an era of glitz, economic rents, and the airborne golf ball.  It is evident in the course designs.  Eventually, I think many modern courses will be left out of the modern rankings because of this fundamental shift in architectural desire.  In my opinion, the more courses that are "ranked", the better.  There are simply too many good golf courses to spread them over a list so thin, especially when you consider the number of golf courses that have been built in the last 15 years.  Any thoughts?

[Jonathan Cummings]

An argument could be made for a transitional era.  1950-1970???

I believe that RTJ, Dick Wilson, Eddie Ault, Packard and others of this era were not quite classical and not quite modern.

JC

[Brad Klein]

Jonathan, if a magazine went to the intermediate period of the 1950s-1970s as a self-contained group, I'm not sure any list of the top-100 there would measure up to the quality or carry the weight of the Classic era or the post-1980's. Ault, Wilson, Packard, Jones, Finger, Lee? it was Pete Dye who broke through all of that, an era dominated by rather mediocre work on the whole - with the rare exception.

[Mike Erdmann]

I guess what runs through my mind is whether there's a logical reason to seperate the current Modern list.  Golfweek splits classical and modern because of the change in the way golf courses could be built.  Prior to 1960, it was largely hand labor building the courses, architects didn't have the earthmoving equipment, and so generally they didn't move that much dirt.  In the modern era, this isn't the case and architects have much more regulatory restrictions, so the courses are different.  I'd have to ask what has changed since 1960 in the way of course construction techniques that necessitates further splitting the list.  

[Jeff_Lewis]

Forgive me for being a bit cynical, but I suspect Golfweek splits the list because having a modern list allows them to list as many potential advertisers as possible. There is no other legitimate reason I can think of.  When I play a course, I don't care if it was built last year or last century. I just care if it was built thoughtfully.

[Sam Sikes]

Jeff,

Eventually there are going to be 100 plus Doak, CandC, DeVries courses altogether.  Many of them will undoubtedly be better than what the list constitutes today.  I couldn't disagree with you more that GW does it for the advertising $.  I think there should be a list that shows the 50 best golf courses from eact set of 20 years since 1894.  What is thought of as good today is without a doubt totally different than 15 years ago when Grand Cypress North/South was in the GD top 100.  On the golfweek panel, which I consider the most valid because of inclusions like Yeamans, Kinloch, and Holston, I doubt Grand Cypress would crack the top 1000 which is probably about what it deserves.  Furthermore, the criteria such as conditioning and tradition that the GD panel uses is BS.  The fact is, the GW panel overall has a more keen sense of what GOOD is.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Sam, I will propose a sensible and also fun solution for you. How about if everybody just said what courses they think are Doak 10s, 9s, or 8s?  We would suspect that we would enjoy playing all of them.  If there are 500 or 125 courses that make the list, so be it, we won't worry about the difference between 1922 and 2002 and we won't worry bout the difference between 10th and 12th, we will just get the opinion of some people who care and have put in some time and effort to distinguish what courses are really notable. Of course, over time, the lists will probably grow as new courses are built, but they won't need to displace anything to make the list.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Jeff,

One thing about Top 100 lists is that when they first came out in the late 60's (GD only), there were less than 50% of the courses there are now, meaning that it was EASIER (higher % of all courses) to be Top 100 then then it is to be on GW's 2 Top 100 lists now.  Getting on the GM and GD Top 100 in the U.S. is MUCH harder than back then because there are so many more courses.  A Top 200 list for the other two would be closer to when it first started (GM later).

I will agree that Top 100 now is a much stronger list than when it first started, making it that much more "prestigious."

[Sam Sikes]

That would be much more suitable than the ranking system, and I am a strong proponent for it.  I just get flummoxed sometimes when rankings come out, particularly the GD list.  I wish there was a composite list including courses that were built since 1996 that employed the doak scale.

[Dan Kelly]

... those immortal words of Donald Trump.

"I do"?

[Rick Shefchik]

If Rolling Stone can sell enough advertising to publish a Top 500 Songs list, and the Fortune 500 list is the standard in ranking businesses, why not do a Top 500 Golf Courses list and forget about splitting it up? I'm sure there wouldn't be more than one or two courses on such a list that I wouldn't enjoy playing every day for the rest of my life.

As Scott Burroughs points out, there are so many golf courses now that there ought to be tremendous prestige in being a top 500. As it is, if your course drops off of one of the Top 100 lists now, it's like it has ceased to exist.

[Mark Brown]

Yes, we should have 500 courses ranked. Since 1988 we've opened somewhere beween 4,000 and 5,000 new courses!

Grouping I
  1. Classics - up to 1960
  2. Modern 1960-1989
  3. Renaissance 1990-Present

Grouping II  (some courses would be ranked in 2 places)
  1. Private
      a.Classic - up to 1960
      b.Modern
      c.Renaissance

  2. Daily-Fee/Semi-private
      a.Classic - less than $50 green fee (not incl cart fee)
                   - $50 and up
      b.Modern - less than $75 green fee
                   - $75 and up
      c.Renaissance - less than $100 green fee
                          - $100 and up
  3. Resort (with on-site accommodations and dining)
      a.Classic - less than $100 green fee
                   - $100 and up
      b.Modern - less than $125
      c.Renaissance - $125 and up