Golf Magazine's Top 100

[Rick Shefchik]

From here in the Twin Cities, there's an interesting trend taking place on this list: Hazeltine and Interlachen are rapidly heading in opposite directions.

Hazeltine is still enjoying its PGA bump (ranking 81, 65 and 67 on the last three lists) while Interlachen is one more grading period from dropping off the list completely (61 to 81 to 96).

This is a direct comparison between a big, modern course built by Trent Jones and extensively doctored by Rees Jones, and a classic course largley untouched since Donald Ross got through with it, both in the same metro area, and both formerly enjoying pretty much identical critical favor.

Are the modern raters losing their taste for classic-era courses not named Cypress Point and Pine Valley?

[THuckaby2]

Mike - well now that is a different statement.  Compare the modern ones to modern, classical to classical, and then you can make some generalizations.

Only that's not what you did, until the later post.

 

Just be careful to keep those generalizations to the proper comparisons - generalizations about the two lists as wholes continue to have no meaning.

As for the courses at the top, put me down for:

1. Sand Hills
2. Cypress
3. NGLA

But 2 and 3 change all the time in my mind.  If anyone wants to say NGLA is better than Cypress, just hang on a bit, I'll likely agree.

 

But Cypress is superior to Pebble.

And I'm a HUGE Pebble fan.  Make it #4.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That's what I meant all along, but I think the fact that I posted the numerical order of each course on the Golf Magazine list seemed to erroneously indicate that I was making some comparative numerical assessment.  I wasn't.

I was simply pointing out if a course appeared on a respective list or not, given what is a pretty large sampling of modern courses on the Golf Magazine listing.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Mike_Golden]

Huck,

Maybe we both suffer from the 'the last truly great course I played is the best one' syndrome

For Sand Hills to be above both Cypress and NGLA on your list is a testament to what Bill and Ben achieved (even though I have never seen it).

[THuckaby2]

Mike G. - I fully admit I suffer from that affliction.

BUT... with Sand Hills I haven't waivered.  It vaulted to #1 after I first played it a few years ago and has stayed #1 since, just being cemented by a recent trip.  And yes, it does speak loudly to say it's better than the courses mentioned... but of course one can't call a course the best in the world and be timid about it.  

Anyway, when it comes to NGLA/CPC, it does seem to be LPML.*

Mike C - understood.  Dammit I just wish that magazine that you do ratings for would get some nads and make this apples v. apples once and for all though.

 

TH

* = Last Played, Most Liked

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoffrey Walsh,

I'm a little surprised that Pine Valley has retained itself as # 1.

Many clubs are addressing issues that have impacted their golf courses since inception.  
Pine Valley seems to ignoring or be bucking that trend.

With clubs like Oakmont, Winged Foot, NGLA, GCGC, Ridgewood and others embarking on substantive and stunning tree management programs I'm surprised that the raters would reward Pine Valley for ignoring the issue of invasive tree, shrub and underbrush growth.

When one's swing in a bunker is impeded by a tree limb, it's a sign of pure neglect with respect to maintainance, and a clear disrespect for the design integrity of Crump's architecture.

Trees and underbrush are overrunning the golf course.

One only has to look at two aerials, the one in the hallway to the Library and the other next to the door to the parking lot in the big room to see how Pine Valley was before benign neglect set in.

There is another picture, circa 1964, of the 10th hole that provides a glimpse at the golf course prior to allowing trees to overrun the golf course.

Yet the raters overlook these items, or perhaps their eye isn't keen enough to detect them.

The golf course is not the golf course it once was.
Why is this swept under the carpet and not discussed.
Why isn't Pine Valley viewed and judged by the same standards ?

[PThomas]

Patric-d o you know why they are not clearing trees?

so they've been clearing out the bunker/waste areas but letting trees grow in, if I understand what I've read correctly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patric-d o you know why they are not clearing trees?
NO[/color]

so they've been clearing out the bunker/waste areas but letting trees grow in, if I understand what I've read correctly?
NO, that's not correct, very little, if anything is being cleared out.[/color]

[Michael Dugger]

For once (or twice) I wholeheartedly agree with Pat Mucci.  Pine Valley gets a free pass and the tree issue is getting ridiculous.  


CHOP 'EM!!!

[Voytek Wilczak]

The golf course is not the golf course it once was.

Patrick Mucci,

The game is not the game it once was.

Why should the golf course stay the same?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The game is not the game it once was.

Why should the golf course stay the same?

There's a difference between neglect and planned alterations[/color]

[Ian Andrew]

For once (or twice) I wholeheartedly agree with Pat Mucci.  Pine Valley gets a free pass and the tree issue is getting ridiculous.

They are taking out trees each year. The clearing is obviously not wholesale like NLGA, but I can assure you I have seen a difference each year over the last four I have gone. They remove them when they get a hard frost, so that the turf is spared the damage.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  Pine Valley was too busy adding new tees so they could stay #1 on the list by virtue of the difficulty of the course.  Maybe they'll get to the trees in a couple more years, although none of the other courses where Mr. Fazio has been consulting have been doing much clearing ... he's been ADDING trees at Augusta.

Others:  As far as structural questions about GOLF's top 100 list, I can say that we are asked to vote on about 350-400 US courses, and 250 others around the world.  Virtually any course which is nominated by any panelist is put on the ballot, so I think that most of the courses on GOLFWEEK's top 50 modern are also on the ballot ... there may be a couple that aren't.  However, I think maybe half of those courses haven't got a quorum of votes, so they can't be listed by GOLF Magazine yet.  I would guess that there haven't been ten panelists to Black Mesa or Kingsley, considering that it took me several years to get enough panelists to come see Crystal Downs.  Famous architects (or, apparently, owners) are able to bypass this problem because they know some panelists and convince them to go see their latest and best courses right away.  (It's also a lot easier when building a course where many panelists live nearby.)

Is this a flaw in the GOLF Magazine system?  I suppose it is, particularly if they are not proactive in trying to get some of the panelists to see some of the courses which might be worthy but don't have a quorum.  But, they're not paying any of their panelists to make any of our trips, so if you are building a great course in New Mexico you are starting out with a short-term handicap.

The other thing about it is, how important is it to be up to the minute?  The odds are that half the new courses which are listed in the Top 100 above, will be out of there in 4-6 years, because those first few panelists are overenthusiastic.  Why extend that to every course in the world?  Only two new courses have started out on GOLF's top 100 list and climbed higher over time ... Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.

Thoughtful people will eventually make it to Black Mesa and Kingsley, and they will make the list or not at that time.  I fully understand that Baxter and Mike would rather that would happen sooner instead of later; it's up to them to lobby the panelists or the editors to eliminate the time lag.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Thoughtful people will eventually make it to Black Mesa and Kingsley, and they will make the list or not at that time.  I fully understand that Baxter and Mike would rather that would happen sooner instead of later; it's up to them to lobby the panelists or the editors to eliminate the time lag.

The odds are that half the new courses which are listed in the Top 100 above, will be out of there in 4-6 years, because those first few panelists are overenthusiastic.  Why extend that to every course in the world?

Tom

Sorry but that argument does not work with me. I don't for a second imply that Barnbougle Dunes, Cape Kidnappers or Bandon Trails are unworthy of their places on the respective lists, however, they are each FAR less accessable then The Kingsley Club or Black Mesa.  They also have been open for far less time leaving even less chance for visits by panelists.

Could you please explain what you mean by "lobby the panelists to eliminate the time lag"?  There didn't seem to be a problem for an inaccessable course in the middle of no where in Oregon to make the list after being open a mere 2 months.  Panelists got to Australia and "a remote location on the rugged coast of Tasmania". What lobbying took place to get panelists to these courses where they would not go to Kingsley Club in Michigan?

You said "The odds are that half the new courses which are listed in the Top 100 above, will be out of there in 4-6 years, because those first few panelists are overenthusiastic.  Why extend that to every course in the world? " How do you know in advance which courses will fall off the list and which ones are to be quickly anointed with the status of Top 100 to in the first place?  Isn't that what the panelists are there for in the first place.  Sounds like GD tradition points except more shady.

If places like The Kingsley Club and a few others don't have enough votes then something is amiss with the process.  If they are not on the list because they score too low then something is amiss (in my opinion) with their judgement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

It's getting worse, not better.
And, the underbrush is totally out of control.

Tom Doak,

When people object to the Augusta Syndrome and their motivation to alter their golf course for one tournament a year, they give PV a pass because the tee lengthening that's taken place there is primarily for one tournament a year, The Crump Cup.

I'm shocked by the lack of concern and the lack of control over trees, shrubs and underbrush.  The golf course is so much more brilliant circa 1964 and earlier.

Someone, or several people are sleeping at the switch.

That golf course could be beyond compare if they eradicated the invasive growth of trees, shrubs and underbrush, and restored the bunkering to its former glory.

Some of the trench bunkers have become so narrow that a golfer can't even attempt to swing at the ball.

Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

It's like tipping a waiter for bad service, you encourage the continuation of poor service.   If people aren't critical of PV they will continue to let the golf course decline because they'll feel that everything is A-OK.

The raters are equally at fault.

How can they miss the invasive trees, shrubs and undergrowth ?

How can the miss the narrowed, unplayable bunkers ?

How can they miss the comparison of today's golf course with the one pictured on the walls of the clubhouse ?

Pine Valley has to be one of the most special places in all of golf, but those in charge are being neglectful of one of the greatest assets in all of golf.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Maybe you give raters too much credit.  

[Tim Bert]

Do the rules stipulate that a rater has to have seen the course in the most rating period, or can a rater pass judgment based on previous experiences?  For instance, if a rater has not been to PVGC for 10 or 20 years, then can that person still rate it in the 2005 list?  If so, then it seems like that could certainly lend itself to classic courses remaining high on the list regardless of current conditions.  For the record, I've never played PVGC or any of the other highly rated private clubs, so I'm not piling on in terms of the criticism of the conditions.  I'm just speculating what might cause rater oversight - if any exists.

[Gordon Oneil]

I am one of those people who consider Pine Valley to be the best golf course in the world, deserving of its seemingly permanent spot at the top of all the lists.  That said, I am open minded enough to not argue with some of the criticism in threads such as this.  Though it would take a great deal more than some encroaching trees and underbrush to threaten its stature in my eyes, I agree that near perfection should be maintained.  
However, the idea that the lengthening of the golf course is unecessary or mandated due to one week out of the year is preposterous.  I agree with the theory that a course is a true test of golf when the player must use every club in his bag.  But I believe that a player of any skill level with average length shoots the same score at Pine Valley with only 13 clubs in his bag.  Over the years, balls, shafts, clubheads and agronomy advances lowered the number of holes where driver was necessary until the club really became unecessary.  The 15th hole perhaps the only exception.
I don't want to play a golf course where a player can hit driver 14 times without a care in the world.  But I do like to take the head cover off from time to time.
Oakmont and Winged Foot West are fantastic examples of tree programs thankfully restoring both the look and fairway widths of the original design.  While the look certainly has changed, at least fairway width has yet to become a problem at Pine Valley.

[Paul Richards]

Looking forward to taking a bit of time to 'digest' all of this.

That being said, unlike Golf Digest's list, not surprised to see that Rich Harvest didn't make their list.  However, sad to see that Trump International did.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Black Mesa and The Kingsley Club belong now in any top 100 listing IMHO.

How they are left off speaks to the limitations of the existing structure at Golf Magazine.

Tom D, I understand what you are saying but magazines that are "in the know" should not be able to give high marks to certain courses because of the skills in lobbying by those who are architects.

If politics and other non-germane aspects are keeping the two courses I listed above off the listings now then frankly Golf Magazine is clueless.

[Wayne Freeman]

When I see courses like Trump International in Palm Beach make both the Golf Magazine and Golf Digest list, I really have to wonder if other factors come into play (political interests, publicity campaigns or ?).  There is no way Trump's course belongs in the top 100-  it does have 7 or 8 very good golf holes, but otherwise it is typically resort-ish and nothing special.  And although I haven't played The Bridge, the 8 or 10 guys I've talked to who have played it say it's just ok-  maybe having a $500,000 pricetag (could that be?) has something to do with it.  
       I really like the Golf Week lists and the separation between the classics and moderns.  

[NAF]

The Kingsley Club is easily better than most of the USA 50-100 group in my opinion.  But how many people actually got there, there are a lot of celebs if I remember from past printings who are on that list and Traverse City isnt exactly a sexy place.  I'm sure without Doak, Ran and one other Golf panelist I know Crystal Downs would have trouble making the list if it wasnt a MacKenzie design..

Someone should come up with a top 100 FUN courses to play...  My list would be headed by NGLA and then a multitude of UK courses..

On the World list I think a ton of UK designs are undervalued and even a few Aussie ones--I see Commonwealth is off the list now, but what about the National Moonah (Bob Harrison)..  Ran the maestro himself told me Deal is superior to Troon and Turnberry (or at least a more honorable and true links) and I'm sure Cinque Ports will never ever sniff the top 100.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt and Geoffrey:

You can complain about "politics" if you want but I would not call it that, because there is nothing orchestrated about it, it's just a bunch of individual decisions by panelists about where they are going to travel.  GOLF Magazine is doing nothing to keep the courses we mentioned out of the list ... they just aren't going out of their way to try and find out if they should be included.  To be fair, if the magazine DID tell directly tell panelists to go see those two courses, then a lot of other architects would be screaming "bias" with some reason.

Geoffrey, it's easy to get people to go to Bandon Trails, because there are 80,000 rounds per year booked on the two courses next door to it, and because people have been talking about it (not just on here) since they started construction.  Kidnappers and Barnbougle have had an enormous amount of national and international exposure, too ... I can't believe how much exposure Barnbougle has gotten in Australia in its first year.  In contrast, Kingsley and Black Mesa are still relatively unknown even in their own state, and it's far from a given that all of the 5,000 visitors to Crystal Downs each year will try Kingsley, too.

Tim Bert:  I haven't played Pine Valley in about six years, so my vote on it does not count for as much as those who played it in the last five.  Personally, I think that's pretty silly ... the tree growth over the past five years is not going to make me knock it out of my top ten courses.  You have to include votes from some years back or a lot of courses would not attain a quorum, and every course would insist on cleaning the slate of not-quite-good-enough votes every time they built a new back tee.

Naffer:  Royal Cinque Ports was always about 150th on the world list when I was adding up the votes.  Its support for the top 100 comes from people whose ballots tilt heavily toward links golf courses, and away from American courses.  The top 100 in the world is a fairly hard nut to crack.  I wonder if the National's Moonah course has enough votes or not ... I liked it but like Cinque Ports, I can think of 100 courses in the world I like better, so that's one in the no column.

[Robert Thompson]

Tom: We've discussed this before, but I was surprised at the jump Hamilton made into the world top 100 (at 84). You said you didn't think it was Top 100 material, and I was surprised to hear it made it. The only change the course made in recent years was a bad bunker job and the decision to host the Canadian Open. But there aren't many tour pros on Golf's list, so why the jump into the Top 100? I think it is worthy, but for years most didn't agree with me. Nice to see three Canadian courses on the list, with St. George's holding its spot and Highlands sinking just a bit.

RT

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I understand what you are saying but unless magazines are to assign people to play certain courses then the select few layouts will always get the attention and others will suffer.

The limitations of the panelists should not be used against other more deserving courses.

If panelists cannot travel to those remote destinations the answer is a simple one -- get new panelists.

While the results of any ratings process is always subjective it pays to have a process that fully comprehends what the results inevitably say about the publication.

P.S. The assignment of courses can be randomly done because it avoids having select panelists always rating the courses of the architects they favor or have a preference towards.