A New List of Best Classic Courses Every Year

[Tom_Doak]

John:  I didn't say the purpose was to sell magazines.  That's what Whitten always says it's about, and Brad sometimes agrees with him.  I asked what the purpose was, I honestly don't know why a list of 50-year-old courses should have much movement.  I was just pulling a "Jaka" by including my #4 reason, to get people talking.

Mike C:  I have not been to Pine Valley for several years, so I don't know what management errors they have made to fall back to #2.  However, I can hardly believe that they have "abandoned lines of play" as you suggested -- they're island fairways, and I would be surprised if any of the trees have grown into the islands.  That may be a symptom of unchecked tree growth at other courses but I have a hard time visualizing it at Pine Valley.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

I fell for it..I'm not even allowed to discuss this stuff and here I go again.  I hope I didn't hurt anyones fellings.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike C:  I have not been to Pine Valley for several years, so I don't know what management errors they have made to fall back to #2.  However, I can hardly believe that they have "abandoned lines of play" as you suggested -- they're island fairways, and I would be surprised if any of the trees have grown into the islands.  That may be a symptom of unchecked tree growth at other courses but I have a hard time visualizing it at Pine Valley.

Tom,

Perhaps I should have said "original" lines of play.  

Examples of what I'm referring to specifically occur on holes like 1, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 where original bunkers now live under trees.  In the case of 12, even flaunting with the bold play down the left is completely shut down by trees.  The left side of the approach to 13 is similarly no longer a valid route as trees overhang and tree growth within the hazard diminishes the formerly spectacular sandy wasteland.  

During the Crump Cup this year, myself and another GCA contributor (not who you might imagine) went exploring through formerly open areas like the alternate fairway on 17 and the left hillside on 15 where bunkers have trees growing from them and came to a clear determination that if this was any other course in the world it would lose points because of deviation from it's original greatness of design.

The story of the cleanup and formalization of the sandy waste areas is an even more concerning point that minimizes what was once one of the great unique features of the Valley.

On a personal note, I still think it's the best of the "classic courses", but needing a real restoration effort.  However, I don't believe it's the #1 course in the country any longer and apparently others agree.

[JESII]

JESII,

Would you find it unethical for a sales staff of a magazine to ask a club if they want to advertise in a magazine where their course will appear on the cover.  Or would it be unethical to tell a club that if they buy a full page spread they will be on the cover.  I personally think both are just good business.  

John,

Sorry for the delay.

I would agree with your last sentence if the word "good" were not in it. I'm not suggesting it's bad business, but the second scenario of yours would put the magazines reputation at risk and thus I could not call it good.


Mike C,

Do you feel those bunkers are actual intended "original lines of play"?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike C,

Do you feel those bunkers are actual intended "original lines of play"?

Sully,

Early aerials certainly show them as such, and there are some wonderful examples in the Geoff Shack book, "The Golden Age...".  

[JESII]

Mike,

Lines of play??

I agree that the bunkers that have been swallowed up by trees will be much better presented if they are out of the woods, but I really doubt anyone thought they would be good places to play from.

Left of #2 - not getting on the green from them
Left of #4 - same
etc...

I would say the course would really regain its breath if the trees were opened up to the width of the outer edge of the bunker complexes, but I really disagree that any viable playability options have been eliminated in the current arrangement.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sully,

Before I reply fully, I'd like to look at the aerials again, but what about attempting to carry the bunkers (that are now impossible due to forestation) such as the right side of #1, the left side of 12, or playing to the abandoned alternate fairway on 17.  What about challenging the higher left side for the second shot on 15, or perhaps using that hill to bounce one in, or gain a better angle for the approach?  Also, it seems to me that approaches from certain angles are now completely cut off by trees when no such impediments originally existed.  While these might not have been ideal places to play from, they were still places you couldplay from, instead of trying to find it and punch it out.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Sounds like it is much more dictatorial. Is that right Mike?

[JESII]

Well Mike, I have not been to PV in about 5 years but I have a really hard time imagining trees blocking a carry over the right corner of #1 (perhaps a bit further right leaves one blocked out, but not if in the fairway), the left side of #12 (for starters only those trying to get on or right in front of the green should go that way, but even at 75  or 80 yards to the green and in the fairway you might not see it land but you'll be able to play it).

One spot you may have is #15. Last I rememberd, they did some clearing of the hill in the 100 yard and in range because trees did effect a shot from the left corner of the fairway (whch was an attractive spot). #13 is another if you hit a long drive up the right side (I don't recall the left as you mentioned) in which trees can block a shot.

My point about PV is that they give you so much fairway width that just because you catch a corner of it does not necessarily mean you deserve a clear, perfect shot to the green. Many trees can come out and it will improve the aesthetics, but I'm curious how much different your approach to any one hole would be.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mr. Cirba:

Consider:

a) mathematically the differences between these courses at the top are TINY;

b) very few people get to see any of them, meaning a very small pool of votes.

I can only conclude that it was YOUR less than stellar rating that caused PV to slip to #2.

Please use your awesome power judiciously.  And thanks for shifting the balance out west.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mr. Cirba:

Consider:

a) mathematically the differences between these courses at the top are TINY;

b) very few people get to see any of them, meaning a very small pool of votes.

I can only conclude that it was YOUR less than stellar rating that caused PV to slip to #2.

Please use your awesome power judiciously.  And thanks for shifting the balance out west.

 

Tom,

Actually, PV is probably much easier to get on than say, Cypress Point.  I'm sure any rating of mine had nothing to do with the change in the top slot.  In fact, I'm sure of it because I believe that Pine Valley is a slightly better course than CP.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike:

OK, OK.  Fair enough.  Judicious shirking - very wise.

But of course it doesn't truly explain away your power.... but I shall leave it alone.  

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

OK, OK.  Fair enough.  Judicious shirking - very wise.

But of course it doesn't truly explain away your power.... but I shall leave it alone.  

 

Well, unfortunately I didn't have enough power to move my old favorite, Brigantine Golf Links (Van Kleek & Stiles 1927) to the top of the classic list.  

Ahh...maybe next year.  

[PThomas]

I just remebered that I read - I think in Links - that Fazio is talking to PV about more work, including more length

[wsmorrison]

I think it is better to say that the lines of temptation were lost with tree encroachment.  Sully is right that the bunkers, say on 12 for instance, that are in the tree line are not the right angle to take for that green.  But that is the point.  With the trees gone and the green visible from the tee, the line of instinct over the fairway bunker on the left may tempt players to try that direct line.  The line of charm is on the outside of the dogleg (a feature on many Flynn dogleg holes as it is likely that Flynn built this hole according to the general intent of Crump along with Hugh and Alan Wilson).  Strategic thought is limited by a lot of the encroaching trees.  They might not be the way to go but their presence removes some of the mental side of the golf equation.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think it is better to say that the lines of temptation were lost with tree encroachment.  Sully is right that the bunkers, say on 12 for instance, that are in the tree line are not the right angle to take for that green.  But that is the point.  With the trees gone and the green visible from the tee, the line of instinct over the fairway bunker on the left may tempt players to try that direct line.  The line of charm is on the outside of the dogleg (a feature on many Flynn dogleg holes as it is likely that Flynn built this hole according to the general intent of Crump along with Hugh and Alan Wilson).  Strategic thought is limited by a lot of the encroaching trees.  They might not be the way to go but their presence removes some of the mental side of the golf equation.

Wayne,

Thanks for coming to my rescue and stating it in a way that is much more clear and eloquent than my earlier attempts.

I believe the same situation occurs on #1, where the line of temptation down the right is really negated by the obvious tree growth that makes the only really obvious play something further left, away from the line of temptation.  

#12 is presently a totally one-dimensional hole, particularly from the new back left tee.  There is no reason anyone should ever attempt anything except driving it as far down the right side as they can.  

[Jesse Jones]

Ease up guys..
This is exactly why these rankings are done..So everybody can either *itch, moan, give their I told you so's or start jumping for joy, about where some of these clubs (maybe your club)end/s up..
I don't care who wins or loses.
I care about the game and its architecture.
If it's last in the rankings and "GCA sound", that's enough for  me.
I understand that some of the courses may get hurt by these rankings..But guess what, there's another coming next year!!

[Jay Cox]

Anything that makes the average golfer think more about architecture is great with me.  I can think of better ways than rankings, but if rankings sell, by all means bring on more rankings.

[HamiltonBHearst]

If the great classics are rated every year it gives the rater an excuse to try to gain access.  Why bother playing anything in Philly other than PV and Merion? How many of these reports can a rater be expected to file in a year?  They might as well play the best and quibble between the Doak 10's.  

Does Golfweek need more ratings on Friars Head and SHGC and Maidstone or Garden City?  Or would it help if they visited Westhampton or Huntington or South Fork?  Imagine 9 Gil Hanse(MFA) holes and nobody has tried to weasle on there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

For once, Mike Cirba is right.

The lines of play are impeded.

You can be in the left side of the fairway on # 17 and the trees near the green will impede ball fllight that would otherwise find the green.  That's absurd and the result of years of benign neglect.

Likewise the bunkers that Mike mentioned that are overgrown with trees and scrub.

The photo hanging in the big room, next to the exit to the parking lot should be the road map to restoration at Pine Valley.

One of the things I'd especially like to see restored at PV are the skyline greens at # 2, # 9 and # 17.

Certainly, they could clear the lines of play and the intended hazard areas in one off season, if they wanted to.

I'm not so sure that they don't like things just the way they are, or, that they really don't understand the full concept of restoration as it pertains to this great golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

If the great classics are rated every year it gives the rater an excuse to try to gain access.  Why bother playing anything in Philly other than PV and Merion? How many of these reports can a rater be expected to file in a year?  They might as well play the best and quibble between the Doak 10's.  

Does Golfweek need more ratings on Friars Head and SHGC and Maidstone or Garden City?  Or would it help if they visited Westhampton or Huntington or South Fork?  Imagine 9 Gil Hanse(MFA) holes and nobody has tried to weasle on there.

Hamilton,

You obviously have no idea at all how this works.  

If someone spent their travel time doing what you suggest I'm quite confident that their time as a Golfweek rater would be very, very brief.

[tonyt]

Jordan,

I said 1000 people care

Ok, that possibly covers the Melbourne metro area here in Victoria, Australia. Not many out of a population of 3.5m in the entire city, but still quite a few.

There'd have to be 50 cities in the US alone at a minimum where over 1,000 people care enough to buy a mag and at least talk about it among acquaintances or quote it. When I was growing up, no regular playing junior at my club didn't know the top 10 in the most recent GD list.

The American editions of GD with the world rankings sell the most copies by far here in Australia (in some years almost as many as the others all combined), and the advertising means nothing to us because nobody in my home town is going to take out life insurance with a company who's closest office is in LA or Honolulu, and isn't going to throw the clubs in the car and drive down to Hilton Head anytime soon.

[Mike_Cirba]

JES II,

For once, Mike Cirba is right.

The lines of play are impeded.

Patrick,

Of course, I'm right.  Other than my chipping technique (which is an admittedy self-delusional term), I don't think there has been too much we've disagreed about here over the years, Rees Jones notwithstanding.  

Oh...that's right...except for the changes to tighten Augusta National with trees and rough over the past several years.

On that one I'll simply refer you to your quote concerning Pine Valley just above.  

Also, regarding ANGC, I believe that the recent changes that even have such austere, conservative, speak no evil fellows such as Arnie and Jack decrying the changes ("The changes look like they are from someone who doesn't know how to play golf"), I'm hoping you'll soon see the light and switch to the correct side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You must have me confused with that cretin of architecture, TEPaul.   I was ALWAYS opposed to the tree planting at ANGC due to the permanancy and maturation of the trees.

I could live with allowing the rough to be narrowed, provided it was returned to pre-tournament widths shortly after the big show left town.

With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.

Didn't Arnie advocate that illegal driver a few years ago ?

Don't they both advocate laser range finders ?

It's a little late for them to be crying wolf.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

You must have me confused with that cretin of architecture, TEPaul.   I was ALWAYS opposed to the tree planting at ANGC due to the permanancy and maturation of the trees.

I could live with allowing the rough to be narrowed, provided it was returned to pre-tournament widths shortly after the big show left town.

With respect to Arnie and Jack, I find it interesting, that now that they can't benefit from the advances in Hi-tech, that they're now decrying them.

Didn't Arnie advocate that illegal driver a few years ago ?

Don't they both advocate laser range finders ?

It's a little late for them to be crying wolf.

Patrick,

Then I guess I mistook your argument on the other thread.  Sorry about that.  

I recall us having a bit of a discussion last year after my first visit there.  My lord, it's a wonderful course, but those new trees are horrendous.  

I believe the only reason it hasn't dropped in recent course ranking polls is simply because so few actually get to play it.  As the rest of the world is slowly seeing the light towards the benefits of tree management on classic courses, the folks at ANGC are moving rapidly in the wrong direction.