A New List of Best Classic Courses Every Year

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I'm not so sure, in fact I'm positive, that those who rate golf courses don't do so in the sole confines and context of architecture.

I think only a few outsiders know about or understand the sub-categories used by the raters.

You were blown away by ANGC the first time you saw it.

Do you think a rater thinks solely about architecture when he plays there ?

That's not his "rating" job.

We tend to view courses in a much narrower context, the architectural context.  Truth be told, when someone's playing golf their sole concern is usually about the features they encounter, not the ones they don't encounter, and their game and their score.

But, let's talk about the rough at Merion.
What do you think about it ?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

But, let's talk about the rough at Merion.
What do you think about it ?  

Patrick,

Frankly, I think that MANY of the fairways at Merion need to be widened.

As tough and firm as those greens are as targets, I'd like to see the rough kept at a length where it affects spin, but I'm not a big fan of "chop it out" golf.

In particular, there are some places where widened fairways would just be dramatic, such as #5,where fairway should extend to almost the creek on the left and up AROUND the bunker on the right by the green.

I'd also love to see the whole areas between 18 & 14 be conjoined with fairway, just a wide sweeping swatch of green coming down the hill.  How cool would that be?

They did do a great job recreating the upper, around the quarry fairway on 16 and the tree removal in places is just fantastic (see between 11 & 12).  

Now, if they could just give those bunkers a haircut without them looking as out of place as Uncle Fester at the Playboy Mansion.  

[Tim Bert]

I'm not sure if anyone ever answered Mr. Kavanaugh's question, but he has certainly repeated it enough.

I bought several issues of Golfweek at Golfer's Warehouse just south of Hartford, CT before I ever subscribed.  In fact it is the first place I ever saw the magazine.  I had never heard of it, so I wasn't really looking for it.  It was right up at the registers.  They often had both the current issue, plus a few back issues for sale.

I don't know where it can be purchased in Nashville because I've never looked since I'm now a subscriber.

[Sean_A]

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.

Patrick

I think Jack and Arnie's points of view are symptomatic of many very good players just over the competitive hill.  This has orobably been the case for each successive generation of golfers since the Haskell.

Ciao

Sean

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I'd disagree.

I'm old enough to remember golfers who were advancing in age in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc., etc..

And, noone complained about the advances in technology because they were creeping changes, not quantum leaps.

[Brad Klein]

Tom Doak comes close but slightly misses the mark on why we do it. Kavanaugh's question about sales is a good one. The answer is that course ratings have no influence on sales of the issue. We don't depend upon magazine rack sales. But they do draw increased attention from readers with that issue, there's more pass-through of the issue (from subscribers to non-subscriber readers) and more discussion of the issue by those in golf, which might translate into more subscribers down the road. Yes, advertising is important, and if a course wants to be associated with the issue, then the ad staff will accommodate them. My job is simply to deliver statistically valid rankings as an editorial product. We can thus debate the merits of this or that course ratings, but what we really try to offer is a reasonable process.

A major part of he reason we do ratings that no one here has focused upon is what's called "brand equity." We are aspiring to be a known commodity, we want people to value Golfweek, to talk about us, value what we write, to spend time with it and to feel like it's an imporant part of the golf landscape. Course ratings are a means to achieve that, and if they can be done credibly, with statistical rigor and impartially (my job is to deliver that) then we enhance the brand equity of Golfweek.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

Despite what many people on this site think, many clubs pay close attention to the rankings and make efforts to secure their position in the rankings.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I happened to be at Pine Valley the week when Pebble Beach was named number 1 by Golf Digest a few years back.

Anyone who believes that course ratings are meaningless and that the major clubs don't care what people think are seriously deluding themselves.

[TEPaul]

Look, it doesn't take three pages on here to figure out why golf magazines do these Top 100 lists and such.

However, when it comes to what really is the #1 golf course and the greatest architecture in the World one does not need to wonder which course that is. It's the one that's been there for so long and will probably always deserve to be.

The real irony of that fact to me is I doubt there's a client anywhere in the world today who would actually have the guts to allow any architect to design and build the likes of Pine Valley.

Every one of them would rationalize it was too hard for the masses and because of that it would always be less than "ideal". My ass!

If someone wants the dubs and higher handicappers of this world to have fun playing golf tell them to go play the "bunny slope" golf courses of this world unless and until they feel capable of handling and enjoying the greatest golf course and architecture in the world.

[TEPaul]

"Anyone who believes that course ratings are meaningless and that the major clubs don't care what people think are seriously deluding themselves."

MikeC:

That may be so but I happened to be at Pine Valley not long after that when the people who run Pebble Beach came over here and played Pine Valley. It was not that hard to miss what they said as they walked off the course into the parking lot next to the clubhouse. What they said in a nutshell was;

"Jeeeesus Christ, there is no way on Earth or in Heaven or Hell our place is anywhere near this good!"  

You might think I'm kidding with this post. I assure you I am not.

[Mike_Cirba]

"Anyone who believes that course ratings are meaningless and that the major clubs don't care what people think are seriously deluding themselves."

MikeC:

That may be so but I happened to be at Pine Valley not long after that when the people who run Pebble Beach came over here and played Pine Valley. It was not that hard to miss what they said as they walked off the course into the parking lot next to the clubhouse. What they said in a nutshell was;

"Jeeeesus Christ, there is no way on Earth or in Heaven or Hell our place is anywhere near this good!"  

You might think I'm kidding with this post. I assure you I am not.

Tom,

No, I definitely believe you and they should have said that because there is no way in heaven or hell that Pebble is a better golf course than Pine Valley.  Cypress Point comes closer but I still believe PV has more great holes and less questionable ones.

[PThomas]

for all you PV insiders:  does one man there make decisions on how it is maintained; i.e., is he the sole judge whether trees are removed?

also:  since it has "plummeted" to number 2, do you think that more trees will now be removed?

[redanman]

A New List of Best Classic Courses Every Year?

I had to speak up.

Certainly it is valid in that the top 10-20-30 never really change except for a minor shuffling which is reflective of changes in the architectural intent - I do feel that that is why Cypress passed PVGC this year.  PVGC is clearly more consistently great in its architectual content (go blow Mr. Mucci, Jr. see below ) hole to hole, however tree overgrowth and archtectural intent maintenance can change how a course gets placed.  Golfweek specifically has a category reflecting preservation of original architectural features and design intent/integrity.  

In the case of PVGC vs. CPC recently, CPC has done nearly everything possible and positive to show itself as the masterpiece that it surely is ( The sand could be darker).

PVGC has on the other hand, cleaned up, sand-pro-ed and let trees get out of hand wholesale on several holes most criminally notably on the sublime #12.  These are all easily dealt with.  PVGC shold look more like Crump/Colt/Alison/Thomas/Flynn/Tillinghast and Burbeck (just kidding) intended.  Some original waste areas cannot possibly be restored/maintained as originally constructed, but the cleaning and sandpro treatment of other areas just makes an impossibly  huge difference vs. 10 years ago.

Beyond 30 or 50 courses, the architecural greatness of the next 100-150 courses can be debated and recognition of a different group by a few every year often recognizes those on the cusp rather than listing a "near-miss list which is good for no one.

The courses that wind up #101 to 125 are likely not significantly more or less great than the 90-100 part of the list.  THAT is pure mathematics.  I'm sure that Tom Doak for one can attest to this from his experiences at Golf magazine.

*For Modern Courses the bullet-proof list is only 10-20 or 25 at most, not 35-60 or so (as with the Classical)  because of multiple factors such as many new meritous courses appearing, lack of integrity of maintenance  (both agronomically and architecturally) and regionality.  

Regionality is a great example.  When word spreads about a fine new course, most courses will go down over a few years in the rankings rahter than up as better statistical confidence  from a wider variety of raters visiting over time is obtained.  "Hand Picking" courses by one or a few or even ten individuals as to "What is worthy for consideration"  short changes many a fine course.  Good Golfweek Raters play the ho-hum as well as the cream I assure you.

And Dear Patrick

I'm not so sure, in fact I'm positive, that those who rate golf courses don't do so in the sole confines and context of architecture.

You're not in a position to make such a derogatory statement, especially the way you nitpick language and the like on here.

I think only a few outsiders know about or understand the sub-categories used by the raters.

If so, it's only because "the outsiders" either can't or choose not to r-e-a-d.  It's in black-'n-white each year.  It is extrordinarily well-defined and explained.

Do you think a rater thinks solely about architecture when he plays there (ANGC®) ?

That's not his "rating" job.

We tend to view courses in a much narrower context (on gca.com?), the architectural context.  Truth be told, when someone's playing golf their sole concern is usually about the features they encounter, not the ones they don't encounter, and their game and their score.

Don't disparage what you can't speak to from direct experience.  

Seriously, I think that you are too dismissive of the how, the why and methodology of the GolfWeek crew.  There is little ulterior motive and little unprofessionalism.

I won't speak to anyone else's panel.

You do no one a service, and you overlook your own considerable biases making many of the statements you do regading raters.  Anyone not able to divorce their own personal experiences at a particular golf course from the architectural merit won't last long with Dr. Klein.



Oh yes,the disclaimer.

p.s.  NGLA is the most architecturally interesting course in America to me, pre-1960 with PVGC and Shinnecock and CPC very close.  My personal best of the best is NGLA, now even better without the trees.

My friends all knnow this already, so it's nothing new.  I like the redheads.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The issue of whethe these rankings are important to the courses themselves, came clear to me when a local professional of an unnamed NW course that has held at least on major, laid out a case where green fees and logo item sales make up a significant portion of their revenue.  

Players are interested in playing ranked golf courses.  Whether magazines are also able to leverage ad sales matter little to me.  What does seem important is that the industry continues to generate interest.  

Let's be honest, Golf just isn't that healthy from a business perspective.  Any chat we can get can't hurt!  

Who was it that said, "I don't care what you write just spell my name right!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

Having been a golfweek rater, and intimately familiar with the subset of rating categories, I think I'm adequately qualified to speak to the issue, despite your protests to the contrary.

Some of the subsets don't address purely architectural issues, so I stand by my comments.

Your inference that there's global awareness of the subset categories is equally ridiculous.

And, I can speak from direct experience
Since the rating evaluation isn't confined to architectural categories, the rater can't think solely about architecture, by the very nature of his marching orders in performing his rating function.

I never mentioned or alluded to ulterior motives or unprofessionalism regarding raters, that's your misquided conclusion due to your inability to comprehend my post.

Instead of kissing Brad Klein's ass in public try boning up on your reading comprehension skills.

Would you also cite some of the statements you CLAIM I made regarding raters ?

And, would you list my personal biases regarding raters ?

Absent your ability to do so, try thinking before you type, if you can.

Hamlet, III, ii, 242

[Tom_Doak]

Bill Cosgrove:

Regarding sales of stuff, there are 200 courses on the two lists each year, so the list is not doing anything for golf merchandising as a whole -- just for the professionals of whichever clubs make it.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Why can't it just be said that PV and CPC are both #1.  It seems to me (and I don't have access to the numbers) that the two courses are statistically tied.  Based on 50-100 ratings (probably the range of samples for both courses) you haven't enough numerical significance to distinquish the difference in their averages.

JC

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

For the same reason that states don't permit polygamy

You've got to make a choice.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Tom,
This is good business for pro shops and clubs charging guest fees.  It also makes for excellent real estate sales for those selling lots.  

The courses that make the lists, benefit.  Whether they are selling hats, tee times or real estate.  The magazines are as Brad pointed out selling interesting content and advertising.  

Tom, from your perspective, how do you feel the rest of the industry is doing and do the ranking lists help?  Are your clients selling golf, real estate or something else?

My assumption, cynically, is that EVERYONE is selling something.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, you were a GW rater? Goodness, I must be doing this longer than I can remember. Maybe you haven't read the critera lately. Which of the them is/are not strictly architectural? Am very curious. Just as a reminder, they are:

1. Ease and intimacy of the routing
2a. Integrity of original design (Classic)
2b. Quality of feature shaping (Modern)
3. Natural setting and overall land plan
4. Interest of greens and surrounding contours
5. Variety and memorability of par 3s
6. Variety and memorability of par 4s
7. Variety and memorability of par 5s
8. Basic quality of conditioning
9. Landscape and tree management
10. "Walk in the park" test

Please note that we publicize these criteria in each issue where we publish the ratings, and they are on the ballot for each course. So even if they are not exactly widely known they are public and available for scrutiny.

No doubt someone could argue that some of the terms lack specificity. There's only so much you can say in three or four words each (though each issue of Golfweek does have a fuller explanation of each standard). But their intent and meaning are pretty clear to any reasonable person. We have no choice but to let people make their own judgments, but we ask them to think along the lines of these standards of judgment.

[Doug Siebert]

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.

Patrick

I think Jack and Arnie's points of view are symptomatic of many very good players just over the competitive hill.  This has orobably been the case for each successive generation of golfers since the Haskell.

Ciao

Sean

With all due respect to two of the game's greats, I think Jack and Arnie are a bit more than "just over the competitive hill".  I think you do them a disservice by looking at their words in that way.  If technology had not advanced since 1962 Jack and Arnie would still not be competitive, and if no courses had been lengthened since then they would still find those courses to be too long.

Tiger said something about the distance the ball is going and diminution of skill recently, people suggested it is because he doesn't like that others were able to use technology to catch up to him.

It seems that no matter who says something some ulterior motive for their statement can be claimed.  If a long hitter says its bad, its because he doesn't want the techology to bring others closer to him.  If a short hitter says its bad, it is because he can't take advantage of the technology.

Who is allowed to speak up without someone claiming they've got a reason beyond believing recent changes have been bad for the game?

[Sean_A]

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.

Patrick

I think Jack and Arnie's points of view are symptomatic of many very good players just over the competitive hill.  This has orobably been the case for each successive generation of golfers since the Haskell.

Ciao

Sean

With all due respect to two of the game's greats, I think Jack and Arnie are a bit more than "just over the competitive hill".  I think you do them a disservice by looking at their words in that way.  If technology had not advanced since 1962 Jack and Arnie would still not be competitive, and if no courses had been lengthened since then they would still find those courses to be too long.

Tiger said something about the distance the ball is going and diminution of skill recently, people suggested it is because he doesn't like that others were able to use technology to catch up to him.

It seems that no matter who says something some ulterior motive for their statement can be claimed.  If a long hitter says its bad, its because he doesn't want the techology to bring others closer to him.  If a short hitter says its bad, it is because he can't take advantage of the technology.

Who is allowed to speak up without someone claiming they've got a reason beyond believing recent changes have been bad for the game?

Doug

I think very few people have an ulterior motive unless they are selling the equipment.  People are just expressing opinions.  Players just call it as they see it.  There is no right or wrong.    

I am in no way suggesting that Jack or Arnie believes he could still compete if the equipment were pre whatever date.  No, they are both well past leaderboard competitive.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that Jack could hit the tour today and make a living as a journeyman pro.  I would bet on him keeping his card.  I don't think I am doing Jack or Arnie any disservice.  As I say, they are speaking their minds and they have earned enough respect to be heard.

Ciao

Sean

[John Kavanaugh]

When did the rankings jump the shark...sorry guys, it's over when Mucci can't even remember if he was a rater or not..

[ForkaB]

John

Give Pat a break.  I also can't remmber if I was ever a rater, even though I'm sure I've been asked (like most of the western world).  It's got nothing to do with sharks or jiumping, just maturity.

[redanman]

Patrick

Hmmm, seems someone called your bluff.

And I never suck up to a soul. It turns out to be a love/hate characteristic for my friends.

Walk in the park is the only "Intangible", if you will, but it's actually about the joy of actually walking the land and chasing the pill. Pretty much related to the combination of the other nine, sort of Gestaltist, if you please.