News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Andy Troeger

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #100 on: March 09, 2007, 06:25:58 PM »
I don't personally have a problem with rating 9 hole courses against 18 holers, it just eliminates some of the variety when you only have 9 holes.

One thing the Dunes Club does well is having tees at various angles to change up holes when playing them twice. The 2nd, a par three, has two completely different teeing areas at about a 90 degree angle (different yardages as well). The 7th also has a fairly substantial change in teeing that can change the strategy off the tee.

I think the Dunes Club is a bit high where it is, I prefer Long Cove, Crooked Stick, Lost Dunes, and Paa-Ko Ridge to it from courses just on the list. But I wouldn't disagree with it being listed either.

Andy Troeger

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #101 on: March 09, 2007, 06:31:05 PM »
 

Take Wolf Run for example.  TINY piece of property, leap-frogged 5 spots to 15, which is pretty remarkable.  Compared to Sand Hills, which if I interpret correctly, was a HUGE property where hundreds of holes *could* have designed.  Point being, architects play the hand they're dealt and can create wonderful courses in a space no bigger than your backyard or what seems like the entire face of the moon.  

Clint

PS - Had to get my homer plug in for Wolf Run.  

Clint,
Wolf Run is fabulous and deserved the upgrade even from an already strong position IMO. I've said a few times that I think the routing is fabulous given the small property, I couldn't find a weak hole on the course.

Adam Sherer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #102 on: March 09, 2007, 07:10:58 PM »


Though I am loathe to post on a rankings thread, I will tell you that Eastward Ho! (you gotta include the punctuation, it's the best part!) has undergone massive bunker and tree work. While you wait and wait for my yardage book and Noel Freeman's upcoming article, here is a great article on the work, link courtesy of the now-defunct Mike Sweeney.

Eastward Ho! renovation

I have mixed feelings about removing that many trees, but I can tell you that the bunker work is jaw-droppingly impeccable. My understanding is that Ran is going to detail this work in an updated course profile this year.


Eastward Ho! was great before the renovation, and because of it, the course is now being honored (off Cape Cod) as the great course that it has always been.

The green committee, the membership, Frank Hancock, Erik McDoanld, and certainly Keith Foster are all vital parts to the newfound respect that the Ho! has earned and all are worth being incorporated into any updates to the course profile.

Michael - the property was originally devoid of trees when Fowler built it, (as seen from a town of Chatham history book showing an aerial of the property at the turn of the 20th century) Taking out the trees on the back nine is going to help make those holes as spectacular as the front, and would be the last peice of the Fowler restoration.

That was a great link article as well, that I had never seen. I'm surprised that they accurately detailed our rigorous (or vigorous) renovation schedule, all that work in 3.5 months!  In addition to all of the bunkers and tees being redone, we also redid the driving range, putting green, and built a new practice chipping facility (with time in between to catch stripers off the 7th tee).

The last piece of sod went down in mid-December amid the beginning of a heavy winter storm (we were using back-pack blowers to blow the accumulating snow off of the prepped area for sod!)

EH!CC will be a mainstay on the 100.


P.S.  In addition to the Dunes Club as a 9-holer worthy of the list, Truro Golf Links, which is just up the Cape from EH!CC, should receive a visit (talk about a storied past!).
"Spem successus alit"
 (success nourishes hope)
 
         - Ross clan motto

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #103 on: March 09, 2007, 08:27:08 PM »
I’m always interested to see courses that move many places on these lists from one year to another. Especially when we are talking about ‘classic’ courses. Yale has moved up considerably. Engineers & Eastward Ho! have entered the list. These upwardly mobile courses are often due to some new (& good) work having been done, as is the case with Engineers, but what about the courses that drop.

Many of the courses in the second 50 in these Top 100 lists are interchangable, but the top 50 are quite often well set. Congressional (Blue) has dropped from 34 to 74. Now maybe I have missed a topic on here about this, but why such a sharp top?

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #104 on: March 09, 2007, 10:15:14 PM »
Me thinks that if the raters who downgraded Augusta were to play it, it wouldn't have dropped to 10th.

The greens and their surrounds are as fine as test of skill and patience as there is in golf.
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Jim Nugent

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #105 on: March 09, 2007, 10:42:43 PM »
Can anyone, please!, explain the rating system exactly?  Redanman gave the general idea, but I'm hoping to see precisely what each number means.  e.g. I believe 10 means the course is in the top 5 in its category.  Yes?  What about a 9, 8 and 7?  

Also, does it surprise you that Tobacco Road does not make the top 100 modern list?  I wonder how posters here who have played the course rate it.  Top 100?  Top 50?  

Mike Erdmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #106 on: March 09, 2007, 11:13:03 PM »
Jim, here are the general guidelines.  The rankings differ a bit towards the bottom end, simply because there are more modern courses than classic:

Rating   Classic       Modern
10        1-5             1-5
9          6-15           6-15
8         16-40          16-40
7         41-100         41-100
6         101-200       101-200
5         201-500       201-750
4         501-1500     751-2000
3         1501-3000    2001-5000
2         3001-6000    5001-9000
1         6001-7000    9001-10,000
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 11:14:06 PM by Mike_Erdmann »

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #107 on: March 09, 2007, 11:23:25 PM »
A bit surprised, I guess, that only two courses in Denver and the suburbs made the top 10 in Colorado. Nice to see Riverdale Dunes make it. Could Murphy Creek, say, give any of the other 8 a run?

I've heard more about the Norman course at Red Sky than I have the Fazio, but the latter takes the cake at number one on the Colorado list. I'd be interested in any information on that one.

Mountain courses and Jim Engh (#2,4 and 7) dominate the Colorado list below, which I agree is too mountain-centric. The Raven at Three Peaks isn't even the best course in the Silverthorne area (Breckenridge GC is) and doesn't deserve a place on this list.  I haven't played the Red Sky courses but from what I have heard I too am surprised at the Fazio Red Sky ranking ahead of the Norman. Last comment: Broadmoor East is a helluva golf course and although it is half Ross/half RTJ it works great from a design standpoint too. It deserves better than a slot behind these pretty newcomers IMO.

Colorado  
1. Red Sky (Fazio), Wolcott (m)  
2. Lakota Canyon, New Castle (m)  
3. Red Sky (Norman), Wolcott (m)  
4. Redlands Mesa, Grand Junction (m)  
5. Haymaker, Steamboat Springs (m)  
6. Raven Golf Club at Three Peaks, Silverthorne (m)*  
7. Fossil Trace, Golden (m)  
8. Broadmoor (East), Colorado Springs (c)  
9. Golf Club at Bear Dance, Larkspur (m)*  
10. Dunes Course at Riverdale, Brighton (m)*


I agree. Broadmoor east deserves to be in the top 5, and the Raven is rated considerably too high.  
Red Sky Fazio has a very scenic back 9.  
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 11:13:45 PM by astavrides »

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #108 on: March 10, 2007, 12:11:45 AM »
Pretty sad day for an Atlantan when our "best" (it's about an hour or so from town) is Bob Cupp's "Augusta National with hardwoods" (his comment) -- Hawk's Ridge  :( :o ???

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #109 on: March 10, 2007, 01:00:05 PM »
Bump.  Sorry, have to see this get to 5!  :D

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #110 on: March 10, 2007, 01:23:19 PM »
Jim, here are the general guidelines.  The rankings differ a bit towards the bottom end, simply because there are more modern courses than classic:

Rating   Classic       Modern
10        1-5             1-5
9          6-15           6-15
8         16-40          16-40
7         41-100         41-100
6         101-200       101-200
5         201-500       201-750
4         501-1500     751-2000
3         1501-3000    2001-5000
2         3001-6000    5001-9000
1         6001-7000    9001-10,000

When you think about the number of golf courses in the country it is silly to argue about the ranking of courses out side the top ten or so.  The differences between numbers 25 and 100 is ony .75 of a point.  I know Musgrove Mill dropped 14 spots and the score only dropped from 6.9 to 6.79.  It is just a whisker  of a differrence.  I played with a GW guy there last summer and I don't think he really liked the course.  I'll bet his score dropped the course all by himself.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2007, 01:23:41 PM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark Bourgeois

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #111 on: March 10, 2007, 08:07:51 PM »
Well said, Tom.  Why so much discussion about why one course is ranked higher than another, when the lower course is about 5 percent "worse" as indicated by the difference in its score?  Let's see, 5 percent worse multiplied by 18 holes...one shot worse.

Stan Burton

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #112 on: March 10, 2007, 11:07:31 PM »
Andy and Clint,
Thanks for the kind words regarding Wolf Run.  The golf course is small by today's standards and sits on a confined 180 acres.  Thanks to the long term plan by Steve Smyers, the course has been lengthened to continue to challenge today's best players.  Wolf Run has very little acreage, yet plenty isolation between holes.  It all adds up to great routing with vision.  I hope to see you guys this summer.

Greg Murphy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2007, 12:00:37 AM »
Tony,

Your observations of nine hole courses compared to eighteen hole courses are spot on:

1. If a golf course is limited to nine holes there is a much better chance of having great holes rather than mundane ones;
2. The overall quality of a nine hole course ought to be higher because the average of the holes is less likely to be detrimentally affected by the filler holes which most 18 hole courses always seem to have;
3. A nine hole courses is easier to maintain and condition to a higher level than an eighteen hole course.

But I’m left wondering if your conclusion is offered tongue in cheek, i.e., that nine hole courses should not be compared to eighteen hole courses because they have such an inherently unfair advantage over eighteen holes. Isn’t that a bit like saying it is unfair to compare a Coore/Crenshaw or Pete Dye or Tom Doak course with a (pick any number of other GCAs) because they limit themselves to a couple courses at a time, get choice sites to work with and are able to devote more time on site to get the routing and construction detail just right?

Without a doubt, there is a definite stigma associated with nine hole courses in America. Many were designed and built in the golden age by virtually all the greats from Ross (literally dozens to his credit) to Thomas to Maxwell, Raynor and MacKenzie. But as Anthony Pioppi writes in his recent, To the Nines, “In the modern era (after 1959), very few stellar nine-hole designs have been created”. In fact, Tony is only able to mention one, The Dunes Club.

Of interest, Pioppi is of the view that Ross’s Wittinsville Golf Club is the number one nine-holer in America, ranking ahead of The Dunes Club, but in the GW rankings, it doesn’t even crack the top ten in Massachusetts!

The one observation about nine-holers that I must take issue with is perpetuation of the notion that nine-holers are no more than wannabe’s, and are more comparable to executive courses or par-3 courses than eighteen hole courses. True, even most of the courses profiled in To the Nines have “graduated” to eighteen holes (e.g., Myopia Hunt Club, Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Prairie Dunes Country Club and Rolling Rock Golf Club) but tell me: what similarities do any of these (or The Dunes Club or Wittinsville Golf Club) have to executive or par-3 courses? In fact, the goal of having eighteen holes I would argue has had the unfortunate result of creating many executive, par-3 and scrawny eighteen-holers when a brawny nine-holer was there waiting to be brought to life.

Jim Nugent

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2007, 05:13:16 AM »
Well said, Tom.  Why so much discussion about why one course is ranked higher than another, when the lower course is about 5 percent "worse" as indicated by the difference in its score?  Let's see, 5 percent worse multiplied by 18 holes...one shot worse.

I don't think that's quite right.  The scores are just a ranking.  A 10 means the course ranks in the top 5 in its category.  That could mean the course is 5% better than a course rated 9, or 50% better, or 500% better.  

It's similar to how stones are rated for their hardness.  In the Moh scale, diamond is rated 10, ruby is rated 9.  But diamonds aren't just 11% harder than rubies.  They are four times harder.  

The main difference is that we can objectively measure how hard minerals are.  We can only subjectively rate golf courses.  

As for why all the concern about who is number one, when the differences may actually be quite small -- that's our way.  The average difference between Tiger and the 100th ranked player on tour is probably only a few percentage points per round.  Those few points make all the difference.    

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2007, 05:57:26 PM »
Jim:

You tripped yourself up there in the end.  I don't think too many people care who are the 40th and 60th and 80th ranked players in the world, at least enough to argue about it for hours on end.

Greg Holland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #116 on: March 11, 2007, 08:43:23 PM »
A few thoughts and questions:

-- Kinloch, no. 9 modern, is designed by Lester George, who I don't think has another design in the top 100. Who is he? I've probably missed it, but I don't recall seeing his name mentioned in GCA postings. What else has he done of note?

-- Anyone know anything about Linville GC in North Carolina? No. 3 public-access in a state with some good public access courses, ahead of better-known places like Mid-Pines and T. Road. Listed as a classic; another southern Ross?

Lester George is based out of Richmond, VA.  He has a website. He did Kinloch with Vinny Giles.  He has done several renovations of note, including the Greenbriar (and there have been regular posts about the work).  He used to participate, but I haven't seen any posts by him lately.  He renovated/restored Starmount Forest CC here in Greensboro a few years back.  

Linville GC is an old Ross -- connected with the Eesoela Lodge in the mountains.  Very well regarded.  

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #117 on: March 11, 2007, 09:15:46 PM »
If you want to see a wonderful renovation by George just check out CC of Florida in Boynton Beach.  Great stuff!

JC

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #118 on: March 11, 2007, 10:30:11 PM »
Jim:

You tripped yourself up there in the end.  I don't think too many people care who are the 40th and 60th and 80th ranked players in the world, at least enough to argue about it for hours on end.

While this may be true in the golf world, tis not so in the college basketball world as the pundits will argue for days over who did and didn't get in to the big dance...  ;D

Jim Nugent

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #119 on: March 12, 2007, 02:51:25 AM »
Jim:

You tripped yourself up there in the end.  I don't think too many people care who are the 40th and 60th and 80th ranked players in the world, at least enough to argue about it for hours on end.

Tom, you're right, they don't care, in part because that is more objective.  We can look at the world rankings, or majors, or money winnings, or tournament victories.  Golf course rankings, like art, are entirely subjective.  

Now ask who the greatest players of all time are.  Was Jack better than Bobby?  Arnie better than Sarazen?  Trevino better than Seve?  Billy Casper better than Els?  Bet I could come up with quite a few ranking questions like that, where we might (and in some cases have) argue for hours on end.    

Jim Nugent

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #120 on: March 12, 2007, 01:10:53 PM »
Some courses on the modern list made big moves from last year, positive and negative.  Any thoughts on why, or if they are merited?

First the losers....

-25.....Rustic Canyon
-10.....Bulle Rock
-51.....Lakota Canyon
-31.....Whisper Rock
-15.....Quintera
-16.....Pronghorn
-23.....Black Mesa
-14.....Musgrove Mill
-24.....Butler National
-19.....Cuscowilla

Now the big winners...

+17.....Vaquero Club
+17.....Oak Tree
+28.....Sea Island Golf Club
+14.....Southern Highlands Golf Club
+14.....The Powder Horn
+70.....Dunes Club

Bandon Trails and Dunes both made big moves up at the top of the list.  So did Wolf Run and Calusa Pines.  Falling several places near the top were Arcadia Bluffs, Wade Hampton Club, The Golf Club and Friar's Head.  



 


John Kavanaugh

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #121 on: March 12, 2007, 02:51:45 PM »
I think we all know but are afraid to say why Lakota fell and The Dunes Club rose so dramatically.  Anything else that is a move less than 50 pts up or down can be attributed to a simple increase in new raters seeing the course.

I'm sure that with the recent improvement of conditions at Rustic the course will rebound quite nicely next year.  With only speaking of courses I have played you should see Cuscowilla drop another 20 places or so then level off.  

I'm currently trying to formulate which non-rated classic course will find its way onto the list next year from the cheerleader/rater effect.  The Kittansett Club is the early leader if we could just find a member who is qualified to be a rater...Please send any nominations to me and I will work behind the scenes to pump the guy up.

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #122 on: March 12, 2007, 03:04:11 PM »
Isn't Kittansett #58 John? ???
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

John Kavanaugh

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #123 on: March 12, 2007, 03:09:18 PM »
Isn't Kittansett #58 John? ???

Like I have said before..Nobody pays attention to these lists, including me.  I just knew that course was good enough.  I haven't seen it yet but maybe Broadmoor in Indy can get the nod even though I think Indiana might already have its fill.  I'm not sure if the recent cheerleading by a long time poster on this site fell on deaf ears or not.

Glenn Spencer

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #124 on: March 12, 2007, 03:10:04 PM »
 

Take Wolf Run for example.  TINY piece of property, leap-frogged 5 spots to 15, which is pretty remarkable.  Compared to Sand Hills, which if I interpret correctly, was a HUGE property where hundreds of holes *could* have designed.  Point being, architects play the hand they're dealt and can create wonderful courses in a space no bigger than your backyard or what seems like the entire face of the moon.  

Clint

PS - Had to get my homer plug in for Wolf Run.  

Clint,
Wolf Run is fabulous and deserved the upgrade even from an already strong position IMO. I've said a few times that I think the routing is fabulous given the small property, I couldn't find a weak hole on the course.


Andy,

Wolf Run is marvelous!!! There is little doubt about that. I would still like to see someone name a better pair of par 3's on one nine than 13 and 16 at The Wolf. One of the best long ones and seriously one of the best real short ones. However, I am asking for your help. Please explain the positives of #15 to me. I must have missed something.