How many top 100 courses are a slam dunk?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have never been able to dunk the ball.  I can barely touch the net so excuse my basketball reference. I do it in deference to the final four.

All this discussion about rankings has me just buffaloed.  let's get realistic.  When I look at the GD top 100 hundred list it seems to me that there are only about forty that I would consider a lock in being on the list year after year.  The next sixty could come from any of three, four, or five hundred courses.  

[Sam Morrow]

That's interesting, it's something I have never thought about. Without going through the list right now my first thought would have been that there are about 50 or 60 no-brainers.

[hhuffines]

Tommy... I like your reasoning.  In NC for example, we have one slam dunk, #2.  Perhaps Wade Hampton is during its peak time of the year but its bound to be closed 6 months.  #2 is
just as solid in winter as summer.

It seems the Doak scale is the best way to approach ranking
these courses, taking account on how far you would go out
of your way to play.  Wade Hampton, Grandfather and a few
of our other courses are certainly 7s plus but most NC courses
probably peak at 6.

[Andy Troeger]

Tommy,

I think 40 is about as high as the number would go. When I look at my personal list, half the courses in my top ten are part of the current "100 Greatest." However, I can also say that half of my top twenty are on the same list.

I'm sure some will draw the conclusion that just means I don't know what I am talking about.    I'd be more apt to agree that at some level it comes down to personal preference between the next 460 or so courses for 60 spots.

Lets face it, if it were really obvious what the top 100 actually were, the discussion about the lists wouldn't be nearly as intense.

[wsmorrison]

Tommy,

It might be interesting to poll this group.  Propose a course one at a time and lets see if everyone who posts considers it a top 100.  Only unanimous courses get included and lets see how the results play out.  Stupid or brilliant?  I'll leave it up to you  

[cary lichtenstein]

Probably 40 or 50 are pretty permanent fixtures.

[redanman]

Probably less than 20, certainly 30 consensus, whatever that means.

I like the pick or pan of various courses. Brilliant.

This coming from a guy who could two hand dunk, but could never do it behind his head.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

I would dare say no more than 25 are sure things. The reason the others continue in being mentioned is that too few people really play / expose themselves to other courses worthy of time and attention.

In sum -- raters often follow the listing and simply reinforce those layouts that have been there previously. Due diligence is often defeated at the outset since many people chase the "known" quantities.

[Michael Dugger]

It has always seemed to me like the GD list favors the more long and tough, immaculate conditioned U.S. Open "championship" type of courses.  I know this, I recognize it and I accept it.

And it is what it is.  To consider Medinah #3 the 11th best course in the country is kinda laughable, however, but so be it.  

It seems kinda hypocritical to rank some of the sacred cows, such as Cypress Point, so highly, though, considering it is very short and quirky.  Surely it's a deviation from the notion that GD's modus operandi is to favor long and tough.

So.....nutshell......what the hell am I trying to say?  I simply take the GD list for what it is.  At the same time I figure the golf magazine list is going to give more "love" to the shorter and quirkier layouts.  Call 'em non-traditional or whatever you want.  

If you respect Tom Doak's scale, and often times agree with Brad Klein, Golf Mag and Golf Week's rankings probably speak to you the most.  Any "top" list that doesn't have Friars Head nor Kingsley Club in it is pretty much worthless, IMHO.  

[Sean Leary]

Michael,

I agree with what you are trying to get at.  However, and I mean no offense, but have you played Medinah, Friars Head or Kingsley?  I am pretty sure you have not, and for you to say anything about those courses and where they stand isn't really fair.

As Michael was saying it is different strokes for different folks, people.  Low handicappers and pros that think highly of tough tests get criticized because they don't take into account how the higher handicappers play.  But higher handicappers don't get criticized for not taking into account what some (not all) low handicappers like, fair and tough, and how they play.

To say anyone is wrong  because they like some place more than or less than you is, in itself, wrong. All of the mags are going flawed by their nature based upon what you like and where else you have played.  A 10 in Seattle may be a 6 on Long Island, and if raters don't have unlimited access and time and money to see all the great courses, they have no basis for comparison which why I think there are such wild differences on the list.

For me personally, the best ranking would be one where a group of 20 or so people who understand most of the facets and nuances of architecture and who have ALL played most of the world's best comprise a list (Golf Mag is probably the closest to this).  It wouldn't be perfect but it would be the one I would pay attention to the most.

[HamiltonBHearst]

I suspect there are 30-40 slam dunk top 100's.  If Mr. Dugger can comment on the land surrounding sandpines he can surely comment on courses he has not seen.  I suspect if he had seen the great courses on LI, I would have heard about it from some sort of match with Pat Mucci at GCGC.

[Michael Dugger]

Nice to see you in here, Sean, wish you were coming to Chambers Bay.

You know me, I don't give a damn about political correctness.  Do I really need to try a bottle of Dom to say it is better than Freixinet?   Thankfully, I can ask Hearst who probably has some with dinner every night.

If I'd have played every course under the sun, my opinion would still be my opinion.  No more, no less.

So Medinah at #11 is still a joke.  

and Sandpines still sucks....even with a new clubhouse.

 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy:

I would dare say no more than 25 are sure things. The reason the others continue in being mentioned is that too few people really play / expose themselves to other courses worthy of time and attention.

In sum -- raters often follow the listing and simply reinforce those layouts that have been there previously. Due diligence is often defeated at the outset since many people chase the "known" quantities.

Matt, this web site has given me an education that frankly I didn't know I needed.  I will be in New York in May.  Before I became a member of this site I never would have considered playing Fenway.  Now I would love to play it and will try and arrange it. I think you are correct that we go for well known quantities.  The human part of us wants to play what are considered the best courses and most of us have a limited amount of time to rate courses.  Even at that I probably get more than my fare share.  

I do have a friend GD panelist who pretty much does the opposite.  He has played over 2000 courses.  I'll bet 1500 of them I have never heard of.  But he is the exception.
 

[Andy Troeger]

 

I do have a friend GD panelist who pretty much does the opposite.  He has played over 2000 courses.  I'll bet 1500 of them I have never heard of.  But he is the exception.
 

I haven't played nearly that many courses, but I counted the other day and 75% of the ones I have played can be found on no list of great golf courses (national or state listings). Its hard to appreciate the great ones without seeing the rest with them.

[Jim Nugent]

We can answer Tommy's original question empirically.  Go back the past ten or twenty or thirty years, and see which courses are on all the lists.  Make an allowance for modern courses such as Sand Hills and Pac Dunes.

My guess is we'll end up with at least 40 to 50 courses.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

I don't think you should just count the courses which have always been in the list, because peer pressure has kept some of them on there when they shouldn't be.

I think the real number is about 50.  Pete Dye always said there were 40 above everything else, but there have been a few built since then.

(That was talking about the top 100 in the world ... top 100 in the USA, there are even fewer, in my opinion.)

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone really believe that Wade Hampton is a slam dunk...I'd say the number is closer to 13...a bakers dozen or so.

[redanman]

I had assumed Top 100 USA above and the more I think of it it's maybe 20, 30 as an absolute maximum.

I hadn't considered world, personally I'm pretty enamoured with links, but consensus links "Top 100" might be really really hard to pick more than a mere handful of links as consensus. Jesu christu, tastes are all over the board.  Just look at how differently GD and GW view Kapalua.  Also, I know I am not alone in my opinion of Muirfield Village in the USA yet my rater brethern of all stripes and colors rate this housing tract with a significant Tour history along with some of the true consensus Top 100's.


One more kettle of fish:
How many people are really qualified to pick a top 100 world?  I gotta go to Doak on this one, he's maybe the one guy on the board truly able to make this call.

I'll stop now, before I start to sound like Wayne Morrison.

[John Kavanaugh]

I had assumed Top 100 USA above and the more I think of it it's maybe 20, 30 as an absolute maximum.

I hadn't considered world, personally I'm pretty enamoured with links, but consensus links "Top 100" might be really really hard to pick more than a mere handful of links as consensus. Jesu christu, tastes are all over the board.  Just look at how differently GD and GW view Kapalua.  Also, I know I am not alone in my opinion of Muirfield Village in the USA yet my rater brethern of all stripes and colors rate this housing tract with a significant Tour history along with some of the true consensus Top 100's.


One more kettle of fish:
How many people are really qualified to pick a top 100 world?  I gotta go to Doak on this one, he's maybe the one guy on the board truly able to make this call.

I'll stop now, before I start to sound like Wayne Morrison.

Bill,

Please give an example of what may be the 30th course that would be a slam dunk.  I think even Shadow Creek has hit the rim and will be completely off the list in 20 years.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

I'm happy to hear you will be playing Fenway because this one course that without the efforts of the Golfweek panel would have simply flown below the radar screen for so many people. The Tillinghast layout is very well done and provides plenty of fun and rewarding challenges when execution takes place.

Too often those who might be under-informed when coming to Westchester County might not have included Fenway on their short list. Frankly, I see Fenway as being no less the equal of Quaker Ridge and that says plenty in my book.

Too many panelists (this from someone who has served on multiple panels) are simply chasing names to add to their overall belts. This pattern simply reinforces the numbers for the same predictable and tired courses that have been included for quite some time. On GCA alone you also have celebrity architects who are revered to the point of being includes among the apostles while others with little fanfare are summarily dismissed.

Golfweek is likely the more open ratings system when compared to what you see with Digest. The elevation of Engineers on Long Island is a solid case in point. I doubt very much that Digest would ever include the course -- I checked the Digest state listing and the Roslyn layout is not even in the top 30 in The Empire State.

The issue is that there is plenty of outstanding golf that has opened in the last several years. I have mentioned The Kingsley Club and Black Mesa, as just two examples. They are first rate designs, coming from architects who are not high profile names. Both layouts are easily among my personal top 100 in the USA.

Unfortunately, as I said at the outset, too many people / raters only cherry-pick the same tired and predictable courses when other options are indeed available.

What's so funny is that just like the PGA Tour -- it takes a mega effort to make the Tour but once on the circuit it doesn't take that much of an effort to remain. That's the same way the rankings usually play out.

Enjoy Fenway -- be interested in your comments after you play it.

[redanman]

John

read the original post

Probably less than 20, certainly 30 consensus, whatever that means.

see, we don't even quote ourselves all that well.