[kevinT]

Since Mr. Ward has sparked this topic with me, what does everyone like better........ranking courses just as they are no metter when built or the classical/modern ranking where there is a time line cut off for each?  

I myself like the classical/modern ranking system.  As I have stated in an earlier posting I just dont feel you can compare a course built before the new technology that is available today.  JUST MY OPINION so no one gets offended.

[John Kavanaugh]

1960?

[Tom_Doak]

Kevin T:

I just don't understand your logic.  Do you really feel that modern courses are better because of the "available technology" and that the classic courses need to be separated so they can get their fair share?  If so, you're in the minority, because in a fair fight the old courses consistently place bigger numbers among the combined top 100.

[Dan Herrmann]

Kevin T..

I'm with Tom Doak on this one...

Look at some of the as-built drawings done by Flynn and they're aren't all that different than what's being produced today.  Yes, the construction techniques are different, the end product is either great or not, regardless of era.  Take the Old Course - it is great.  Jump to this decade.  Pacific Dunes - tons of CAD available.  GPS, fancy bulldozers and the like, and it too is great.

I know I'm not saying it as well as I could, but I think you know what I mean

And, please, GCA.com is a place to express opinion and learn from others.  Please continue to express yourself, read what others have to say, and grow in your love of golf course architecture.

We're very happy you're here!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I like the bifurcation of the rankings because of the legal, permiting and environment constraints placed on modern golf courses.

While that may create a lack of movement amongst the classic courses, I think it's a reasonable distinction.

[Andy Troeger]

Personally I like including everything on one list. The more variables you put into a list, the more diluted the results. Its kind of like class sports; there are more winners, but if you're trying to rank something my personal preference is to have a list of the best...period.

Golf's playing fields vary greatly, but the objective on all of them is the same in terms of getting the ball into the hole. Hence, I don't see the need for modern/classic. The Kingsley Club has been called a modern Crystal Downs. There's more similarity in design than separation by age to me. JMO.

The one exception to this: subcategories are useful if they have to utility to them. The state lists, and especially GolfWeek's public state lists, help golfers find courses they can actually play in their areas or places they are visiting.

I'm guessing I'm probably going to be outnumbered on this one at least on this board, but just throwing it out there for discussion.

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrck brings up a very good point I hadn't though about.

If my club were built in 1920, Hanse would have probably just filled in the wetlands leaving only French Creek itself as a hazard.  2002-era regulations actually consider the creek as a navigable waterway of the US and subject (I think) to Army Corps of Engineers oversight.  Not to mention the restrictions from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I'm definitely an environmentalist, but I'd love to see what would've been produced in an era with significantly less restrictive environmental laws.

[kevinT]

Tom,

I don't feel that modern is always better because of technology but I feel there should be a seperation.  Not for a fair share for the old, but an appreciation for how much tougher I feel it was to build then than today.  Again, I am going back to my car analogy, is the Model T better than the Ford Explorer???  Don't take this the wrong way, I am not totally saying it is better because it is newer, it is you learned your mistaked along the way and built a better mouse trap.  You used someone elses ideas and mistakes and gains and one up'ed it.  

I like the rankings all together but I feel there is much more merit when you compare apples to apples and not apples ot oranges.  MY OPINION!

[Andy Troeger]

Well we've already had points made on why it was harder to build courses in the classic era, and why its harder to build courses in the modern era...both of which have some validity.

Which comes back to my one list fits all post!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

When you consider that almost all of the classic courses couldn't be built in their original form today, I don't think there's anything near offsetting issues.

In New Jersey, you can't go within 300 feet of a waterway.

Try building Pine Valley, Baltusrol, Plainfield, Hollywood, Ridgewood and Mountain Ridge under those constraints today.

It couldn't be done.

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
You and Kevin and others can argue all you want about constraints on classic courses and modern courses. That's not a debate I care to get into.

If you want to rank something, I think you rank what's actually there. Seeing as the same criteria are used to rate classics and moderns, at least if you lumped them all together if you really wanted you could go down the list and pick the top classics and top moderns and separate them. Once separated, you cannot combine.

[cary lichtenstein]

I would like to see one list of say 150 courses, the 100 is no longer enough and I would prefer to see them integrated rather than 2 separates.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't mind rating in the two categories.  But I wish Golfweek would also have one rating for all courses, that includes both modern and classic.  

[David_Elvins]

Kevin, Pat, Tom,

I think the whole Classical/Modern distinction is flawed.  

Private/Public is a far better distinction although not ideal.  THe best distiction IMO would be "one play"/"repeat play".

The real change in architecture around 1960ish was, not the change in construction equipment but the trend away from private clubs towards building courses that were only designied to be played by players a limited number of times (resort courses and high end public courses).  

These courses lacked subtle strategy, blind shots, intricate green complexes and angles.  THese courses had bold obvious strategies that started at the tee rather than the green -island fairways, risk reward par 5s, etc, - that the player playing the course for the first (and possibly only) time could understand and enjoy.  These courses also had a huge advantage over most classical courses when it came to memorability.  Water carries, dramatic scenery.

In recent years, the trend has gone somewhat back towards more subtle members courses and it seems somewhat silly, if a distinction is to be made somewhere, to compare these course to the public courses of the latter half of the 20th century rather than the similar member courses of the early 20th century which they are designed to compete with in the market.

I would like to see a magasine release rakings based on two categories:
-one play (eg, if you had one round of golf left in the world, where would you want to play)
-repeat play (eg, if you had to play a course every day for the rest of your life, where would it be)

Of course there would be some overlapping in the rankings, but it would do a far better job of comparing apples with apples.  

Failing that, I think that Public/Private is a far better distinction because the architect was generally designing for the same type of play.

[Doug Siebert]

I think the only reason the distinction exists is to placate the membership of older courses which would otherwise mostly slowly drop in the ratings as new courses are built.  Cary wants to combine the lists but expand it to 150, which seems to me to be only for the purpose of insuring that almost all the clubs on the classic list stay on the combined list (which makes me idly curious if he's a member of a club on the second half of the top 100 classics...)  I don't see the point.  If 100 isn't enough, why 150 and not 200 or 500?

I'd put them all in the same list, but only rate courses that have been open for over 10 years.  That will give them time to mature, and time for enough people to have played them more than just once, hopefully in a variety of conditions, so that the ratings are more meaningful.  So Sand Hills would have only recently been rated for the first time, and Sebonack would have to wait almost a decade before it is eligible.

[David_Elvins]

Cary wants to combine the lists but expand it to 150, which seems to me to be only for the purpose of insuring that almost all the clubs on the classic list stay on the combined list (which makes me idly curious if he's a member of a club on the second half of the top 100 classics...)  I don't see the point.  If 100 isn't enough, why 150 and not 200 or 500?

Doug.

I think there is some validity in expanding the list.  As the number of courses in the country grows, it makes sense to expand the list of what is considered elite.    If the number of golf courses has doubled in the last 20 or 30 or 40 years I see no problem with expanding a list of the best courses.  Afterall, the real purpose of the list is for readers to find the best courses to play and as more courses are built there are more courses worth travelling to see.

[Andrew Hastie]

All lists have there flaws, such as not all raters have played all the courses.
But what I don't like is when courses get hyped into lists.
There should be a moratorium of 5 years before a course can officially be rated.Unless of course the list is the best new courses.

This would give all raters a good chance to see the courses before it gets included undeservedly.If a course is good it will get in soon enough.

[Doug Ralston]

I just want the raters to play them, THEN rank them. All with all, or divided by time/place/design type ....... who cares. Just do not pretend because you have not played it, it must be less ...... of because it is 'famous', it must be better.

Play 1st, then rank.

I know raters cannot play all the courses on the planet. So? What does that say about the viability of 'rankings'?

Doug

[Tom_Doak]

Sean A:  Be careful what you wish for.  At one course I visited last year, the professional was trying to convince management to raise the green fees significantly by giving them a list of the top 100 courses with the prices attached, to show that their course was underpriced compared to others of its stature!

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Elvins,

By your two categories, "One Play" and "Every Day Play", NGLA gets both of my votes.

I don't think the line of demarcation is public versus private.
Pebble Beach, Bethpage and many other public courses existed pre 1960.  However, the real estate became so valuable that a great number of those courses were sold for other uses.  Malls, Commercial parks and homes took them over.

If there was one line of demarcation it might be "residential community golf courses"

Many resorts had golf courses attached to them, but, the advent of residential communities with golf courses started to gain a foothold after the 60's, probably in the 70's and early 80's.

Now, there are a great number of them, especially in the Sun Belt states.

 

[Jerry Kluger]

I like the separation because it makes it easier - I think it is just too tough to compare the best modern with the best classical - let's say Sand Hills v. Pine Valley or say Bandon Dunes vs CPC.  They're so good that anything that makes it easier to recognize both is okay with me.

Other point I would make is that I would publish my ratings alphabetically - even if in groups of 25 - the difference between them is so slight that to rank them without the understanding that they are so close, for me, is better to do without. I know that Golfweek gives the actual numbers which explains how close they are but the difference is almost indistinguishable. The courses that care could say that they are in the top 100 modern courses in the US - end of story - does it really matter that they are number 36 or 77?  

[Doug Siebert]

Do you really believe that the actual ratings would be kept secret?  Not a chance, there would be a leak and courses would still find out they are 37 or 66.  Hell, ANGC couldn't even keep their membership list secret.  I'd fully expect that the first alphabetized list that was done would have the actual order of rankings and scores leaked on GCA and there would be a 12 page thread discussing it, plus a 20 page OT thread spawned from that on the ethics of posting it here when it was not supposed to be public knowledge!

If they were kept secret, it would be all that much more of a blow to the course that was 49th and got bumped a few places to make room for new courses that it appeared in the next group.

I'd expect courses would start advertising they are in the second quarter of the best 100 modern if they couldn't advertise 37th.  Do the guys who are 37 now only advertise they are in the list, or do they actually advertise their place?  I'll bet just about every course in the top 50 that advertises that fact at all mentions the place.  Its the courses that are 85th that will just say they are top 100 and leave it like that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()