[Steve Lapper]

Heaven forbid !

Must be the "end-of-the-world as we know it"!

Mucci is NEVER wrong...just ask him!

 

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Did anyone see Geoff Shackelford's blog entry on why Architects shouldn't be able to rate courses? Kind of a lame argument based on a seemingly humorous/sarcastic remark made by Tom Doak.

Is This Why Architects Should Not Be On Course Ranking Panels?

The same can be said for Herb Kohler.  I'm sure he didn't rank Pebble, Kiawah, Bandon or Pinehurst above Whistling Straits...

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Be curious to know what you see as the top ten layouts in NJ.

I'll be happy to include mine as well.

Thanks ...


Steve:

The issue on the par-3 front / re: Forsgate v SH -- is the RANGE AND TOTALITY of all four holes at Banks Course versus the Bernardsville layout.

SH gets way too many brownie points because of where it's located -- place it somewhere else and its perch would be far down the tree than where it is now.

Forsgate takes it on the chin because of location -- far enough away from Philadelphia and an equal distance from the immediate NYC metro area.

One other thing -- the final hole at the Banks is no less of vintage quality to what you get with the closer at MR. The added length has made the hole even better and in tune with what was originally intended.

We agree on all other matters ...

[Steve Lapper]

Mike C:

Be curious to know what you see as the top ten layouts in NJ.

I'll be happy to include mine as well.

Thanks ...

Matt:

I don't want some Pennsy dude, still dressed like he's at a 50's sock-hop in Doylestown, telling me what he thinks of NJ courses. A guy like him is more likely to be impressed by the size of super's backroom laboratory than by the routing! Who cares?..... grumble, grumble

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt:

I don't want some Pennsy dude, still dressed like he's at a 50's sock-hop in Doylestown, telling me what he thinks of NJ courses. A guy like him is more likely to be impressed by the size of super's backroom laboratory than by the routing! Who cares?..... grumble, grumble

 

Steve,

Ahhh...that's better.   Now I feel the love.  

Matt,

There are still too many classic contenders I haven't played in NJ like Somerset Hills, Mountain Ridge, and Essex County (although I've walked it), as well as newcomers like Bayonne and Liberty National to give you anything that I'd feel comfortable defining as my definitive Top 10.

I will say that of those I've played, Plainfield is my second favorite, although I scratch my head at how I can still give it more love than Ridge At Back Brook, TPC Jasna Polana, and Shadow Isle.  

 

[JSlonis]

Matt,

I played Plainfield last month during the NJ Open.  It was playing firm and fast in 95+* heat.  Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the golf course but there were a few holes that I didn't care for.  

I thought #4 was an odd short par 4.  With the huge hill, I thought driver from the tee was the only option, as anything less than a 240-250 yard uphill tee shot would cause the ball to run back down the hill 50-70 yards leaving a long, blind uphill approach on a very short hole.  And with driver off the tee, the slope of the fairway over the crest of the hill funnelled the majority of tee shots into the high right rough 40-70 yards from the green.

#8 has a big tree over the top of the hill on the right, at the end of the driver landing area that really makes the hole awkward.  If the player is long enough and skilled enough to carry the crest of the hill on his drive, the ball can't be anywhere but in the left edge or left center of the fairway to hit the green in two.  It is such a short par 5, that the tree is the only defense against a longer hitter.  If you did hit the tee shot up top and on the right side, you now have to hit a short iron/wedge 2nd shot followed by the same club for the 3rd.  I thought it was a cheap way to defend the hole.  For me, it would play better if the tees were moved up, the tree removed, and have it play as an outstanding long par 4.  The hole doesn't reward a great drive.  I played with a couple guys that couldn't drive the ball up top, so to them, the tree would never really be an issue, because the hole would always be a 3 shotter, even though it is relatively short.

With firm conditions, I didn't care for the tee shots on both 17 & 18.  18 more so than 17.  I understand that #18 was not originally the closing hole, but that doesn't change the fact that you have a right to left dogleg with a small pond on the corner with trees behind that, and then a fairway that slopes away from you.  I hit my hybrid 2 iron over the trees on the inside of the dogleg, only to have the ball hit in the left side of the fairway and bound into the edge of the right rough.  There were a couple of other options, but both of them weren't great either.  Bomb driver somwhere farther up the hole to the left and hope for a good lie or lay back to 160-170 yards, leaving a long uphill approach to a difficult green.  I don't like laying up to a long yardage on such a short hole.  I would describe that hole as awkward to me.

As for Mountain Ridge, I'm not the only person I know who holds it in such high regard.  There are several guys that played Mountain Ridge in the NJ Am a couple of years ago as well as in this year's Compher Cup who also played the NJ Open at Plainfield and they had similar views to mine regarding both courses.  I jusy don't see the overwhelming superiority of Plainfield compared to Mountain Ridge.

As for Somerset Hills, the course is a blast to play, but modern technology has really hurt the course.  For a good amateur player with top level driver distance, there really isn't a par 5 on the golf course that can't be reached with an iron, some even a mid-short iron.  Except for a lack of distance, the course offers so many other great architectural features that it remains one of the higher ranked courses.  

[Anthony_Nysse]

Has anyone noticed that Kinloch Golf Club in Virginia, has been left aff this list? I'm calling for a recount! Amazing.....

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Matt_Ward]

JSlonis:

Appreciate the detailed comments. A few retorts from my side of the aisle ...

I'll repeat this again -- you need to see what Essex County is like today -- since the Bahto / Hanse improvements.

Ditto on Montclair GC (#2 + #4 nines by Ross & Banks respectively). The toughest short course in NJ -- under 6,600 yards from the tip of tips. What about the pedigree of the course? Hosted the '85 US Amateur and routinely took on the top players for US Open Sectionals and no one was lower than 135 for 36 holes. I get a good chuckle when people wax on about SH but somehow have amnesia when it comes to other Garden State layouts.

SH benefits from having a tony address and the appropriate "connected" people playing there (e.g. USGA, et al). There are a number of so-so holes (I'm being quite kind). You hit the nail on the head -- no par-5's to speak about and let's not forget the lame closing hole shall we.

In regards to Plainfield -- no reason to bomb driver over the corner of #18 -- the smart play is to hit out right and leave no more than 150 into the green. If Tiger can follow such a strategy at SH no reason why others can't copy him on Plainfield's closing hole.

In regards to #4 I disagree with you. Plenty of space to lay-up for the short pitch. You only hit driver there if you can reach the greenside bunkers.

I agree with you in regards to the tree on #8 (should be taken down), but for all the bitching and moaning that people bark about on that hole -- the reality is that for players to reap the reward of a short 2nd shot they need to demonstrate the capability in overcoming the risk such a drive entails. Keep in mind this - the "effective" yardage of the hole is much longer than the "listed" distance mentioned on the scorecard. When good players see 490 yards / par-5 they feel entitled to make a birdie when a good bit more work is required on that hole.

Final item -- MR has done well in rejuvenating itself. Kudos to the club on that end. But, I'll say this again -- MR would be hard pressed to make my listing of Jersey's ten best -- and Plainfield is solidly embedded in the #2 position.

P.S. One other thing -- play the Banks Course at Forsgate if you have not played it recently. Upgrades have been made there too.

[JSlonis]

Matt,

Thanks for yout thoughts.

I'd like to see Essex CCC again.  I played it a while ago, and I really liked it again.  I remember the back nine being fantastic.

As for #18 at Plainfield, I agree that you don't need driver, I can hit it over the corner with just a 2 iron, but with firm conditions and the slope of the fairway, it becomes an odd tee shot.  If the only prudent play is to lay up to 150 yards on a 340 yard hole, I find that to be an awkward hole.

On #4, most guys in the field from the back tee need to hit driver to get it to the top of the hill.  You just can't risk mis-hitting a 3 wood and have the ball roll back 60 yards toward you.  With firm conditions, there is not much effective room to place a tee shot.

We can agree to disagree.  Any top 10 list of NJ courses IMO would have to include Mountain Ridge.  I have not played 10 better that I'd place above it.

[Jim Nugent]

The real issue for ratings can easily be tested by asking those doing the assessments -- the raters -- how much do they really travel during any year and how many courses do they play that falls outside an immediate area of 100 miles from where they live?

To be a bonafide national rater you need to travel nationally in order to provide comprehensive cross comparison assessments.

I'm harping on this, but Matt is right and it's the critical flaw in GM's rating system.  

Courses get points on how good they are compared to other courses.  How can the raters say a course is in the top three, or ten, or whatever -- unless they have played all the courses under consideration?  

If I haven't played CPC and Pine Valley, e.g., how can I say Shinnecock is in the top three?  

If I haven't played NGLA or Crystal Downs, how can I put Oakmont in the top ten?  

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The "experts" get it wrong because the fundamental make-up of a number of the large grouping of panelists is too often weighed with homers and those geared towards more of a specific localized preference.

I live in the greater NYC metro area and no doubt there are a number of superb courses -- some worthy of national acclaim. However, the sheer tendency for people is to cherry pick the same courses year after year and the same votes invariably happen for the same courses. Unless something dramatically happens -- terrible conditioning -- a botched upgrade / restoration job -- the likelihood of a facility dropping out is fairly unlikely. Just take a look at the top 50 in most ratings and its fairly stratified.

People who travel frequently and those not predisposed to being a "homer" will see the expansion of a number of relatively new courses that have really stepped out in a big time way.

I'm not suggesting that a complete top-to-bottom is needed but clearly there has been an infusion of a number of outstanding new courses in the last 10-15 years that are worthy of national consideration. I too like classic courses but quite few of the ones that are rated do nothing for me except glom onto the rightful fanfare of their more legitimate neighbors.

A well traveled person -- with the wherewithal for cross comparison analysis -- should be able to unearth the frauds from the first rate layouts.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Nugent:

If you have only played one of the top three courses in the world, you should only vote for one course in the top three -- whether it's the one that's already rated there, or one that you like better.  It's not that hard to figure out.  Some people do vote for two or three even if they've only played one; that's human nature, most people are optimistic.

By the way, I would bet that 90% of the GOLF Magazine panelists have seen at least eight of the top ten courses on the list.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim Nugent:

If you have only played one of the top three courses in the world, you should only vote for one course in the top three -- whether it's the one that's already rated there, or one that you like better.  It's not that hard to figure out.  Some people do vote for two or three even if they've only played one; that's human nature, most people are optimistic.

By the way, I would bet that 90% of the GOLF Magazine panelists have seen at least eight of the top ten courses on the list.

Tom, you can't say any course is top 3, if you haven't played/seen even one other course that might rate that high.  That one course might bump out one of your current top 3.  It might change your lineup.  

e.g. say I've played ANGC, Pebble, Pine Valley, Oakmont, Crystal Downs, Sand Hills, and Seminole.  I rate Pebble among the top 3 in the U.S., and give it 10 points.  My ratings are flawed.  I haven't played CPC or Shinnecock Hills.  If I had, my top three might be CPC, PV, and Shinnie.  Pebble might not make the top 3 at all.  

Giving courses absolute scores, instead of relative ones, solves this problem.  Of course like art and music, the whole thing is subjective.  

Your hunch, that most raters have seen most top courses, is good and bad.  Good that most of the raters have more experience than in my example above.  Bad that few have seen all the top courses.  Sort of like someone who says the best three living golf architects are Jack Nicklaus, Pete Dye and Tom Fazio -- but that person has never seen a Doak course.  

Ironic that you are taking the opposite side of this argument, because I suspect you and some of the other archies on the board here suffer from this very problem.  

[Anthony Butler]

I noticed that the links were posted.

GOLF Magazine's Top 100 Courses in the World

GOLF Magazine's Top 100 Courses in the U.S.

OVERATED:

THE COUNTRY CLUB--- I hope this course is not being rated as the "Championship Course" since Royal Mebourne is being rated separately. Nevertheless there are at least 25 courses in the US both on and off the list that beat it easily.... apart from the fact Francis Ouimet won a golf tournament there about 100 years ago.

Medinah No 3. NFW it's a better golf experience than Quaker Ridge, Congressional, Spyglass, Valley Club and probably about two dozen others below it on the list.

Myopia Hunt Club-Yes, it's very scenic and cute, but not even the 2nd best course in Essex County.

Loch Lomond-Seriously....

I have a funny feeling that the European Club does not belong on the Top 100 world list either... this will be confirmed by next May. For an Irish course the name itself is irritating!
 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  I'll politely disagree with your logic about relative rankings.  Take it a step further, and you'll tell me that I can't pick a top three unless I have seen every golf course in the world (because any of them MIGHT make my top three if I'm open minded).  And, as you know, there is no such thing as an "absolute score" for any part of golf architecture other than total yardage ... even the Doak scale depends on rating an "8" by where a course fits in with the other 7's, 8's, and 9's.

[Adam Clayman]

Anthony Butler-

 Do these lists rate the experience or the golf course? Surely they are not one in the same?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim:  I'll politely disagree with your logic about relative rankings.  Take it a step further, and you'll tell me that I can't pick a top three unless I have seen every golf course in the world (because any of them MIGHT make my top three if I'm open minded).  And, as you know, there is no such thing as an "absolute score" for any part of golf architecture other than total yardage ... even the Doak scale depends on rating an "8" by where a course fits in with the other 7's, 8's, and 9's.

Tom, I think if a rater hasn't seen all the courses that reasonably are in contention, the relative rankings don't work well.  Your hunch is that most of the raters have seen at least 8 of the top 10.  That is good.  But what if they haven't seen Pine Valley and CPC?  Seems to me his top 3 rankings are just a little suspect.  

I again bring up my gca analogy.  Suppose an architecture critic says the three best living archies are Jack, Fazio and Pete Dye -- yet he hasn't seen your work?  

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

If somebody hasn't seen my work, then they can't rate it, and the other panelists' votes will have to place me relative to Dye, Fazio and Nicklaus.  

These courses are ranked by the AVERAGE vote they receive.  If some panelists are optimistic then they help all of the courses they've seen, but it's only a little bit of a bump.  Pacific Dunes is doing just fine even though only maybe 40-50% of the panel (a guess) has been there.

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony Butler-

 Do these lists rate the experience or the golf course? Surely they are not one in the same?

I would rate the 'ambience' at both The Country Club and Myopia as tippity top. After all, whereabouts in one North Eastern city can you visit Hamilton B Hearst's fantasy of life before desegegration (TCC) and also see golf and riding being practiced in the same view with a distant possibility of John Updike strolling into the picture (MHC)? As 'charming' as someone might find those possibilities, I don't believe the golf matches up to the prospective ratings of either course.

In the case of Medinah, the property is located on a particularly ordinary piece of land that no-one has done anything special with. From the air, the only noticeable thing about Medinah is that very strange looking mosque-like clubhouse 25 miles from downtown Chicago. Some of the midwest parkland courses all suffer from the fact they are not sited on unique or spectacular plots of land. Their 'toughness" and their willingness to host majors results in them being ranked a little higher than many of them deserve.

I have only played on the east coast of Ireland, but after May next year I have a funny feeling that the European Club is going to be WAY outside the best five courses in Ireland based on the extensive feedback I have already received from friends and family.

So in answer to your question Adam, obviously the experience plays into everyone's perception of quality. I think I have done a reasonably good job of separating those experiences (good or bad) in my own rankings. At the same time, you can't stand on a property like Pebble Beach, CPC, NSW, Royal County Down etc... without being influenced by what your senses are telling you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()