Golfweek's Top 100 Classical

[JESII]

Tough to argue one second of that...
 

[Doug Ralston]

Gents,

...................

Finally, if you live in North Jersey, you can eat anything you want.  The air alone will kill you.

"....................... so he drove her to New Jersey"!

Yes, I've heard that one too. 

Doug

[Dunlop_White]

Sean,

I agree. Naturally, I think Old Town is a better course. Anyway, I'm glad we're getting some fanfare.....just taking baby steps, as they say!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree. Naturally, I think Old Town is a better course. Anyway, I'm glad we're getting some fanfare.....just taking baby steps, as they say!

Dunlop

Why do you spose Old Town doesn't score terribly high on lists - even for NC? 

Ciao

[John Kirk]

Let's see....we have 1, 4, 13, 20, and 31, with a modern #16 thrown in.

If we allow the Phialdelphia man to drive to Southampton or Mamaroneck, you have 2, 3, 5, 7, 17, 19, and 21.  Throw in 28 and 29 for good measure.  OK, you win...I guess.  How long does it actually take to make that three hour drive to Southampton?

Mr. North New Jersey is right of course.  He possesses great wisdom.

Three hours driving from Eugene, Oregon yields a nice list and good variety of modern courses.

Signed,

Still scratching ground, not quite as furiously, pecking at a seed or two, staring blankly at the hen across the barnyard, maybe a couple of "peep"s...

[Tom Huckaby]

John my friend, you're losing the wisdom.  The ONLY question on the table is:  who's #1?

WE ARE!  WE ARE!

Jersey and Philadelphia and New York, read it and weep!

Northern California, home of the nation's greatest golf course.  Nothing else matters.
 

[John Kirk]

Huckaby's first theorem:

"The quality of a region's golf shall be determined by its finest course."

[Mike Sweeney]

Jersey and Philadelphia and New York, read it and weep!

Northern California, home of the nation's greatest golf course.  Nothing else matters.
 

Huck,

As a Philly kid, who grew up at Da Shore and now lives in NYC, we are willing to concede on one condition. You now have to acknowledge that you are no longer the regular guy golfer. You are an in demand Rater for THE GOLF PUBLICATION that drives the market for these types of topics, and that your semi-annual trips with a bunch of Jesuit knuckelheads only qualifies you for a login to BombSquad! 

[Tom Huckaby]

John Kirk:  your wisdom remains pure.  My humble apologies for temporary doubt.

Mike Sweeney:  I can live with that. 
 

[jeffwarne]

John,
If you're going to include Southampton as within range of Philly, why not throw in Augusta as well?

[John Kirk]

I didn't want to throw it in there.  JES II was trying to take ownership of everything in New York and New Jersey as belonging to Philadelphia.

[JESII]

...which was a response to Huckaby running up and down the sidelines, looking like a stone lunatic, with one of those gigantic foam hands with only the index finger extended, yelling SCOREBOARD...SCOREBOARD!

As to the three hour drive...since Gilligan was chirping away about NorCal because of both CPC and Pebble (specifically edging out Oakmont) I made it a regional deal...besides, I first pointed out that PA has 10 in the top 100 while CA has 8...come one! this is Pennsyl...freakin'...tucky...10 - 8...

[JESII]

I think I can get to 31 of them in a 3 hour drive!

[Ian Larson]

... I will admit, when I came out west I did notice how much laid back it was. Im fom State College, Pa. living in the middle of the west side Los Angeles golf course territory. Im always holding these courses up to the bar that the east coast has established. Architecture is international, but greenskeeping and playability is very regional. Not in every case but most....

[Tim Bert]

Most of these courses are just pipe dreams for the average golfer.  The real question I'd like to see you east-west contingencies tackle is which is better for the guy that can only obtain access to the public courses...

Let's hear it - Philly or NorCal?

[Tom Huckaby]

Most of these courses are just pipe dreams for the average golfer.  The real question I'd like to see you east-west contingencies tackle is which is better for the guy that can only obtain access to the public courses...

Let's hear it - Philly or NorCal?

Have to believe we're going to win that unless you add a price cap.  Each of Pebble, Spyglass, Pasatiempo, etc. are all just a matter of money.  Do they have ANY publics that compete with the likes of these?

[Dunlop_White]

Sean,

For years, the general feeling was that Old Town didn't care to be discovered. Our members all knew we had something special but wanted no one to know about us. Tom Doak can go into specifics, but he wasn't allowed on the course when doing The Confidential Guide. He ended up sneaking on at dusk, I think. Probably one of the reasons he grouped us with PV, ANGC, CPGC, Seminole, Chicago, Fishers, etc as one of the "Top 10 Courses Worth Groveling to Play". Our membership is small, so access has always been limited.

Also, some golfers are not comfortable with all the undulations. They are dialed in when playing from flat landing areas and the range but cannot touch it off of our downhill/sidehill lies. Then they may have a putt that boomerangs around 25 feet if they are not on the right side of the pin. Some NC golf panelists refer to it as "monkey golf".  Most others think it is a shotmakers course that becomes more interesting and strategic every time they play it.

[JohnV]

Having just left the Keystone State for the much more pleasurable pastures of the Golden State, I can only say that right now, at this very minute where would you rather be playing golf?  Monterey where it is about 65 degrees and sunny or whatever you've got in Philly or Pittsburgh or anywhere back there?

Case Closed!

It is pretty sad that the guys from PA have to claim a New Jersey club as if it was one of their own.  Poor Jersey, they have a great course and others try to steal it from them.

[jeffwarne]

Here's where these things get murky.

Augusta CC (where I grew up playing) comes in at 95.
Brian Silva renovated the course a few years back to the proposed Donald Ross renovation plans that were never used from 1927.
The course was actually built in 1899 by David Ogilvie.
Meanwhile the course was renovated by whoever else was hot in every era (Nicklaus in the 80's etc.)

But the course in its' Silva scheme is what apparently made it to be good enough for inclusion on the list-it never was before
But the design (other the routing) is certainly post 1950-so which list does it belong on?

And Palmetto, which isn't on the list, can dance circles around all versions

[wsmorrison]

JVB,

We don't have an off season here.   Not everyone can hack it though.  It was 26 degrees out this morning with 30mph winds.  I was playing golf at 9am.  We're just a lot tougher here than the fragile left coasters.  And we have better golf courses.  We don't need no stinkin' oceans 

By the way, Pine Valley was started by Philadelphians, is populated by Philadelphians and is in NJ only because we like to play our golf all year round.  The ground doesn't freeze nor does the snow linger as long in the sandy pine forests of south NJ.   It is a well known fact that south Jersey is really just a fiefdom of Pennsylvania and north Jersey is a fiefdom of New York.  We got the better deal.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

I love how courses like Bethpage, Eastward Ho!, Egineers, etc. don't even scratch these 'Classical' lists, but then once thousands of dollars are paid to, paraphrase Jeff, 'The flavor of the week architect' they all of a sudden pop up.
Now thats not saying their recent renovations or restorations whichever youd like to call them have not improved them, I just think logically it takes away from making a 'classical' list.

Mid Pines hasn't been touched, and is considered a great golf course by some; does this make it a better 'Classical' course than the likes of Baltustrol and Atlantic City CC which have changed so much throughout the years.

Should Friars Head or Pacifc Dunes be on the 'Classical' list because its considered 'Classical' Architecture?

[Tom_Doak]

Dunlop:

That is true -- when I went into the pro shop and asked if it was okay to have a look around Old Town, on Jim Urbina's recommendation, they told me no.

Luckily, I had already gone out and walked the front nine before I asked.    I have never been back, because I've never been back to Winston-Salem, but I hope to get there someday.

[Tom_Doak]

And, Mike Sweeney makes a VERY good point.  It seems like a high-profile "restoration" is a prerequisite for an overlooked course to crack into the GOLFWEEK classic list.  The panelists are apparently too dumb to just discover one without some modern p.r. work.

[* Well, maybe I have to take that back, Old Town cracked this year's list without spending a lot of money on the place.]

In actuality, very few of these million-dollar restorations have made any difference on the Doak scale rating of a course.  If the course was teetering between a 6 and a 7, maybe the restoration gets it over the hump, but that's all.  If the bone structure of the routing and the greens isn't there already, a restoration won't accomplish much, yet GOLFWEEK and now GOLF DIGEST (with their "Best Remodeling" category) treat this work like it's a huge deal.

Of all the courses we have worked on [which includes about a dozen of the top 100 Classical courses], the only ones I think we've improved on the Doak scale were Yeamans Hall, where we recreated the original greens from a messed-up shadow of their former selves, and Atlantic City, whose previous version was too flat and went underwater every spring.  (I don't really think my changes to the routing were a big plus OR minus.)  My favorite ranking this year is San Francisco Golf Club -- rebuilt all the greens four years ago, restored the original routing of three holes two years ago, and it's moved from 13th to 13th to 13th. 

[Sean_A]

Sean,

For years, the general feeling was that Old Town didn't care to be discovered. Our members all knew we had something special but wanted no one to know about us. Tom Doak can go into specifics, but he wasn't allowed on the course when doing The Confidential Guide. He ended up sneaking on at dusk, I think. Probably one of the reasons he grouped us with PV, ANGC, CPGC, Seminole, Chicago, Fishers, etc as one of the "Top 10 Courses Worth Groveling to Play". Our membership is small, so access has always been limited.

Also, some golfers are not comfortable with all the undulations. They are dialed in when playing from flat landing areas and the range but cannot touch it off of our downhill/sidehill lies. Then they may have a putt that boomerangs around 25 feet if they are not on the right side of the pin. Some NC golf panelists refer to it as "monkey golf".  Most others think it is a shotmakers course that becomes more interesting and strategic every time they play it.

Dunlop

Its a pity because the undulations and how fairways work with greens are what make the course great.  I can imagine Old Town being very tough when its keen, but it isn't long.  Its just a shame that some of the fronts to the greens aren't a bit lower to receive kick in shots better.  This was the only thing about the course that I found frustrating, but it may be that if the course was running quicker then shots would kick up. 

Ciao 

[C. Squier]

And, Mike Sweeney makes a VERY good point.  It seems like a high-profile "restoration" is a prerequisite for an overlooked course to crack into the GOLFWEEK classic list.  The panelists are apparently too dumb to just discover one without some modern p.r. work.

[* Well, maybe I have to take that back, Old Town cracked this year's list without spending a lot of money on the place.]

In actuality, very few of these million-dollar restorations have made any difference on the Doak scale rating of a course.  If the course was teetering between a 6 and a 7, maybe the restoration gets it over the hump, but that's all.  If the bone structure of the routing and the greens isn't there already, a restoration won't accomplish much, yet GOLFWEEK and now GOLF DIGEST (with their "Best Remodeling" category) treat this work like it's a huge deal.

So The Doak Scale will score a course that has lost sq footage on its greens, traps lost to time/erosion and overgrown/added tree work the same as the if all of those layers are peeled back by a restoration?  A true restoration, not a "renoration".  Akin to a classical painting that's been holed up in an attic that has all the dust and grime taken off by a professional....but no new brush strokes.

Is there a distinction between what IS there and what COULD be there?  Sounds like the DS scores on the latter.  

CPS