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.


Matt_Ward

Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« on: June 13, 2008, 10:05:59 AM »
Was wondering if people had questions / comments on the latest Golf Mag USA and world ratings.

Seems like a few omissions from the USA side with a few layouts I could certainly mention.

Be interested in the comments of others ...

Jim Nugent

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2008, 12:38:28 PM »
A few observations:

Doak now has 4 in the world top 100.  Pacific Dunes (13), Barnbougle (35), Cape Kidnappers (41)  and Ballyneal.  Ballyneal debuted at 82 on the world list, and at 46 on the U.S. list.  Sebonack debuted at 76 on the U.S. list.   

More than half of all raters who voted for Pine Valley and CPC say both courses are in the world's top three.   That puts them far ahead of all other courses, including TOC. 

North Berwick, Swinley Forest and Machrihanish all cracked the world top 100.  So diod Nanea, which is ranked just a little higher than Ballyneal on the U.S. and world lists. 

Friar's Head leaped to 33rd in the world, up from 74. 

Torrey Pines is rated 74 in the U.S.  That is above Sebonack, Crooked Stick, The Creek Club, Myopia Hunt and Yale.

Bellerive, at U.S. 91 (!?), is moving up the list.   

The course rated 100 on the U.S. list has a score that probably puts it 150 or so in the world.   

Banff did not make the world 100 list.  Neither did Jasper Park.

GM says Erin Hills is a good bet to make the next world list.     

Breakdown of number of courses by country in world top 100:

52.....U.S.
11.....Scotland
10.....England
 6.....Australia
 4.....Ireland
 4.....Japan
 3.....Canada
 2.....N. Ireland
 2.....New Zealand
 1.....South Africa, Mexico, Spain, S. Korea, Dominican Republic, France






Tom Huckaby

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2008, 12:51:06 PM »
Can someone give a link to the ratings?  All I can find is what was done in Sep 2007.  These can't be the latest to which Matt refers... can they?

TH

Jimmy Muratt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2008, 01:46:34 PM »
I believe they're referring to the list which came out in Summer of 2007.

Link to the US List:
http://search.golf.com/top-courses-and-resorts/top-100-us-courses-2007.html

Tom Huckaby

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2008, 01:51:55 PM »
Jimmy - thanks, but I found those lists.  It just seems very weird to me that Matt would want to discuss these now, at least 9 months after they first came out.  I have to believe they were rather dissected back then.

Strange....

TH


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2008, 02:16:24 PM »
9 months? Try nine years on the last editions of... "As the tooth gets pulled".

Take a week to find out Matt wants to share with the group.

Yeah Matt, I don't have to participate but please admit that your first post is seriously lacking of any information AND you didn't include your own comments. Why's that?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2008, 01:30:56 AM »
I suspect Matt was in bed, put his hand down in the "stack of unread stuff" and pulled out on old issue of GM, fell asleeep and then made this post in the am before the cobwebs cleared and went to work never looking back.

We'll hear from him over the weekend...
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

Doug Ralston

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2008, 08:09:37 AM »
Isn't this the list that left Victoria National completely out of Top 100?

Doug

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2008, 11:22:20 AM »
Isn't this the list that left Victoria National completely out of Top 100?

Doug

Doug, sorry, I haven't been around a lot lately. Is this post a dig, or a material point?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Doug Ralston

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2008, 12:51:42 PM »
Joe;

No, not a dig, a surprise. VN has been around the Top 25 so long in every magazine's rankings [to my admittedly uncertain recollection]. How could it drop completely out? Something happen at VN that I am unaware of? Did raters hold JK against them  ;)?

Doug

Matt_Ward

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2008, 01:09:41 PM »
My main comments echo on what Jim N mentiond. Torrey Pines cannot be possibly rated especially if other more quality oriented layouts like Black Mesa are omitted. I mean to see Torrey ahead of Sebonack is outright laughable !

Also, have to wonder how Baltusrol / Lower continues to be rated among the top 30 courses in the USA when I never hear anyone say glowing things about the course. Baltusrol / Upper is fine layout but it's not top 100 in the USA.

Ditto the comments made about Bellerive.

In sum, the listing is overly predictable with the same assemblage of key private clubs. Looks like the Golf Mag panel really needs to see propsects that are a bit off the same tired trail from years ago.

p.s. Adam, when did you play the role of father figure here on GCA. I simply asked how people felt about the results since little was said when they came out several months ago.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2008, 03:19:30 PM »
Matt, pretty much all of your comments are explained simply by three factors:

1.  Lots of panelists are mesmerized by past championship history of any kind;

2.  You have Black Mesa rated higher than anyone else in the U.S. -- it's good, but it is not one of the top 30 courses in the U.S.; and

3.  Rees Jones casts a strong vote for all of the courses he's renovated.


And Doug, I'm not sure of it since I really don't care one way or another, but I don't think Victoria National has ever been in the GOLF Magazine rankings -- GOLF DIGEST has it rated highly but not GOLF.  I'm not even sure there have been enough GOLF Magazine panelists there to rate it -- I've seen it myself but not played it, so I couldn't cast a vote, but it wouldn't make my top 30 either.

Matt_Ward

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2008, 03:46:43 PM »
Tom:

Thanks for your comments.

I do agree with much of what you said, plus the following ...

Golf Magazine's panel is nothing more than well-connected folks who play way too much golf at the most exclusive of clubs. Hence, in their mind, the "exclusive" factor weighs with them as being compelling architecture. Plenty of new courses have opened in the last 15-20 years worthy of increased exposure and attention.

For example, on just the Tom Fazio scene alone -- there is Shadow Creek, Wade Hampton, World Woods / Pine Barrens, and Black Diamond among his personal top five. Where is Galloway National? Karsten Creek? Glenwild in UT? The same can be said for plenty of other situations.

One other thing -- I never said Black Mesa is among the top 30 courses in the USA. I did say, given the list Golf Magazine provided, that Black Mesa is worthy of top 100 status. Part of the issue, as I see it, is that Black Mesa doesn't have a "name" architect atached to its credits as so many do. Too many people automatically presume that only courses with big name designers can be rated in the upper echelon of courses.

I do concur with you on the Rees Jones front in that not every course he has re-touched is worthy of national acclaim.

Some of the more overrated layouts I saw w the Golf Mag poll for top 100 courses in the USA. Just from those listed at #51-100 ...

Wade Hampton - wonderful TF postcard for scenery but lacking on consistency for quality shot values IMHO.

Bandon Trails - Solid effort from C&C although middle section lulls until #14. Benefits from the fanfare of the facility and the first two layouts. Borderline top 100 call that falls outside for me.

Yeamans Hall - Again, good effort for Raynor buffs but there are a few layouts in and around the greater NY and Philadelphia areas that could easily surpass what you see there and they play at roughly the same length.

Kittansett - Quality layout and unique location but I don't see the consistency for hole quality throughout the entire round.

Baltusrol / Upper - Better than its big brother layout but still lacking in my mind. Tillie did better but the Baltusrol brand name weighs heavy for many people.

Interlachen - The Baltusrol of the Minnesota area. Plenty of "tradition" but I see the course as a celebratory effort of the past more than the present / future.

Torrey Pines / South - For anyone to believe this is one of America's top 100 courses they must be in serious need in playign more quality courses. How the layout rates ahead of Sebonack, as I mentioned previously, is truly laughable.

Double Eagle - Gets mileage from being in the greater Columbus area and for the top turf conditions that are among the 9-10 best in the USA. Don't see the compelling architecture dimension though worthy of national acclaim.

There are a number of others but time doesn't permit at this moment to add them. Suffice to say, the Golf Mag poll needs some real homework assignments because it relies upon a narrow band of the same tired layouts that have hung around because they are well known, have a local following and are tied to the game's past. Not all the choices are in error for me -- salute them for including the likes of Myopia Hunt and Newport, to name just two.

Kudos to the panel for pushing high the likes of Ballyneal and I say that irrespective of the Doak connection there.

Matthew Hunt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2008, 05:25:12 PM »
Tom, when I did the ratings thread on this site did you not say that you moved them away fron the listing method?

Doug Ralston

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2008, 05:39:03 PM »
Matt, pretty much all of your comments are explained simply by three factors:

1.  Lots of panelists are mesmerized by past championship history of any kind;

2.  You have Black Mesa rated higher than anyone else in the U.S. -- it's good, but it is not one of the top 30 courses in the U.S.; and

3.  Rees Jones casts a strong vote for all of the courses he's renovated.


And Doug, I'm not sure of it since I really don't care one way or another, but I don't think Victoria National has ever been in the GOLF Magazine rankings -- GOLF DIGEST has it rated highly but not GOLF.  I'm not even sure there have been enough GOLF Magazine panelists there to rate it -- I've seen it myself but not played it, so I couldn't cast a vote, but it wouldn't make my top 30 either.

You don't care? Well, of course.

1. I asked about Top 100, not Top 30.

2. Golf Magazine's Top 100, not Tom Doak's.

3. I am certain that Fazio must already have too many, eh?

4. Not much room in the Doak Top 30 ....... how many courses have YOU done now?

5. How dismissive of you, but I was actually hoping to entice an explanation from John.

6. I said I was uncertain which mags.

7. I've been there, pretty damned good, even for a Fazio.  ::)

Doug

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2008, 06:29:37 PM »
Doug:

What's your problem today?  I was only trying to explain that Victoria National is probably not in the GOLF Magazine list because not enough panelists have seen it, but that I hadn't really paid attention to whether it was in or not, because I personally don't care about its ranking (or the ranking of most other courses).  Hell, I don't even remember the results on my own courses anymore, and if you look closely through my web site, the only mention of rankings you'll find is for some of the courses where we consult.

I would only put one or two of my own courses in a top 30, if I had a vote on them.  Fortunately, I'm not alone on those.

Doug Ralston

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2008, 08:23:51 PM »
Tom;

I take your word that you were not being dismissive of Victoria National, but at ratings in general. Still, you actually show more interest than you let on in how courses compare. Or is the 'Doak Scale' related to some other Doak?

As I admit I do not have the experience so many here have enjoyed, I cannot fairly compare 'The Vic' with all those wonderful courses. I will only say it is a hell of a challenge, and exciting design, and makes you want to play again. Thanks again JK for the experience. Hard for me to believe 100 better courses in USA. I sure am missing a lot.

Doug

John Moore II

Re: Comments on Golf Mag's latest ratings ?
« Reply #17 on: June 15, 2008, 01:15:42 AM »
The only thing I can say about any ratings is that they are all subjective, depending on who is giving the individual rating. My Asst. Super have had conversations about Forest Creek (North) and CCNC (Dogwood) and which is better. I say one and he says the other. They are both good courses, he just likes water features and I like natural sandy features. VN may not have had enough raters play, as Tom states, and it may also be that the raters that do play don't like the style of the course.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back