News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John Handley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #50 on: August 12, 2008, 11:56:21 PM »
As someone who works for the Sports Illustrated GOLF Group (publishers of Sports Illustrated and GOLF Magazine and respective websites), I don't feel the powers that be would be too upset for someone posting their TOP 100 You Can Play list for the enjoyment of the group.  After all, once it is printed, it is public information.  Hopefully those on this board are avid golfers who enjoy a good read for more than a list.  GOLF Magazine and it's editorial team would probably welcome the input from a few people on this board.
2024 Line Up: Spanish Oaks GC, Cal Club, Cherokee Plantation, Huntercombe, West Sussex, Hankley Common, Royal St. Georges, Sunningdale New & Old, CC of the Rockies, Royal Lytham, Royal Birkdale, Formby, Royal Liverpool, Swinley Forest, St. George's Hill, Berkshire Red, Walton Heath Old, Austin GC

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2008, 12:00:17 AM »
As someone who works for the Sports Illustrated GOLF Group (publishers of Sports Illustrated and GOLF Magazine and respective websites), I don't feel the powers that be would be too upset for someone posting their TOP 100 You Can Play list for the enjoyment of the group.  After all, once it is printed, it is public information.  Hopefully those on this board are avid golfers who enjoy a good read for more than a list.  GOLF Magazine and it's editorial team would probably welcome the input from a few people on this board.

Then by all means, share it with us.

John Handley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2008, 12:09:15 AM »
I'd be happy to once I get to the office tomorrow.   ;D
2024 Line Up: Spanish Oaks GC, Cal Club, Cherokee Plantation, Huntercombe, West Sussex, Hankley Common, Royal St. Georges, Sunningdale New & Old, CC of the Rockies, Royal Lytham, Royal Birkdale, Formby, Royal Liverpool, Swinley Forest, St. George's Hill, Berkshire Red, Walton Heath Old, Austin GC

Andy Troeger

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2008, 08:10:09 AM »
Andy--plus, certain items are personal preference anyway. Stuff like course conditions are personal for sure. Those depend really on how much a person really knows about turf. Someone who is or used to be a superintendent will likely rate course conditions far different than a normal rater, no matter how 'educated' that person may be, the super simply knows different things to look for. Not to mention, someone may rate the conditions at ANGC not great simply because they don't like those types of conditions and much prefer the 'burnt out' style of Scotland. Just another reason rankings can be looked at kind of ho-hum.

You make fair points about condition, although I think that's one of the least biased categories in most of the systems. Something like aesthetics is really personal preferences, while everyone might be able to agree on Cypress Point being aesthetically pleasing, you could get a lot of arguments if you took a mountain course, a chop hills course, a dunes course, a parkland course, and a prairie course and asked for aesthetics ratings. I certainly have a preference for mountain scenery. Aesthetics for better or worse can often carry over into other categories too.

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2008, 10:31:57 AM »
Andy--I suppose any of the categories come down to personal preference, or even how someone played that day to a certain point. If a rater is a scratch player (I know one of the scores is based on difficulty for the scratch player) plays a given course and 'feels' like he hit the ball somewhat poorly, but ends up shooting par, he may rate the course to be not overly difficult and not have a large amount of 'resistance to scoring,' even if the course he played that day was Pine Valley or Pinehurst #2. And on the other side, if he 'feels' like he played well, but shot 80, he may say that course was insanely hard, 9.85 hard, even if he just played Pinehurst #3 (the members course at the Resort, about 5700 yards long). Now I don't know if that really happens, but it may. And the look of a course is certainly preference like you say, and in some ways, course condition may even play into aesthetics. I suppose there really is no 'exact' or 'right' way to do these rankings in all truth.

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2008, 11:01:28 AM »
I'd be happy to once I get to the office tomorrow.   ;D

John,

I'm going to do my good deed for the day and warn you that an individual on this board lost a prestigious position for posting a ranking list prior to a magazine's release.  I don't see the difference between selling something for money or giving it away for prestige.  Please call your legal department before you put your job at risk.  Why would it be alright to post the list on Golfclubatlas when it has not yet been posted on the Golf Magazine web site?  I have to believe there is a financial strategy to the delay in posting on their own site.

You said that once it is published it is public information.  How is that different than a book that is published?  Would you agree that it is criminal to make photocopies of a book like the Confidential guide and sell your real copy on ebay?  Or worse sell photocopies of a book like the Confidential Guide.  I don't get the logic of because something can be bought it is public information.

Do you think the print media is a dying industry? 

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2008, 11:27:08 AM »
Does anyone have a quick list of the ones to drop out?

Top publics for under $100 (according to the top 100 list in the mag), going by the listed higest greens fee:

1.  Paa-Ko Ridge (#28 overall)  $99
2.  Black Mesa (#36)  $82
3.  The Harvester (#49)  $89
4.  Quarry @ Giant's Ridge (#50)  $89
5.  Longaberger (#57)  $99
6.  Wild Horse (#60)  $51
7.  Hawktree (#66)  $82
8.  Grand National GC-Lake (#73)  $79
9.  Lakota Canyon (#75)  $95
10.  Branson Creek (#76)  $99
11.  Weaver Ridge (#78)  $93
12.  Rustic Canyon (#83)  $72
13.  Beechtree (#91)  $95
14.  Grand Bear (#92)  $99
15.  Circling Raven (#93)  $95

Bumping it up to $130 max would pull in Bethpage Black at #5, Linville at #53, Osprey Meadows at #79, Deacon's Lodge at #81, Sunday River at #88, St. Ives-Tullymore at #95, Redlands Mesa at #96, and Pinehills-Nicklaus at #97.

$160 brings in World Woods-PB (#18), Cuscowilla (#22), Caledonia (#25), Bulle Rock (#30), Dancing Rabbit-Azaleas (#32), Taconic (#41), Turning Stone-Shenandoah (#63), Ginn Hammock-Ocean (#74), Belgrade Lakes (#77), The General at Eagle Ridge (#82), and Barefoot-Love (#86).   

So, there are still 66 courses listed whose highest greens fees, are above $160, 77 listed above $130.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

John Handley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #57 on: August 13, 2008, 12:55:43 PM »
"You said that once it is published it is public information.  How is that different than a book that is published?  Would you agree that it is criminal to make photocopies of a book like the Confidential guide and sell your real copy on ebay?  Or worse sell photocopies of a book like the Confidential Guide.  I don't get the logic of because something can be bought it is public information. "

It is a list....a very small portion of what is printed in the magazine.  It would not be posted on this site for sell or profit, merely for discussion by golf enthusiasts, many of whom are probably already magazine subscribers and have seen the list.

As for print dying, it is all relative.  For example, SI's newsstand sales were up for the first six months of 2008.  Many magazines were down, especially women's magazines.  Print is not dying, certain types of print are struggling (ie. daily newspapers).  Daily information can best be served online but weekly, bi-weekly and monthly magazines still have a demand for content.  Quality editorial products like SI and GOLF still have strong demand and people who are passionate about the subject matter.

I am unaware if the list is posted yet on GOLF.com.  So as not to jeopardize my position or offend anyone, I will not post the list.  Just the courses I have personally played.

1. Pacific Dunes
2. Pebble Beach
3. Whistling Straits (Straits)
5. Pinehurst #2
6. Bandon Dunes
7. Bethpage Black
8. Chambers Bay
9. Spyglass Hill
10. TPC Sawgrass
11. Pasatiempo
12. Blackwolf Run (River)
13. Shadow Creek
15. Bandon Trails
17. The Homestead (Cascades)
19. Kapalua Plantation
20. Princeville (Prince)
21. Troon North (Pinnacle)
26. Arcadia Bluffs
31. Bay Harbor (Links/Quarry)
33. Crosswater @ Sunriver
37. PGA West TPC Stadium
38. Pumpkin Ridge Ghost Creek
40. Links at Spanish Bay
45. Troon North (Monument)
46. Cascata
54. Bay Hill
64. Reflection Bay at Lake Las Vegas
68. Whistling Straits (Irish)
70. La Quinta (Mountain)
71. Barton Creek (Fazio Foothills)
80. Broadmoor (East)
87. Grayhawk (Talon)
94. Pinehurst #8


2024 Line Up: Spanish Oaks GC, Cal Club, Cherokee Plantation, Huntercombe, West Sussex, Hankley Common, Royal St. Georges, Sunningdale New & Old, CC of the Rockies, Royal Lytham, Royal Birkdale, Formby, Royal Liverpool, Swinley Forest, St. George's Hill, Berkshire Red, Walton Heath Old, Austin GC

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #58 on: August 13, 2008, 01:09:57 PM »
John Handley--Do you have the best in state lists? If so, could you send the NC list to my personal inbox on this site? It goes with something I posted last night about Southern Pines Golf Club and the 20 best in NC

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #59 on: August 13, 2008, 01:10:37 PM »
Erasing a senior-ish moment  ???
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 01:23:23 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #60 on: August 13, 2008, 01:13:59 PM »
Jim--I think thats the 2006 list  ;D

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #61 on: August 13, 2008, 01:22:15 PM »
OOPS!!, I didn't have my glasses on when I posted it.  ::)

Thanks JKM
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 01:23:49 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tim Book

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #62 on: August 13, 2008, 07:56:01 PM »
Brad,

The courses that fell off from 2006 are the following:

22. Cog Hill No.4
23. Mauna Kea
67. Pine Hill
82. Capital Hill (Judge)
84. Old Works G.C.
85. Cambrian Ridge (Canyon/Sherling)
86. Darkhorse G.C.
91. Sugarloaf
92. Lakewood Shores Resort (The Gailes)
94. Forest Dunes G.C.
100 Gold Mountain Golf Complex

I am deeply concerned that not only do I know that, but also know that I "lost" a net four courses from the 2006 list.  For some of us less connected this list is our 'holy grail'.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #63 on: August 13, 2008, 08:08:58 PM »
Jason--I have not played Tot Hill. I have played Tobacco Road. I have said on here before that I think Southern Pines is better than TR, but I am not sure. Can you PM me the NC list?

--Off hand, I would say that Pinehurst 2, 4, and 8 are better, Tobacco Road (possibly/probably), Pine Needles, Bryan Park (Champions), Tanglewood (Championship), Linville, Grove Park (So I hear, never played) Currituck Club I would say is better (was at one time top 20 in state GD) Duke is better. Those are just places I have played or walked. I hear there are some very good clubs down south of Wilmington in the 'greater Myrtle Beach area.'

Hold on there, Red. I prefer SPCC to Pinehurst 4 & 8, Pine Needles, and Grove Park.  In other words, I prefer it to every course on your list I've played, save #2.

Interesting take.  I think #2, The Road & Pine Needles are better than Southern Pines, but I prefer SP to these.  In a close bid, but finishing 5th for quality is Mid Pines.  I do admit that if Mid Pines were cheaper, it would probably rival SP for my favourite in the area.  What all this means for comparing to all the publics in the state - I don't know, but it was my impression that the general Pinehurst area publics do quite well in listings.  As for Duke, I wouldn't rate that place any better than mediocre at best.  This place along with Bald Head Island are easily the to most disappointing courses I have seen in NC and probably in my life.  For the life of me I can't understand how people think this is in the same league as Michigan for college courses.  Its a night and day deal.

Any data for Michigan?  How did my rave fav Lakewood Shores do?  I have always been very impressed by this place and can't help thinking it should do better on the lists.

Ciao
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 08:13:03 PM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend, Alnmouth & Cruden Bay St Olaf

JWinick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #64 on: August 13, 2008, 08:54:07 PM »
Mauna Kea is closed as the resort was damaged by a severe storm.   They are renovating the golf course so I suspect it will be on the list again.   

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #65 on: August 13, 2008, 09:39:11 PM »
Jason--I have not played Tot Hill. I have played Tobacco Road. I have said on here before that I think Southern Pines is better than TR, but I am not sure. Can you PM me the NC list?

--Off hand, I would say that Pinehurst 2, 4, and 8 are better, Tobacco Road (possibly/probably), Pine Needles, Bryan Park (Champions), Tanglewood (Championship), Linville, Grove Park (So I hear, never played) Currituck Club I would say is better (was at one time top 20 in state GD) Duke is better. Those are just places I have played or walked. I hear there are some very good clubs down south of Wilmington in the 'greater Myrtle Beach area.'

Hold on there, Red. I prefer SPCC to Pinehurst 4 & 8, Pine Needles, and Grove Park.  In other words, I prefer it to every course on your list I've played, save #2.

Interesting take.  I think #2, The Road & Pine Needles are better than Southern Pines, but I prefer SP to these.  In a close bid, but finishing 5th for quality is Mid Pines.  I do admit that if Mid Pines were cheaper, it would probably rival SP for my favourite in the area.  What all this means for comparing to all the publics in the state - I don't know, but it was my impression that the general Pinehurst area publics do quite well in listings.  As for Duke, I wouldn't rate that place any better than mediocre at best.  This place along with Bald Head Island are easily the to most disappointing courses I have seen in NC and probably in my life.  For the life of me I can't understand how people think this is in the same league as Michigan for college courses.  Its a night and day deal.

Any data for Michigan?  How did my rave fav Lakewood Shores do?  I have always been very impressed by this place and can't help thinking it should do better on the lists.

Ciao
Why was Duke that disappointing? I certainly thought it was very good, probably the best around Raleigh/Durham on the public side.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #66 on: August 14, 2008, 06:09:49 AM »
Jason--I have not played Tot Hill. I have played Tobacco Road. I have said on here before that I think Southern Pines is better than TR, but I am not sure. Can you PM me the NC list?

--Off hand, I would say that Pinehurst 2, 4, and 8 are better, Tobacco Road (possibly/probably), Pine Needles, Bryan Park (Champions), Tanglewood (Championship), Linville, Grove Park (So I hear, never played) Currituck Club I would say is better (was at one time top 20 in state GD) Duke is better. Those are just places I have played or walked. I hear there are some very good clubs down south of Wilmington in the 'greater Myrtle Beach area.'

Hold on there, Red. I prefer SPCC to Pinehurst 4 & 8, Pine Needles, and Grove Park.  In other words, I prefer it to every course on your list I've played, save #2.

Interesting take.  I think #2, The Road & Pine Needles are better than Southern Pines, but I prefer SP to these.  In a close bid, but finishing 5th for quality is Mid Pines.  I do admit that if Mid Pines were cheaper, it would probably rival SP for my favourite in the area.  What all this means for comparing to all the publics in the state - I don't know, but it was my impression that the general Pinehurst area publics do quite well in listings.  As for Duke, I wouldn't rate that place any better than mediocre at best.  This place along with Bald Head Island are easily the to most disappointing courses I have seen in NC and probably in my life.  For the life of me I can't understand how people think this is in the same league as Michigan for college courses.  Its a night and day deal.

Any data for Michigan?  How did my rave fav Lakewood Shores do?  I have always been very impressed by this place and can't help thinking it should do better on the lists.

Ciao
Why was Duke that disappointing? I certainly thought it was very good, probably the best around Raleigh/Durham on the public side.

Duke is touted as one of the best college courses in the country.  That places it in good company, but I don't believe Duke can hang with the best. 

1. The course doesn't even have a sniff of a reachable par 4 even from the second set of tees which I think is about 6200 yards (its been a while since I was there).  Yet there are a good handful of driver wedge holes.  One of the best candidates for a drivable hole is #13, but there is so much water about (a pond and two streams) plus the bunkering that there is no point in having a go even if the hole were made shorter.

2. Two par 5s are reachable, but water is directly in front of the greens. 

3. There are about 6 holes with water in play on the approach.  More than a few of these require a direct carry.

4. Many of the green sites didn't match the surrounds very well.  Chipping and putting  sometimes feels dopey because shots can't be read.  Not a bad ploy once in a while, but overdone at Duke.  I think this is what can happen when so much earth is chucked about like is obviously the case at Duke.  I can understand that there are low parts to the course and the greens need to be built up a bit, but a better job should have been done. 

5. There are too many times when I thought I was hitting the same shot.  This may have something to do with softness of the course as the aerial game is how the course was designed to play. 

6. The bunkering is too predictable.  I can recall only four holes with bunkering to one side or the other of the green.  Many low sides of the greens had bunkering which I think was unnecessary.  There are also instances of bunkering between the green and water - just dopey.

7. The 4th is a visual nightmare.  Water all over the place and much of it only penalizes a terrible shot.  There are a few other holes with water around the tees as well.  Generally, I think this is a waste, but in the case of Duke there is so much water its hard to know where it all should go. 

8. There isn't a single incidence on the course where water is used diagonally for a bite off as much as you dare shot.  That is criminal when one considers the amount of water on this course. 

9. While trees aren't really an issue for playability, I don't recall a hole where a dogleg was left open from the tee for a view of the green.  Instead, the player is guided down a road and can't be tempted by a viewing line to the green even if it is a stupid shot. 

I spose in short, the course is one of those stock jobs that really doesn't have any character of its own.  There isn't a lot of clever stuff built in to make me want to revisit.  Not a bad place at all, but I don't have much time for Duke. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend, Alnmouth & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #67 on: August 14, 2008, 10:43:01 AM »
Thanks Tim B.

I lost two as well...Dubsdread and Sugarloaf.

Dubsdread is doing a total reno as well, so they will be back on.

Sugarloaf is questionable for a national top 100 list...
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #68 on: August 14, 2008, 10:51:07 AM »
I bet I have clicked on Golf.com at least 20 times now looking for the updated list.  That must create some kind of revenue stream. 

Tim Book

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #69 on: August 14, 2008, 10:53:08 AM »
I was not disappointed to see Pine Hill fall off.  Without question one of the most difficult courses I have ever played.  With renovations at Cog Hill & Mauna Kea, that makes sense.  I was suprised to see Dark Horse and Forest Dunes fall off.  I played both within the last couple of years and really enjoyed both, especially Dark Horse.

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #70 on: August 14, 2008, 10:59:05 AM »

For some of us less connected this list is our 'holy grail'.


Tim,

What other sources do you use to decide where to play?  When a course appears on this or some other list does it become a "quest"?

Tim Book

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #71 on: August 14, 2008, 11:10:21 AM »
For some reason our golf trip crew decided that the 2002 'Top 100 You Can Play' was our 'quest'.  Our annual trip is based around it and family vacations / 'business trips' are manipulated by it.  We will also refer to any other resources available to fill out our annual roster: Golf Week, Golf Digest, GCA, etc...  We just seem to think that the Golf Magazine public list is a better list of courses.

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #72 on: August 14, 2008, 12:07:52 PM »
I hate to answer like Pat Mucci, since I dislike the way he does it, but you have left me too many statements to comment on, therefore, I must answer like Mr. Mucci

Duke is touted as one of the best college courses in the country.  That places it in good company, but I don't believe Duke can hang with the best. 

I can't really comment on that, I have only played 3 University courses and Duke, IMO, is better than the other two, UNC Finley and Methodist College. I eagerly await the NCSU course to be built.

1. The course doesn't even have a sniff of a reachable par 4 even from the second set of tees which I think is about 6200 yards (its been a while since I was there).  Yet there are a good handful of driver wedge holes.  One of the best candidates for a drivable hole is #13, but there is so much water about (a pond and two streams) plus the bunkering that there is no point in having a go even if the hole were made shorter.


Is the lack of a reachable par 4 really a deal breaker? Oakland Hills is widely regarded as great and it barely has what could be considered a reachable hole (6) and Pinehurst #2 is also considered to be great and only #3 out there can be considered reachable at 327 yards. ANGC does not have a reachable par 4 either, unless you think the 350 yard 3rd is reachable.

2. Two par 5s are reachable, but water is directly in front of the greens. 

13 and 15 at Augusta National come to mind and sound exactly the same as (I think) 7 and 11 at Duke. 13 and 15 at Augusta National are widely regarded as great holes on a great golf course.

3. There are about 6 holes with water in play on the approach.  More than a few of these require a direct carry.

Sounds like Augusta National again. 5 holes with water in play on the approach, 3 requiring direct carry (4 if you count 16, I don't)

4. Many of the green sites didn't match the surrounds very well.  Chipping and putting  sometimes feels dopey because shots can't be read.  Not a bad ploy once in a while, but overdone at Duke.  I think this is what can happen when so much earth is chucked about like is obviously the case at Duke.  I can understand that there are low parts to the course and the greens need to be built up a bit, but a better job should have been done. 

I guess we just disagree here, I thought, for the most part, the greens fit in quite well. I especially liked #7 with the way it was situated on the side of the hill and with the amount of internal contour in the green itself.

5. There are too many times when I thought I was hitting the same shot.  This may have something to do with softness of the course as the aerial game is how the course was designed to play. 

I played in winter, that may affect things a bit. But I recall using every club in the bag for all types of shots. I had 3 wood into a par 4 (#1, it was playing into a stiff wind), I had 3 iron into a par 5 (#9), I hit anywhere from 8 iron up to 2 iron into the par 3's, and used nearly every club in between for approaches to the par 4's and 5's. I do need to get back and play when the course is in excellent shape though.

6. The bunkering is too predictable.  I can recall only four holes with bunkering to one side or the other of the green.  Many low sides of the greens had bunkering which I think was unnecessary.  There are also instances of bunkering between the green and water - just dopey.

Not sure what to say about that one. I didn't really notice the bunkers all that much. I only hit in one, and that was on #8.

7. The 4th is a visual nightmare.  Water all over the place and much of it only penalizes a terrible shot.  There are a few other holes with water around the tees as well.  Generally, I think this is a waste, but in the case of Duke there is so much water its hard to know where it all should go. 

I fully agree with #4, its probably the poorest hole on the course. I would suspect however, that the pond on 4 and the big one on 13 are to allow run-off some place to go as I seem to recall those two places being the lowest points on the course.

8. There isn't a single incidence on the course where water is used diagonally for a bite off as much as you dare shot.  That is criminal when one considers the amount of water on this course. 

I can buy this a bit, though I think that on 13 you could bite it up the left side of the fairway and have a short wedge into the green. There are many great courses that don't have a Cape hole as you describe, the before mentioned Augusta National, of course, being one. And I may be inclined to say that Pebble Beach does not either, considering that 8 doesn't require you bite off anything on the second shot and 18 only moderately tempts a player to bite off something on the tee shot. And from an aerial, it doesn't seem that Pacific Dunes has a Cape across the ocean either.

9. While trees aren't really an issue for playability, I don't recall a hole where a dogleg was left open from the tee for a view of the green.  Instead, the player is guided down a road and can't be tempted by a viewing line to the green even if it is a stupid shot. 

None of the dogleg holes, with the exception of 16, are short enough for it to matter if there are trees on the hole. Now, I think 16 would be better without any of the trees.

I spose in short, the course is one of those stock jobs that really doesn't have any character of its own.  There isn't a lot of clever stuff built in to make me want to revisit.  Not a bad place at all, but I don't have much time for Duke. 

I didn't feel that it was very stock at all. I felt it was quite interesting, no two holes seemed similar to me. And while I am not even attempting to compare Duke to Augusta National or Pebble Beach, those courses lack many of the things you say Duke lacks and are still widely regarded as very good, if not great, courses. If there are 20 public golf courses in North Carolina better than Duke, I certainly have not seem most of them.
Ciao
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 02:51:11 PM by J. Kenneth Moore »

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #73 on: August 14, 2008, 12:26:59 PM »
For some reason our golf trip crew decided that the 2002 'Top 100 You Can Play' was our 'quest'.  Our annual trip is based around it and family vacations / 'business trips' are manipulated by it.  We will also refer to any other resources available to fill out our annual roster: Golf Week, Golf Digest, GCA, etc...  We just seem to think that the Golf Magazine public list is a better list of courses.

Tim,

That is a refreshing quest.  I just checked out the Digest list http://www.golfdigest.com/images/rankings/gd200705100greatestpublic.pdf and agree that you made the right choice going with Golf Magazine.  What do you think was the overriding factor for you and your friends going with GM over Digest?

Tim Book

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #74 on: August 14, 2008, 01:10:32 PM »
John,

I wish there was some great analyis performed that led our crew to the Golf Magazine list.  However if I remember correctly one of the guys wife bought have a 'Top 100 You Can Play' plaque and that decided it.  I also think the Golf Mag list was always more 'current' and would include new designs that would take years to be included in the Golf Digest list.    Even if I look at the list today there must be some guys from GD on some nice Myrtle Beach Golf Holidays.  In no way should there be (9) courses from Myrtle Beach in the Top 100.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back