Ballyneal Greens

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

The greens comment is nothing short of bizarre and I would like to think it was a newspaper mistake. I have heard nothing but wonderful things about the greens and we all know fescue can make for a great surface on courses with manageble amounts of play. I am on the side of limited carts for those whose health and situation dictate the use of them. I think better to play in a cart than not to play at all.

[Adam Clayman]

Wyatt, Actually, WH is likely more optimal in the early spring before the wooga gets up. edit; oops. re-read  early spring late winter same same

This years rains have made hitting the corridor an imperative. Thank goodness Dan n Dave knew the region well enough to make them wide enough for the varying winds.

[Jerry Kluger]

It would be interesting to me to see how Dismal River would be viewed by the GD raters as compared to BN - perhaps it has more of the qualities and features which they are looking for but to me, is not in the same league as BN.  Green speeds should be determined by the contours and slopes and what is reasonable.  The USGA may run greens at speeds 2, 3 or more feet faster than the architect ever imagined but that should not be the norm. 

[Scott Szabo]

I know plenty of low handicap players that prefer BN over Sand Hills, but even if they were GD raters it's likely that their ballots, once the categories were added up, would still have SH higher than BN. It just means that they value fun and creativity more than resistance to scoring and fast greens.  

Jim,

Are you saying that Sand Hills is harder to score on than Ballyneal?  I would say the contrary.  I would also say that day in and day out, Sand Hills would yield a higher scoring average than Ballyneal.  For me, Sand Hills is a much more difficult course, but if playing well, is an easier course to score on than Ballyneal is.  Ballyneal is harder to go low on due to the maintenance and green contours, but seems to be much less of a brute than Sand Hills.  If that makes any sense...

In a nutshell, I think Sand Hills is much more demanding tee to green than Ballyneal, but once you get around the greens, Ballyneal has a leg up on difficulty due to the contouring.  I've scraped it around Ballyneal before and shot in the mid-70s, a round that would have definitely been much higher at Sand Hills.  I remember playing with a member a year or so ago who mentioned how cool it was that I couldn't get off the tee at all and still shot 75. 

I may be alone in feeling this way, but that's my two cents, for what it's worth.

And as for the fun and creativity part, I think Sand Hills has quite a bit of that going on as well

Obviously both are great, just different.  And that's okay.

[Jim Colton]

Scott,

I think the mid-to-high handicapper can score very well at Ballyneal.  I saw a lot of career or near career rounds at BN this past weekend.  I suspect that the same guys would get chewed up at SH.  I agree it is much more of a brute.  I guess I was thinking of resistance to scoring coming from the tee ball and approach shots, as opposed to resistance coming from possible three putts from contoured greens.  Both courses are resistant to my scoring, so maybe I'm a bad example.

I was shocked at just how many 15-20 foot straight putts I had at Sand Hills.  It seemed like the play was to aim inside the hole and just get it started on the right line and let the fast greens do the rest.  Nearly every putt I saw missed over two days was due to too much break being played, not too little.  If you get a straight 8 footer at Ballyneal, usually you're to talking yourself out of it actually being straight.

You're right, both are great.

[Andy Troeger]

I actually think Ballyneal will make the Golf Digest Top 100, but its going to be perhaps 6 years before that happens. It has been mentioned that perhaps the course was rated too soon and also was likely rated by panelists who probably won't return if they didn't like the course the first time. I do guess that some low ratings are dropping the overall score, given that I know of quite a few panelists that like the place a lot. Once that first group of ballots drop out, given that its not the easiest place to get to, going forward most of the panelists that play it will do so because they want to and probably like the style of golf played.

Of course that does depend on getting the minimum number of panelists out there and maintaining that number.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Does anyone remember when CPC and Fisher's Island had low rankings in Golf Digest's rankings.  In fact, Fisher's Island was unranked for quite a time.  At the moment, Ballyneal and Colorado Golf Club occupy such undignified positions. 
    I enjoy rankings.  For nearly 25 years I have been on a mission to play Golf Magazine's top world 100 courses.  Now in the mid-80's with many of the domestic courses played, I have found many courses should occupy different places.  I have fun playing Fazio courses, but continue to fail finding any worhty of greatness.  With Nicklaus, I love the challenges which really suite my game, but again, nothing makes my top 100.  On the other hand, I think that there is a fear or bias against including too many metro-NY courses in the list.  Engineers, Bethpage Red, Laurel Links, Fairfield, and Fenway certainly are top level courses.  Of course I am biased, but, Engineers should be ranked among the top 10 metro-NY courses.  It is certainly better than the GCA Nassau county favorite.
    Back to Ballyneal.  A couple of years ago I introduced a thread, Ballyneal is the Deal--after playing it a couple of weeks ago--I know my judgement is pretty solid.  Of the several Doak courses I have played so far, this is the best, and among the best courses that I have ever played.  I would have loved to have seen the greens run a little faster, but that has nothing to do with how much I loved their contouring.  If the GD raters miss on this course, over time they will be exposed for being shallow, shoort sighted, and lacking in imagination.

[Adam Clayman]

Robert. Consider yourself invited to next years member guest if you want to see the speeds up.

[Scott Szabo]

Robert. Consider yourself invited to next years member guest if you want to see the speeds up.

I'd love to sit and watch play if those greens got to an 11.  Notice I said WATCH and not PLAY!

[Richard Choi]

If the GD raters miss on this course, over time they will be exposed for being shallow, shoort sighted, and lacking in imagination.

I think it patently clear that conditioning trumps architecture when it comes to GD raters. It is pretty sad, really. And if you cannot see the architecture underneath the conditioning, should you really be rating golf courses?

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
No offense, but I get awfully tired of GCA posters that don't appear to know much about the Digest process who like to make negative generalizations that are either half-true or less. I'm sure some panelists over value conditioning, but I think the bigger issue is that many GD panelists just like different kinds of golf courses than you (and many other GCA'ers and including myself in many cases).

[Adam Clayman]

Scott, Care needs to be given as to pin positions when they do get to 11. In last years member guest there were a couple of Pin positions that put a huge premium on placement at those speeds. One was on the ridge on 15 (sort of right center). After having witnessed how difficult it was from nearly every angle, it took quite the analysis to determine which was the best way to play it under those specific conditions. I could tell you, but, then you'd have to be my partner and I wouldn't subject a fine upstanding young man, such as yourself, to that. The other was a backish left pin on #17. Devilishly exacting.

Richard, While it may be a generalization, because I do know of several exceptions, the unsophisticated GD panelist isn't really looking at the architecture, per se.  If they were, I suspect they'd join their brothers here to learn and discuss even more. It has been about two years since they changed their definition for conditioning, allowing course that are designed to be F&F to play F&F.

As a way for me to compare these greens to former courses I have known well, I'd say, the interest lies in just how long it has taken to learn the greens at Ballyneal. Not only their general and contrary slopes, but, at all the different speeds year round.

 i.e. One of our best green reading caddies is Jim Roberts. At last year's member guest he turned to me early in the round and said " I don't have a clue at these speeds". I reassured him it was OK and that we'd figure them out together. By the way, my ringer shot 92. A former state junior champion who I beat by two shots that day. On the way home he said we'd get'em next year, and, I immediately pointed out how presumptuous that statement was. We still laugh about it, especially since I haven't invited him back.  

[Richard Choi]

Andy, no offense, but if any group of people believe that there are 100 courses in this country better than Ballyneal, I would never take their advice when it comes to golf courses. I understand that people can have different opinions, but we are not talking about one or two people here. GD ratings is a compilation of several hundred people. You can't just blow that away saying "different people like different things". That is why you have many raters, to factor out outliers.

It is not just Ballyneal, Chambers Bay is rated as the 5th best in Washington. And if you believe that there are 5 courses better than Chambers Bay in Washington, you should talk to USGA because they disagree. And I guarantee you, CB is going to move up after the US Open and it will be all because of improvement in conditioning and prestige. The architecture will remain the same.

GD ratings may have some relations to golf course architecture, but I don't think it is the main factor. My guess is for most GD raters, it is 1/3 architecture, 1/3 conditioning, and 1/3 prestige. Let's not kid ourselves that it is anything other than a beauty contest.

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
I said in the previous post that I have no issue with you critiquing the lists and Ballyneal's placement--just don't pretend you understand all the reasons why. Quite frankly I don't find dismissing others' opinions just because they differ from your own to be particularly productive, but perhaps that's just me.

For as much as people here don't like Rees Jones, Art Hills, and other architects, its perfectly clear that somebody out there does like it or they wouldn't have built and worked on so many courses. I've said previously that single-digit handicappers that play stroke-play golf don't like the same kinds of courses as people on this site that want choices and creativity from GCA.

Chambers Bay makes my personal top ten. Sahalee, #1 in Washington, doesn't make my personal top 100. That should explain my thoughts on the Washington state list. Chambers Bay will likely move up the list, and the US Open will probably help, but it won't be the only factor.

There are many other places I disagree with the GD list, but instead of dismissing it I think its interesting to see where I think we get it right and where I think we get it wrong. Hopefully that makes me a better panelist.

[Richard Choi]

I said in the previous post that I have no issue with you critiquing the lists and Ballyneal's placement--just don't pretend you understand all the reasons why.

I disagree with that statement.

There have been many examples in the past where improved conditioning and/or hosting a major championship have greatly affected the ranking status of various golf courses. Unless the conditioning problems were so serious that it actually greatly affected the golf course architecture (e.g. Bethpage Black before the renovation), that kind of shift in rankings should not happen.  I know Sahalee what not ranked top 100 until it hosted PGA Championship. There is no other reason for that shift except for the increase in prestige.

Again, I don't think anybody would disagree that Chambers Bay will EASILY make the top 100 GD list once it hosts the US Open. Only variable will be conditioning and prestige. I would say that will be pretty conclusive that GD ratings have everything to do with conditioning and prestige.

[Jim Colton]

For the record, I don't have a problem with any of the panelists.  I'm sure Andy and the other panelists take their responsibility seriously and their opinion should be accounted for.  I think the heart of the issue is the way GD adds up the numbers is flawed in a couple of different ways, and those flaws make the final output something other than the collective opinion of its raters.  If I were a GD rater, I'd be pretty upset about that, especially since it causes these outliers that fuel the bashing and force Andy and others to defend the system.

If Andy's correct about it taking 6 years to weed out some of the old grow-in ratings, isn't that a flaw in and of itself?  Can't they weight more recent ratings more heavily or something?  If BN were able to move up the rankings and higher and faster if they had just waited 12 months to let anybody play it, I think that exposes a flaw in the system.  They shouldn't be penalized for opening their doors early.

[Andy Troeger]

I know Sahalee what not ranked top 100 until it hosted PGA Championship. There is no other reason for that shift except for the increase in prestige.

Richard,
Unless I have faulty information you just proved my point. Sahalee has been in the Top 100 since 1977. They hosted the PGA Championship in 1998.

[Richard Choi]

Nevermind, I have found the list. Andy, you are correct. Sahalee has been ranked. But do you disagree that Chambers Bay will rise?

[Andy Troeger]

Jim,
You make fair points especially regarding outliers. I can't really get into detail on the website but that's an issue that will likely be addressed overall if it hasn't already.

Regarding new courses, I can't speak to Ballyneal, but I've played two other courses prior to their actual openings. You could get the idea at both of them, but it wasn't ideal and probably didn't help the courses to be rated so early mainly due to fuzzy greens. You can still see the contours and use your imagination.

[Tim Bert]

Richard,
I said in the previous post that I have no issue with you critiquing the lists and Ballyneal's placement--just don't pretend you understand all the reasons why.

I thought we all understood the reasons.  The head of the panel explained that it was due to fescue greens and not allowing carts. Isn't this how the thread got started?  

[Andy Troeger]

Andy, do you have the previous ranking lists? I distinctly remember when I moved to Washington state in the early 90's, I didn't see any Washington courses being in top 100.

Richard,
I don't have the specific lists, but I have a list of how long every course has been on the list and if its dropped off at times. For example, the Valley Club of Montecito was ranked from 1995-2001, dropped off in 2003, reappeared in 2005-7, and then dropped off again this year.

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
I said in the previous post that I have no issue with you critiquing the lists and Ballyneal's placement--just don't pretend you understand all the reasons why.

I thought we all understood the reasons.  The head of the panel explained that it was due to fescue greens and not allowing carts. Isn't this how the thread got started?  

Good point, although having also been a newspaper reporter and later interviewed by a newspaper reporter in a previous life I'm taking those comments with a grain of salt 

[Richard Choi]

I am looking through the GD list and here is the first example that I see.

Blackwolf Run - opened in 1988, not ranked till 1994 when it was awarded the US Women's Open that year and debuted at #31! Or how about Pinehurst #2 going from #32 in 1988 to #12 in 1990 in anticipation of US Senior Open?

And those are pretty much the first two courses I looked at.

[Richard Choi]

Here are some more...

Pumpkin Ridge - Opened in 1992, not ranked till the famous 1996 US Amateur which Tiger won. Debuts in 1998 list at #81. Not to be seen again after that.

[Andy Troeger]

Richard,
The course that opened at Blackwolf Run is not the River Course as its presented today. The course that hosted the tournaments was the original course if I recall correctly, also not the current River Course. Perhaps the tournaments helped the ratings, but its by no means the only possibility. Its also possible that it took that long to receive the requisite number of ratings needed to appear on the Top 100 List.

How would you explain the big jumps this year of Oak Hill East and Chicago Golf Club? They made similar moves to Pinehurst.

My point is that you're guessing. You could very well be right on some of these, but you're guessing.