OK, so I won't ever start a comparative thread ever again. Some of you guys are just no fun.
However, the ratings/rankings are a legitimate golf architecture topic and I, for one, am interested in dialogues/opinions about where SOME of those relative rankings are based on what's on the ground versus other attributes such as history, scenery, reputation, etc., etc.
For instance, I enjoy reviewing my own personal preferences and discussing whether it's really the just the golf course that I enjoy (or not) or are there a host of other factors that make me want to return (or not)?
Tom Paul:
I'll provide the claret and you pick the venue that makes a good martini and, also, has at least halfway decent food. Since we don't want to share any of the wine (I only have a single bottle of anything good), nobody else is to be invited. You may prove to be right but, given how we intend to find out, do you really care how this little wager turns out?
As a hopeless linear thinker, I must acknowledge that Patrick's arguments are eminently logical and, at the least, much easier to follow and digest than some others that require constant re-reading.
Bill Brightly:
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, well......I'm saying what you quoted me as saying. I believe, for what my opinion's worth, that Fishers Island is roughly the equivalent of Piping Rock and, to a lesser degree, The Creek in terms of the merits of what's on the ground (which includes the water that comes into play at both FI and TC). Raters and magazines can rank them anyway they choose. I prefer to try and strip out the non-architecture stuff in my mind because that's what I like to do. On that basis, the meaningfully higher ranking, and general perception, of FI versus the other two is worthy of a thread in that regard on this DG.
If the question had to do with visual appeal, Fishers wins hands down (except in a dense fog) and PRC is bringing up the rear.