[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree that U of M is a fun and somewhat historic track, just not on the same level as Kingsley.  I will be VERY interested to hear your take on Kingsley.  I assume by your Next footer that you haven't gotten there yet?

Jud

No, I haven't made it to Kingsley yet - perhaps one day.  From pix it looks to be very interesting, but perhaps a bit ott in places.  The course looks as though it is slightly cranked up, taking the terrain that extra bit which may be unnecessary.  I can say this, Kingsley looks to be the sort of course that would have wowed me 20 years ago, but I think my tastes have slowly changed to prefer more chilled courses which are a pleasant walk and not overly difficult.  For sure, Kingsley is one of the small group of newer courses I have seen pix of that has grabbed my attention.  

Ciao

[Anthony_Nysse]

I still stand on my previous comments of KC. I believe that so many on this sight LOVE KC because they're SUPPOSED to love it, because that's type of course is what this site has been built on. So many first timers go to KC and have heard/read all these postives on GCA and go to KC with a good vibe, with the feeling that they're supposed to love it. It's no different when some GCA's play a Rees Jones course-they're supposed to hate it because it's Rees. I think that many get caught up in that an end up not forming their own opinion.
  I, actually perfer Pilgrim's Run to KC and as for Michigan, I believe that there are 5-6 courses better than KC and that's just in the state:

Point O Woods
Lost Dunes (Yup, I said it.)
Tullymore
Oakland Hills South
Forrest Dunes
Crystal Downs (Never been there)

I believe that KC appeals to a small set of golfers and I'd assume that is what thier membership is made up of. Some other golfers  would apprieciate KC and some golfers wouldn't want to set foot on the property again. I think that is why KC has not done very well in the rankings.

[JC Jones]

Sean,

Kingsley is no more of a walk and no more OTT than Crystal Downs. 

[JC Jones]

I still stand on my previous comments of KC. I believe that so many on this sight LOVE KC because they're SUPPOSED to love it, because that's type of course is what this site has been built on. So many first timers go to KC and have heard/read all these postives on GCA and go to KC with a good vibe, with the feeling that they're supposed to love it. It's no different when some GCA's play a Rees Jones course-they're supposed to hate it because it's Rees. I think that many get caught up in that an end up not forming their own opinion.
  I, actually perfer Pilgrim's Run to KC and as for Michigan, I believe that there are 5-6 courses better than KC and that's just in the state:

Point O Woods
Lost Dunes (Yup, I said it.)
Tullymore
Oakland Hills South
Forrest Dunes
Crystal Downs (Never been there)

I believe that KC appeals to a small set of golfers and I'd assume that is what thier membership is made up of. Some other golfers  would apprieciate KC and some golfers wouldn't want to set foot on the property again. I think that is why KC has not done very well in the rankings.

Tony,

I don't buy your insinuation that people who like Kingsley Club aren't capable of thinking for themselves.  I know people on this site who have seen some of the greatest courses in the world and are as learned and knowledgeable as any of us lay-people and they have have very high opinions of Kingsley.  Does Tim Bert who has played Cypress Point and Sand Hills have any obligation to like Kingsley Club because people on this site do?  Does he have an obligation to put it in the same category as Sand Hills because people on this site like the course? 

I notice the courses you list, outside of Lost Dunes and Crystal Downs (which you've not played), are generally very green, lush courses with large and relatively uninteresting greens.  If that is your style, then you would not like Kingsley.  You would also not like Crystal Downs. 

[Anthony_Nysse]

JC,
  Everytime that I've been to Lost Dunes, it's been perfectly green, but not lush-there is a huge difference. Steve Jotzat does a VERY good job of balancing the two.
  I never stated that people who like the Sand Hills and Ballyneal type of courses "have" to like Kingsley, that just seems to be the feeling that I get-nothing wrong with that. Some people like that style more than others. There is not an obligation to like any course that is spoken about on this sight, BUT if you're constantly told it's great, it's perfect, that there is nothing better, what would you're thinking be if you've never been there and all you did was read things off this website? I perfer things to be fair and am not a fan of blind shots.
 

[JC Jones]

JC,
  Everytime that I've been to Lost Dunes, it's been perfectly green, but not lush-there is a huge difference. Steve Jotzat does a VERY good job of balancing the two.
  I never stated that people who like the Sand Hills and Ballyneal type of courses "have" to like Kingsley, that just seems to be the feeling that I get-nothing wrong with that. Some people like that style more than others. There is not an obligation to like any course that is spoken about on this sight, BUT if you're constantly told it's great, it's perfect, that there is nothing better, what would you're thinking be if you've never been there and all you did was read things off this website? I perfer things to be fair and am not a fan of blind shots.
 

Tony,

I did except Lost Dunes from my comment above regarding lush, etc.

I have no problem with people liking different courses and different styles.  That is one of the great things about this site.  However, I just take exception to the notion that people who like Kingsley club only like it because they are told to like it and aren't capable of forming an opinion for themselves.  Also, you say you don't like it, that's ok.  I don't think that means everyone who disagrees with you is guilty of group think.

[John Mayhugh]

I still stand on my previous comments of KC. I believe that so many on this sight LOVE KC because they're SUPPOSED to love it, because that's type of course is what this site has been built on. So many first timers go to KC and have heard/read all these postives on GCA and go to KC with a good vibe, with the feeling that they're supposed to love it. It's no different when some GCA's play a Rees Jones course-they're supposed to hate it because it's Rees. I think that many get caught up in that an end up not forming their own opinion.

I believe that KC appeals to a small set of golfers and I'd assume that is what thier membership is made up of. Some other golfers  would apprieciate KC and some golfers wouldn't want to set foot on the property again. I think that is why KC has not done very well in the rankings.

Kingsley Club is the type of course that GCA has been built on?  Explain, please.

To some extent, I agree with your statement that "KC appeals to a small set of golfers," though I would say smaller rather than small.   There is more quirk there than at Ballyneal (for example), and some people don't like that.  In your own case, you posted that you prefer things to be "fair" (however that's defined) and you don't like blind shots, so it's not surprising that you like Kingsley less than some others on here. 

But I don't agree with the suggestion that groupthink leads to people on here liking Kingsley.  We like Kingsley because it's very good - at least as far as our own preferences go. 

[Andy Troeger]

Tony,
I think there's some merit in what you are saying, with one amendment. I think people join this site because they like the type of golf discussed here and offered at courses like a Kingsley and a Ballyneal, not the other way around. I see no problem with that, even if I think the DG would benefit from more variety (and which is why I try to play devil's advocate sometimes).  That's not to say people here don't have varying opinions, but there are a lot more Fazio and Nicklaus fans out there than some in this group might realize! 

The one part that frustrates me is comments about how anyone who doesn't like this style is clueless or ignorant--I believe we should respect the rights of others to make up their own mind about what they like in a golf course.

[Mike Hendren]

JC, I'm likely one of the few members of the treehouse that has never sampled marijuana or any other illicit drug, so it's highly unlikely I'm tripping.  Our divergent opinions merely support the proposition that golf course architectural rating is a highly subjective pasttime.  I stand by my previous post, however.  My new favorite child, Blue Mound doesn't even make Golfweek's classic list and I'd say it's the equal of Kingsley, assuming an apple and orange can be equally satisfying and provide similar nutrition - which I believe they can. 

The test of time takes - wait for it - time.

Your pal,

Bogey 

[Jud_T]

 I perfer things to be fair and am not a fan of blind shots.
 

Anthony, 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however I guess by this statement that you are also not much of a fan of NGLA, Cruden Bay, RCD, Prestwick, Lahinch.....

Michael,

Time to fire one up! 

[JC Jones]

JC, I'm likely one of the few members of the treehouse that has never sampled marijuana or any other illicit drug, so it's highly unlikely I'm tripping.  Our divergent opinions merely support the proposition that golf course architectural rating is a highly subjective pasttime.  I stand by my previous post, however.  My new favorite child, Blue Mound doesn't even make Golfweek's classic list and I'd say it's the equal of Kingsley, assuming an apple and orange can be equally satisfying and provide similar nutrition - which I believe they can. 

The test of time takes - wait for it - time.

Your pal,

Bogey 

Bogey,

I agree, it is entirely subjective.  That is what makes it so much fun to debate!  Because there is no right answer.  I've heard you speak of this Blue Mound; I've not played a Raynor but I hear he designs a good course!

Also, while "tripping" denotes the use of illicit drugs, modern vernacular permits the usage of the term for anyone who is acting crazy.  Either way, it is meant entire in jest as you know know I'm the number 1 fan of the man, from Tennessee.

[Matt_Ward]

Tony:

Read your post with much interest. There is no cult only grouping that should understand Kingsley. The sad fact is that too many raters are basically one trick pony types who prefer only one type of style. They have been raised on the TF, JN and Rees, et al of this type and therefore when something harkens back to the nature of what pure design is about -- the integration of air and ground features -- the nature of width in fairways and the rolling nature of fairways that can provide for unlevel lies is a foreign concept to so many of these people.

Tony, I like plenty of what Jim Engh does -- but Tullymore ahead of Kingsley. Please it's time to put down the kool-aod canister.

One other thing -- anyone who is a big time fan of CD cannot in any sort of design consistency see the work of Kingsley in a much lesser light. They both try to provide a classic side of design -- unfortunately, many people who see CD in god-like ways cannot make the leap in faith that someone like Mike DeVries can do such work in the spirit of such a zen-like master like Mackenzie.

Andy:

I agree with you on the TF and JN front and I have made it a case to highlight what these two talented gents are able to provide. I am somewhat in the middle on this site -- I recognize the contributions of the "preferred' archies but I am equally enamored with what other folks also provide. This site would do well to be a bit wider in its overall understanding.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

Seems like you and I are often on the same wavelength...What JN & TF courses would you recommend I seek out? I haven't played a course by either that I've been really inspired by, but then again I haven't played any of their highest rated tracks....

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

Try to review the thread now posted on the JN and TF top ten layouts.

Many of them are worthy in playing and frankly too many people seem to dismiss what these two gentlemen are capable in producing. I see my tastes in golf design as being quite pragmatic -- I don't gush over just one or two people but base it upon a course-by-course basis.

[Sean_A]

Matt

Isn't it reasonable to have preferences while still acknowledging the better examples of other design styles?  Of course folks are gonna lean toward courses of a certain style they prefer and those preferences may be due to many things or just one.  I don't see the problem in that.  In truth, I bet the likes of those on this site are quite diverse.  I would suggest that the same is true of any rating panel with perhaps an exception or two.  You often wonder how some US courses can fly under the radar.  I too often wonder about the same thing in GB&I.  More times than not, despite a diversity of tastes, many people will plop for the course which is less funky - all other things being equal.  That just seems to be the way it is - people tend to be middle of the road with most things in life.  If a developer is gonna crank up the volume, he had better be prepared for a lukewarm response.  Like it or not, golfers are a conservative lot.  What do you think holds TKC back from higher (it is well thought of you know!) accolades?

Ciao

[Chuck Brown]

Here is what Michiganders and Friends came up with some months ago as the top.  What I found most remarkable was the diversity of designs and the well represented eras of design.  I was very surprised U of M made this list, but I do also believe that it is a far better course than generally given credit for. 

Arcadia Bluffs Golf Club  Arcadia  W Henderson/R Smith  1999 
Crystal Downs Country Club  Frankfort  A MacKenzie & PD Maxwell 1929 
Dunes Club  New Buffalo  D Nugent 1990 
Forest Dunes Golf Club  Roscommon  T Weiskopf  2002
Indianwood Golf & Country Club Old Course  Lake Orion  W Reid 1926
Lost Dunes Golf Club  Bridgman  T Doak 1999
Marquette Golf Club Greywalls  Marquette  M Devries 2005
Oakland Hills Country Club South Course  Bloomfield Hills  DJ Ross 1918/RT Jones 1951
The Kingsley Club  Kingsley  M Devries 2000
University of Michigan Golf Course  Ann Arbor  PD Maxwell & A Mackenzie 1931 

Five more which received a significant number of votes. 

Belvedere Golf Club  Charlievoix  W Watson 1927 
Franklin Hills  Country Club  Franklin  DJ Ross  1928 
Lakewood Shores Gailes Course Oscoda  K Aldridge 1992
Point O’ Woods Golf & Country Club  Benton Harbor  RT Jones 1957 
Wilderness Valley Black Forest Course  Gaylord  T Doak 1992
 
A handful of others had a few votes, but not quite enough to ripple the pond.   

The Mines
Barton Hills
Pilgrims Run
CC of Detroit
Grosse Ile
Boyne Highlands Heather

Taken in total, this list looks quite good to me.  There are perhaps a few obvious omissions so far as I am concerned, but that is life.

Ciao

Sean that list is fine.  It is remarkable, isn't it, that there are a number of courses listed, that could never, ever dream of hosting a PGA Tour event or a USGA qualifier, but the one course in Michigan that, until last year, annually hosted a PGATour event with routinely above-average fields, is not listed at all:  Warwick Hills.

Back to Kingsley.  I may have been too casual in some of my earlier statements, and I also think that some of what I did say was taken out of context.

To simplify; I like the Kingsley Club.  I think it is among the handful of the best designs in Michigan.  It is a wonderful course to see and study and admire, and it gives me no particular pleasure to move it "down" any list; not a "Michigan" list, and not a "Best 50 in the U.S." list.

But the argument had been made, that Kingsley Club was "Top 50" and, in a manner of speaking, the throw-down was, "show me 49 that are better!"

My only point was that there are a handful of courses, right here in cold Michigan, that I think "rate" better in my own mind, and so, yeah, I do have some considerable trouble buying the argument that Kingsley is a slam-dunk to be a Top 50 selection.  Honestly, if some day, the Kingsley Club vaulted into national magazine's Top 50-or-whatever-number List, it would not upset me in the least.  I will say that we have a number of courses in this state that have all of the merit and more (in many cases due to maturity and scenery) of the Kingsley Club.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The short answer is that too many raters really don't know just the hell they are looking at when rating.

There's nothing unreasonable in acknowledging the better examples of other design styles -- the simple fact is that the folks who do ratings don't do what you outlined.

Digest is loaded with folks who seem to prefer to paint-by-numbers design and add an eye-candy dimension that is fairly pedestrian in its basic mechanism of sameness. The overkill with TF courses that are fairly similar is quite clear to me. No doubt there are a few that really set themselves apart from the others.

This site is also not loaded with diverse appreciating folks -- this site is narrowly based on certain styles that people here relish. Mention those outside that box and the dropoff is considerable. Case in point a Kingsley can be celebrated -- mention the name of Jim Engh and the dropoff is there although Engh's style at times (see Four Mile Ranch as just one example) is really quite good in so many ways.

Kingsley was not created to be a "same" course -- to be something that would be another run-of-the-mill layout that has been done countless times before. When you have a mag of Digest's stature it's my hope that there would be recognition of those courses that clearly provide a different slant of what design can be.

Sean, if you read Whitten's assessment of Kingsley he clearly sees what's there -- the dumb-down raters in so many ways don't really understand what it provides and how unique it is. Those who relish CD but don't also celebrate Kingsley are truly confused people in my mind.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

The short answer is that too many raters really don't know just the hell they are looking at when rating.

There's nothing unreasonable in acknowledging the better examples of other design styles -- the simple fact is that the folks who do ratings don't do what you outlined.

Digest is loaded with folks who seem to prefer to paint-by-numbers design and add an eye-candy dimension that is fairly pedestrian in its basic mechanism of sameness. The overkill with TF courses that are fairly similar is quite clear to me. No doubt there are a few that really set themselves apart from the others.

This site is also not loaded with diverse appreciating folks -- this site is narrowly based on certain styles that people here relish. Mention those outside that box and the dropoff is considerable. Case in point a Kingsley can be celebrated -- mention the name of Jim Engh and the dropoff is there although Engh's style at times (see Four Mile Ranch as just one example) is really quite good in so many ways.

Kingsley was not created to be a "same" course -- to be something that would be another run-of-the-mill layout that has been done countless times before. When you have a mag of Digest's stature it's my hope that there would be recognition of those courses that clearly provide a different slant of what design can be.

Sean, if you read Whitten's assessment of Kingsley he clearly sees what's there -- the dumb-down raters in so many ways don't really understand what it provides and how unique it is. Those who relish CD but don't also celebrate Kingsley are truly confused people in my mind.

Matt

If you look at the link below it seems quite clear that the tastes of this site are rich and varied.  Maybe, just maybe, your favourite Engh's etc are just not up to scratch.  That doesn't mean they aren't good, just perhaps not among the very best.

Ciao

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=42368.0

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

You clearly missed my point. Raters are added to review panels when the reality is that most don't have the real understanding / appreciation that's needed to do what is being asked. Anyone who sees CD as being a worthy top tier layout would have a hard time to me in making a consistency and cogent argument that Kingsley is not up to that type of level of course. Both Devries and his major influencer in Fred Mueller used CD as their inspirational base for Kingsley.

Whitten understands golf architecture -- I don't have to agree with him 100% of the time but I know he has a much wider appreciation of what design can be.

Sean, this site is dominated by the small select group of classic school archies who are most favored. That doesn't mean from time to time others are celebrated for their work but it's more of the minority of amount of times than the majority.

In regards to Engh -- here's what you miss again-- most people have not played anything close to a representative sampling of Engh work. They therefore don't know how good he can be in certain clear examples.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

You clearly missed my point. Raters are added to review panels when the reality is that most don't have the real understanding / appreciation that's needed to do what is being asked. Anyone who sees CD as being a worthy top tier layout would have a hard time to me in making a consistency and cogent argument that Kingsley is not up to that type of level of course. Both Devries and his major influencer in Fred Mueller used CD as their inspirational base for Kingsley.

Whitten understands golf architecture -- I don't have to agree with him 100% of the time but I know he has a much wider appreciation of what design can be.

Sean, this site is dominated by the small select group of classic school archies who are most favored. That doesn't mean from time to time others are celebrated for their work but it's more of the minority of amount of times than the majority.

In regards to Engh -- here's what you miss again-- most people have not played anything close to a representative sampling of Engh work. They therefore don't know how good he can be in certain clear examples.

Matt

Tradition and history count for something in the rankings.  You probably don't like it, but that is the way it is.  Folks will nearly always give the benefit of any doubt to the old line clubs.  This could be partly due to the overall experience they can provide which is not strictly an architectural issue, but so what?  IMO, its the overall experience which matters more than the splitting of hairs as to which courses are actually the "best".  In other words, how much do I want to return?  There are a great many big name courses that I have no intention of ever seeing again because I didn't think they were all that.  I have long believed this sort of thing hugely impacts the rankings, only folks don't admit to it.  Give me someone's list of favourites and I can much better understand where he is coming from than I can from a so called list of "best".  In truth, the concept of best shouldn't even apply to golf courses.  The entire subject is subjective to make this sort of parsing nearly pointless.   

We will have to agree to disagree about GCAers.  I think the rankings list demonstrates a huge variety of sites and styles.  Look at it!   Sure, they lean toward classic and classically inspired courses, but there could be very good reasons for this.  Perhaps these archies were/are better at gaining good projects and making the best of them.  You often go on about mountain and desert courses, but a great many believe that ideal golf can never take place in those settings.  They are, if you will, a compromise solution, which sometimes can produce surprisingly excellent results and, I think the rankings reflect this. 

With something like 300 candidates for 100 spots, most will  be disappointed.  Its more a reflection of trying to create a best of list among courses that for all purposes, are more or less evenly matched.

Ciao

 

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Help me out with something -- what does tradition and history have to do with actual design itself ?

Frankly, the insertion of these two elements is nothing more than a carefully construed inclusion meant to prop up the marginal of the so-called "great old time clubs. Digest did as much on that front after the Shadow Creek fiasco from years ago. The old time clubs -- in plenty of instances -- are simply that -- old. They are far from all being memorable and of still relevant vintage.

When people say "the experience" are they simply then genuflecting because of what was done from 50-60 years ago? What does that have to do with the nature of the game today and how it is played now?

I base "my return" to a course(s) on what it provides primarily from the architectural side of things. No doubt people will throw other non-design elements into the mix -- but when such elements become the dominant element then frankly their eyes are missing too much of what constitutes the true essence of why one either goes to a place or seeks to return.

Sean, the itemization of a "bests" list is a personal and subjective matter -- no doubt. It is far from "pointless" -- in fact, when I see a very thorough and comprehensive rationale for why someone picks certain courses and not others - I can learn a great deal even if I should disagree from time to time.

Sean, people lean towards the same predictable courses because they have played so few from which anything remotely tied to a deep analysis can be applied. The modern courses that have emerged as top tier layouts in the last 15-20 years clearly have the goods in certain spots -- see the likes of a Ballyneal, Rock Creek, Kingsley and Black Mesa, to leap quickly to the highest of high levels. These aforementioned courses have taken so many of the classic elements from years past and fast forwarded to them to a modern era and have done so in such a brilliant fashion.

I mention the desert and mountain areas because few people have really played the elite courses to see what can be done in such fascinating settings -- let me mention how superb the Lower Course at Whisper Rock is in the Scottsdale, AZ area.  Many of the people who feel otherwise -- have stated such feelings likely from either their own ignorance or even their own stupidity in believing that top tier golf cannot be played at the highest of high levels in other terrain settings that years ago during the classical period was not thought of as doable for a host of reasons.

No doubt there are plenty of solid courses but I see the top 50 in the USA to be a very special breed -- Kingsley from the ones I have played throughout the USA provides a design equation that celebrates the classic school while being sure to test players with how and in what manner the game is played today. Clearly, in my mind, the bulk of people who rate for Digest have a very narrow band of what they define as "great" courses. Kingsley provides a euphoria from the moment the first tee shot is struck. The issue is not about Kingsley -- but if the people who are rating really understand what it is they are assessing.

[Rob Rigg]

Did Tom Doak post on this thread, yet, re: why he didn't think KC was Top 50 material per the "Your Own Top 50 Golf Courses in the USA" thread that was nicely dredged up from 2003? I guess it kind of said on that thread that he didn't think it would be appropriate to do so but it's 2010 and it would be interesting to hear more.

Matt,

Having read through the "Your Own Top 50 Golf Courses in the USA" thread it is interesting to see your consistency over time in questioning the DG ratings and their favoritism for "old/classic" courses.

You have also been consistent in championing modern designs that you believe in - such as Kingsley - regardless of the architect and their past work (or lack of past work). I appreciate that.

I think the "modern" vs "classic" debate is an interesting one from a design standpoint, but I would tend to agree that at least a handful of "classic" courses seem to get a hall pass because they have been around for years. The "ambiance" of a great club should not have anything to do with its "course" ranking, even though it probably will impact a golfer's overall "experience". The Top 50 or 100 Courses should be based on the course, not who designed it or what group of people are members.

It is great to see the passion for KC on this thread - polarizing courses are usually a good thing - I wish Michigan wasn't so far away.

[Tom_Doak]

Rob:

No, I haven't posted that.  You can read my complete thoughts in the next edition of The Confidential Guide, if there ever is one.  Until that happens, I won't get dragged into critiquing the work of anybody who's worked for me before.

I think they are all doing good work, but the only way Mike or Gil or Jim or Bruce or any of them can REALLY impress me is to go out and build something really different than I would do.  When they do that, I would be the first to give them credit as such ... but at the same time, I probably wouldn't really like it, because as I just explained, I would find it different than what I would have done.  [In fact, that's sort of my reaction to Jim Engh's work, and to a lesser extent, to Mike Strantz's.  I respect how different they are than mine, but I don't really like the end product as much as others do.]

I am sure that's the same thing Pete Dye thinks about my work.  He probably wouldn't like my courses that much, because it represents a reaction to his own style.  But, he is the one who taught me to find my own direction and not just copy what everyone else was doing, so on another level I'm sure I have his respect.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Help me out with something -- what does tradition and history have to do with actual design itself ?

Frankly, the insertion of these two elements is nothing more than a carefully construed inclusion meant to prop up the marginal of the so-called "great old time clubs. Digest did as much on that front after the Shadow Creek fiasco from years ago. The old time clubs -- in plenty of instances -- are simply that -- old. They are far from all being memorable and of still relevant vintage.

When people say "the experience" are they simply then genuflecting because of what was done from 50-60 years ago? What does that have to do with the nature of the game today and how it is played now?

I base "my return" to a course(s) on what it provides primarily from the architectural side of things. No doubt people will throw other non-design elements into the mix -- but when such elements become the dominant element then frankly their eyes are missing too much of what constitutes the true essence of why one either goes to a place or seeks to return.

Sean, the itemization of a "bests" list is a personal and subjective matter -- no doubt. It is far from "pointless" -- in fact, when I see a very thorough and comprehensive rationale for why someone picks certain courses and not others - I can learn a great deal even if I should disagree from time to time.

Sean, people lean towards the same predictable courses because they have played so few from which anything remotely tied to a deep analysis can be applied. The modern courses that have emerged as top tier layouts in the last 15-20 years clearly have the goods in certain spots -- see the likes of a Ballyneal, Rock Creek, Kingsley and Black Mesa, to leap quickly to the highest of high levels. These aforementioned courses have taken so many of the classic elements from years past and fast forwarded to them to a modern era and have done so in such a brilliant fashion.

I mention the desert and mountain areas because few people have really played the elite courses to see what can be done in such fascinating settings -- let me mention how superb the Lower Course at Whisper Rock is in the Scottsdale, AZ area.  Many of the people who feel otherwise -- have stated such feelings likely from either their own ignorance or even their own stupidity in believing that top tier golf cannot be played at the highest of high levels in other terrain settings that years ago during the classical period was not thought of as doable for a host of reasons.

No doubt there are plenty of solid courses but I see the top 50 in the USA to be a very special breed -- Kingsley from the ones I have played throughout the USA provides a design equation that celebrates the classic school while being sure to test players with how and in what manner the game is played today. Clearly, in my mind, the bulk of people who rate for Digest have a very narrow band of what they define as "great" courses. Kingsley provides a euphoria from the moment the first tee shot is struck. The issue is not about Kingsley -- but if the people who are rating really understand what it is they are assessing.

Matt

I can't disagree with you other than to say that I would be surprised if many serious rater type folks allow the fringe "experience" elements become more important than the design itself.  That said, I believe most folks are influenced by non-design elements.  You have a PoV and others do as well.

The problem I have with declaring a "best" list is I have to ask the question, best for who?  I don't and never have believed there is an absolute set of criteria which works for all golfers when thinking about the best courses.  This is why I tend to lean toward courses which are playable and walkable for nearly all.  Sure, this means there will be some compromises depending on the goals of the developer and the terrain, but these elements are part and parcel of what I consider the ideal and therefore best designs.  So if we look at rankings with this in mind, ie perhaps a 20 capper's opinion is just as valid as Jack's, it may be a very good thing to have extraneous items when ranking courses.  They do serve the purpose of some wiggle room when "the numbers" just don't match one's gut feeling.  It is the guy's feeling which intrigues me much more than a guy trying to run his numbers (and I think all raters must do this to one degree or another) to come up with an answer.  That is also why these lists, either favourite or best, should be dynamic. Golfers tend to gradually build up a body of played courses hence their ideas about design, what they like and dislike changes.    

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Plenty of TF courses already are rated because they consistently provide the kind of template for what raters are enamored with -- the stylish settings, the framing element of the holes themselves and all the intrinsic outside factors that cause people to believe the actual design is worth celebrating. This situation can be seen most notably in the likes of a Shadow Creek -- not to say it's a bad course but for anyone to remotely believe it's in the top 25 in the USA (was top 10 briefly by Digest) can only make me smile with amusement.

Sean, best lists are groupings by a given person or collection of people. No doubt they reflect the core ingredients that either a person or group take very highly for consideration. I simply don't believe consensus thinking says that much -- better to have a solitary or very small grouping of people who can really funnel out all the other elements that are not germane. Tradition and history clearly are parts that have allowed dead weight courses from 50-60 years ago or more to cling to life while so a number of other modern designs -- which are embodied with such character themselves have to strain for awareness.

Let me also say this -- too many raters simply pad their lists with the same type of courses over and over again. In many cases -- certain course styles have been done very well one or two times but don't need to be highlighted several or more times with placement in the ratings. Kingsley will not be the cup of tea for those who are infatuated with anything that TF does. It's not e-z to discern but can be edgy at times but it never becomes predictably -- too many American golfers want predictability to the point of boredom. This is especially the case with low handicap types who want "guaranteed" outcomes with any shot they hit.

Kingsley demonstrates a celebration of the past -- with an unmistakeable desire to incorporiate golf as we play it in 2010.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()