Golfweek Vs. Golf Digest lists

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

One more thing.  Your Buckeyes had better look out for my Davidson Wildcats. You may not know that we lead the all time series against Ohio State with three wins against two losses. As they say, You can look it up!

Go Cats!

ps: Don't bother suggesting a bet. I am loyal, but not stupid.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jim
I look at the top 100 Modern list and I see about 30 to 40 courses that appear worthy of a journey - two that stand out in my mind are Wild Horse and Kingsley, they look more interesting than 90% of the list (although there rating doesn't seem to reflect that). It may be GW's goal to identify the best 100, but have they suceeded? I think that identifying the top 100 modern designs and exposing more unknown invovative/creative talent are not mutually exclusive.

Courses that I'm more interested in seeing than 50% of the courses on GW's modern list are Purgatory, Harrsion Hills, The Trophy Club, Tobacco Road, Giants Ridge, Black Creek, Cape Cod National and Stevenson Ranch. What is considered the best or what is considered worthy of a top 100 is subjective and varies from person to person.  A perfect illustration is you and I - our tastes are obviously quite different (by the way I'm still waiting for you to explain the similarities between Fazio and Ross's design styles and philosophies). I think one of the problems is you have two kinds of raters, those who are interested in great architecture and those who are interested in evaluating all courses in attempting to find the best courses. I am more interested in in seeking out great architecture than I am rating all courses, therefore I'm less likely to seek out course that don't interest me, and therefore those courses will never get a mediocre grade from me - that's probably why I don't make a very good evaluator.

I have no idea how many golf architects make up the Classic list - but the quality gap between the two lists is dramatic (I prefer GW's Classic list to either Golf's or GD's America's greatest). And removing some of the dead wood and replacing it with some originality, boldness, inovativation, or creativity would be a good move in my opinion. Who wants to see the same tired act over and over, the sites might be excellent/quite different but the designs never change (or rarely change) and many don't reflect the uniqueness of the site anyway. But what the hell do I know.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

Of course, GOLFWEEK has not succeeded in identifying the 100 best modern courses (or Classical), but it is a worthy objective. We should try to get better each year, but no list will ever be perfect. And, of course, identifying the best courses as well as exposing lesser known talent are not mutually exclusive. It just that I believe the former is the first priority of GOLFWEEK and the latter is a natural byproduct if we do a good job identifying the best courses.  "Lesser known talent" should be recognized if, and only if, they design courses that are worthy of acclaim.

Before I became a rater for GW my priority was to play as many of the great courses designed by the masters as I could. However, I feel that when I accepted the role of rater, I also accepted a responsibility to play a wider range of courses in an attempt to help identify the 200 best courses in the U.S.. I also feel a responsibility to use the GOLFWEEK criteria although they may not be exactly the ones I would use on my own. If I were not prepared to do that, then I would resign as a rater, as some have.

I don't know where you got the idea that I claim there is a similarity between Fazio's and Ross's design philosophies. I don't even know if Fazio has a design philosophy. I prefer to judge courses on a case by case basis as I find them. I just am not into studying or evaluating philosophy.  One feature that seems to be pretty common on Ross and Fazio courses that I have seen is that they both usually provide fairly generous landing areas off the tee but tend to "protect par" from 100 yards on in. I am sure that there are exceptions to that statement. One reason I am reluctant to generalize about either is that I have seen more variety from both than most observers seem to recognize or acknowledge.