[PCCraig]

As for all of this ANGC talk, anyone who has played the golf course and thinks it shouldn't even be in the top 30 classic golf courses in the country is clearly smoking something. Sure, all the changes made over the past 20 years to combat the world's best golfers all haven't been great (#11 isn't the same hole it used to, or should, be). However the course is still very very good and stands up to many of the other courses on the top30, 20, and 10.

I haven't rated ANGC, as I played it before I was a rater, but Matt Ward is only looking at it from the back tees which no player has any business playing unless they are a scratch or better. The member's tees are a lot of fun to play and the course doesn't beat you over the head with length. From mine and other's scores over a short stay and with only one round from the tips, the course plays about 10 shots harder from the back tees than it does from the member's tees.

I haven't played Fisher's Island Club (only seen pictures), but it must be one hell of a good Raynor design to be rated the 7th best on the classic list and above ANGC.

[Tim Martin]

The potential upside to the precipitous fall of ANGC in the rankings is that the club will do an about face on how they present the course.

If in the next 5 years, changes are made that would undo the Tiger proofing, the rankings will be the impetus, if not the catalyst for the change.

Adam-Do you really think the magazine ratings make an iota of difference to the decision makers at ANGC? ANGC is all about the Masters. Any undoing of the Tiger proofing would be implicit that they were wrong in the first place. Aint gonna happen, although I do like your optimism.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim:

How does second cut, narrowing drive zones, addition of pine trees, cutting the grass backwards to eliminate roll and then adding inane tee lengths make the course better ?

You say "maybe ANGC's still better." Define better and please outline how the existing changes completely go in the opposite direction to what Jones and Mackenze longed believe.

Matt, I'm not saying the course is now better than it used to be.  I'm saying the question is whether - despite the changes - the course is still better than nearly all other classic courses, and so might still rate a ranking in the top ten or five. 

I don't have an answer to that question, as I haven't seen/played enough courses.  I know you have played all or nearly all the top courses.  Where do put it nationally, and which courses do you see as better than ANGC? 

[Andy Troeger]

No offense Adam, but do you think ANGC is going to do anything because of GolfWeek given Golf Digest had then #1 last time around? If they're still #1 or #2 in that list (or any list), then why make changes because one pub doesn't "get it" according to them. Most people tend to refer to whatever list puts them in the best light, and for most people not on this board, Digest is still the one that gets read the most.

Pat,
I am referring to the tree reduction, but primarily to the ridiculous "land bridge" that they built over the lake. I'll try to remember to post photos from 15 years ago and the most recent version--I think its the worst change to a hole that I've ever seen, but it was arguably my favorite par three anywhere until I got to play Pebble and Cypress so there's some bias involved. It made the golf course unique--now it doesn't have much to differentiate it from quite a few other places. They also redid the green at #2 awhile back and the five or so times I've been there since it doesn't match firmness or even look. That's now the most unique hole, so that's a bit of a blemish too.

I don't agree with tree removal in this instance--PoW is like Harbour Town in that the trees give the course its character. They've lost a lot in various storms over the year--without the remaining ones I think the character would suffer.

[Craig Van Egmond]

I wouldn't turn down the chance to play ANGC. Ever!

[Roger Wolfe]

I think the Golfweek rankings are excellent and very accurate.

Roger Wolfe
GM
Carolina Golf Club
Golfweek 2011 Classic Courses #153

[Mac Plumart]

For what it is worth, Roger, I remember a strategic plan you posted regarding your golf club on this site and you asked some questions and looked for feedback.  I remember seeing photos of your course and how people reacted after playing it.  And now, you show up in the rankings.  Even though I haven't played your course (yet), it seems to me you are doing a really fantastic job of running and managing your course/club.  I am sure your members are beyond pleased.  Congratulations!!!

[Mark Saltzman]

No offense Adam, but do you think ANGC is going to do anything because of GolfWeek given Golf Digest had then #1 last time around? If they're still #1 or #2 in that list (or any list), then why make changes because one pub doesn't "get it" according to them. Most people tend to refer to whatever list puts them in the best light, and for most people not on this board, Digest is still the one that gets read the most.

Pat,
I am referring to the tree reduction, but primarily to the ridiculous "land bridge" that they built over the lake. I'll try to remember to post photos from 15 years ago and the most recent version--I think its the worst change to a hole that I've ever seen, but it was arguably my favorite par three anywhere until I got to play Pebble and Cypress so there's some bias involved. It made the golf course unique--now it doesn't have much to differentiate it from quite a few other places. They also redid the green at #2 awhile back and the five or so times I've been there since it doesn't match firmness or even look. That's now the most unique hole, so that's a bit of a blemish too.

I don't agree with tree removal in this instance--PoW is like Harbour Town in that the trees give the course its character. They've lost a lot in various storms over the year--without the remaining ones I think the character would suffer.

Andy,

I have only played PoW since the addition of the 'land bridge' on 9, but I have to say it looks fine to me.  I'm really curious what it used to look like to make it the "worst change to a hole" you have ever seen.  But I agree with that the trees give the course character.  While certain holes would be little changed with tree removal (1, 2 sort of, 12...), many of the holes are defined by the trees.  The overhang of the trees on holes like 8 and 18 are what make the course so memorable and give it its character.

[Adam Clayman]

Tim,
 When I was first placed on the panel, there were serious discussions with people who preceded me on the panel that felt their participation was justified in getting GCA back onto the right road. That Idealism has stuck with me, mostly because I have seen the positive shift in many of the designs that have been built in the last ten years, and the renovations too.

 Andy, It doesn't matter what I think, It matters what they do. I know they have copped to ignorance on another aspect of the club. So, maybe they will eat their errors and quietly fix the mistakes they have made with the gca.

 I would hope the club is not so stupid as to think they know everything there is to know. But, if they ask themselves,"why have we dropped on the  GW list?" The answers are findable.

[George Freeman]

David Kelly:

Be sure to say the same thing to Doak who rated courses in CG, and anyone else of similar sort, simply from having walked them.

If you are saying walking a course has no place in assessing a course then that should apply to all -- for consistency correct ?

I would tend to agree w/ David here.  I have no problem ranking/rating a course having only walked it, but playing it does make a difference (although walking and then playing is probably the best way to see a course).  That said, I think there is a huge difference between walking a course as you would walk it during play (i.e. standing on tee boxes, walking up the fairway, viewing the course from the places you actually would hit the ball from) versus seeing it during a PGA tour event. 

In my experience, it is very difficult to assess a course when there are 20,000 people packed onto a property, ropes directing you where to go, bad sight lines, walls of people, etc. 

My point being that I'm not so sure that attending the Masters would give you a good enough look at the course to be able to really assess it and how it plays.  However, I've never been to the Masters, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong...

[Jim Nugent]

Fishers jumped up three big places since 2010, from 10 to 7.  Any specific reasons for that?

Some other big movers:

UP:  

LACC North, from 21 to 15
Riviera, from 23 to 20
Winged Foot East, from 33 to 30
Baltusrol Lower, 36 to 33
Cal Club, from 54 to 35
Valley Club, from 41 to 36
Newport CC, from 45 to 38
Yale, from 47 to 41
Baltusrol Upper, from 59 to 47

DOWN:

Pinehurst #2, from 15 to 17  (any bets Pinehurst might move back up next year?)
Oakland Hills, from 17 to 19
Bethpage, from 19 to 21
Somerset Hills, from 28 to 31
Maidstone, from 31 to 40
Quaker Ridge, from 38 to 43
Inverness, from 37 to 45

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
I tend to agree there, and admire your idealism, but I highly doubt ANGC cares. If it causes a positive change, I'll celebrate it with you!

Mark,
I probably am wording it too strongly--the hole isn't a poor one now. It went from one of the best par threes I've ever seen to borderline whether its even the best three on the course. The green was and is interesting with an interesting angle. The back tee hasn't moved either so the shot requirement is similar. The intimidation factor and charm are what's gone. There used to be a long bridge across the water/gorge with the front tees on the other side. It was beautiful and intimidating with big tall trees around the water's edge. The other tees were across the gorge and the shot from there was pretty simple. Even when playing the regular tees, we always played #9 from the back box and I would think many other visitors did as well. Obviously now the regular tees are much closer to the back tee and are located where the bridge once was. Its still a tough shot, but the hole reminds me of a nice version of the over-water par three that I've seen about 100 other places.

By the way, #12 used to have a huge willow on the right past the driving zone. It is still a tough hole, but it was much harder before because the right side of the fairway required either a high shot or a cut to avoid the tree. I liked it, but a storm took it out. Many would argue that its a better hole now, but I would tend to say its less strategic. I also like the tree on #14--it would be a pretty simple hole without it, even though it overhangs the fairway a bit.

I sent myself a note to post the photos when I get home, assuming I can remember how to do it!

[David Kelly]

David Kelly:

Be sure to say the same thing to Doak who rated courses in CG, and anyone else of similar sort, simply from having walked them.

If you are saying walking a course has no place in assessing a course then that should apply to all -- for consistency correct ?

My point was very specific and was addressed to those people who complain about the integrity, methodology, etc. of the Golfweek rankings and then rate courses they have not played as a rebuttal.  Should GW include ratings from people based on watching tournaments played on the course TV or from walking the course during an event?

[Jim Nugent]

Most importantly, where is Kingsley?

#26

Kingsley fell from 19 to 26 - even though its score stayed basically the same.  7.65 in 2010, compared to 7.63 in 2011.  i.e. the GW raters who ranked Kingsley placed it in almost exactly the same position as they did the year before.  

Four new courses leapfrogged Kingsley (and almost everything else):  Old Mac #3...Rock Creek #15...Mountaintop #23... and Shooting Star #24.  Boston GC also passed Kingsley, by making a big jump, from 36 to 21.  So did Gozzer Ranch, which went from 38 to 22.  Finally, Chambers Bay passed Kingsley, even though CB fell from #20 to #25: CB's score went up from 7.60 to 7.64, while Kingsley fell from 7.65 to 7.63.  0.01 separates the two.  

Several interesting points to me.  One, in GW's ranking system, a course's overall score can rise, yet it can fall in the rankings.  This is especially interesting because the rankings are based on ranking scores, not absolute scores.  i.e. CB's 7.64 is an average of where GW's raters rank CB.  Their average ranking went up.  Meaning the raters who ranked CB think it should be ranked higher than they did in 2010.  Even so, CB's ranking went down, by 5 places.  Similarly Kingsley's average ranking stayed pretty much the same.  But its overall ranking plummeted.  

Two, I bet differences of 0.01 are statistically insignificant.  Can any statisticians give some educated guesses how big the differences must be, to reach statistical significance?  

Can anyone tell me exactly what the GW numbers mean?  i.e. if a rater gives a course a 10, which positions does that put it in?  Top 3 in the nation?  Same with 9, 8, 7, etc. on down to 0.  

[Tom_Doak]

I bet differences of 0.01 are statistically insignificant.  Can any statisticians give some educated guesses how big the differences must be, to reach statistical significance?  

 

Jim:

I am not a statistician.  But, considering that the entire nature of rankings is subjective, I don't know how you can really establish a standard of "statistical significance" for any of this stuff.  Differences of 0.01 and even 0.10 are relatively minor, just a matter of a couple of panelists' opinions [out of 200].  Most of the second fifty and second hundred are exercises in hair-splitting, really.

[David Camponi]

The rankings are good for two things;
1. Marketing for the clubs that get ranked
2. Free membership to 99% of private clubs in the world for the raters.  

The sad sad sad part is that the raters and their rankings actually have an affect on the clubs and there ability to make it.  The average dip shit golfer doesn't realize that the guys who are declaring whether _____ club is top ... now it is 200.....actually just got his rib removed so he could .....you know.

1 step above Trekkie's

[Adam Clayman]

The rankings are good for two things;
1. Marketing for the clubs that get ranked
2. Free membership to 99% of private clubs in the world for the raters.  

The sad sad sad part is that the raters and their rankings actually have an affect on the clubs and there ability to make it.  The average dip shit golfer doesn't realize that the guys who are declaring whether _____ club is top ... now it is 200.....actually just got his rib removed so he could .....you know.

1 step above Trekkie's

Membership at 99% of private clubs?

Are you kidding?

[Anton]

I see how close the numbers get in the second half.  Truly is "splitting hairs".  Nice to see all 3 of Saucon Valley's courses getting some love.  How is it that Kingsley and Ballyneal don't get any recognition from GM or GD.  Also did Pikewood (2009 Best New Private) make the grade in any of the lists?

[John Kavanaugh]

I see how close the numbers get in the second half.  Truly is "splitting hairs".  Nice to see all 3 of Saucon Valley's courses getting some love.  How is it that Kingsley and Ballyneal don't get any recognition from GM or GD.  Also did Pikewood (2009 Best New Private) make the grade in any of the lists?

Tony, if only Digest and Golf Magazine had their top 400 courses listed everyone would get recognized.

Adam, given 16,000 courses in the country it is safe to say that raters can access all but 160.  That makes you guys members of 99%.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil McDade:

The so-called "it worked out" for scoring happened because officials there tucked the pin into easier spots, the course was receptive to it and a few of the tee boxes were also adjusted.

Have the place play max length with tough pins and very fast conditions and guess what you have -- the US Open in April in GA.

[Matt_Ward]

David Kelly:

You didn't address my comments back to you.

Do you see walking a course as a viable way to rate a course ? Yes or No.

Scott Warren:

I have walked on the fairways and greens at ANGC -- both prior to Hootie and recently.

Jim Nugent:

ANGC has fallen -- other courses have passed it by or have gained a better appreciation. I will post such courses shortly -- my list will be inclusive of all courses.

[Sean Leary]

Matt, do you think walking outside the ropes is enough to opine with authority? Seriously?

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

I have walked ANGC -- both prior to Hootie and afterwards.

If you think walking isn't a fair option -- please realize others have to be dismissed as well.

No problem if you wish to do that -- just apply it even across the board.

[Andy Troeger]

Ok I can't get the image loader to work and I can't remember my photobucket password. If anyone's willing to post a couple photos (the before and after from Point O'Woods #9) send me a PM and I'll email them for posting.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

You mentioned Point O'Woods and how it plummeted downward -- if that can happen to that course -- why not the same for ANGC which has been changed even more so ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()