Golf Digest on NYC newsstands with Top 100

[Matt_Ward]

Andy, et al:

When a top 100 listing is created you either move in real time or you have a minimum waiting period -- say 3-4 years before consideraiton. I favor the former because it's hard to ignore those very special places that from day one should be included. Rock Creek and Kingsley Club come quickly to mind.

Sahalee has no place in a top 100 where ARCHITECTURE of the HIGHEST ORDER is being feasted. Sahalee has hosted a few big time tournaments -- hats off to them -- but hosting events is about other elements -- the architecture side is not the first among all other equals. Frankly, if anyone believes Sahalee is ahead of a place like Wine Valley then the kool-aid cannister needs to be put down ASAP.

John S:

Well said. GD could easily improve its overall process and likely weed out the high flash then crash and burn type courses that get the kind of immediate attention. It seems Fazio is a big time beneficiary with the GD raters but I can't see anything more than at best 8-10 of his layouts really being deserving of an all encompassing top 100 listing.

The sad part, as I mentioned previously, is how the coasts are pushed high and how little respect that public golf gets from the GD raters.

[Matt_Ward]

To move matters along here are the courses I would demote from the GD current listing.

Shoreacres -- there are those who rave about the course but I believe Raynor has done better elsewhere -- people forget the dull holes at the beginning and the ones concluding each side. Raynor has done better elsewhere -- people should play Morris County in Conven Station, NJ and see what I mean. A good layout -- but not among my top 100.

Maidstone GC -- gets too much spillover votes from being "in the neighborhood" of some of the finest in the land. Plenty of dull and ordinary holes early in the round and even the finish rarely gets the pulse beating fast. No doubt the dunes type holes -- especially the 9th are worth the time in playing but just not enough gas for me.

Somerset Hills -- the key to the golf course is to have it play especially firm and fast and with the greens really moving quickly. That doesn't happen that often -- and frankly there are a few holes in the middle of the front nine that are so-so and the ending with #17 and the dullest of all closers with the 18th (makes the finished at CP look like a world class hole) just lowers the course to be an outsider to the top 100 in my mind.

Hazeltine National - just shows that hosting majors pulls in the vote. Rees made major modifications to the course his Dad created and frankly minus the controversial 16th hole I have to wonder where is the beef beyond it's long and a tough slog for many.

Eugene CC -- can someone explain to me what goes with this place? OK -- RTJ flipped the course in reverse. To use the Tom Doak line he penned when talking about Cherry Hills being moved to Phillie and getting lost in the sauce -- the same holds true for Eugene.

Hudson National -- I laugh when I see this -- greatly overshaped to the max and no doubt in pristine shape -- but top 100 in the USA? No way. Worse yet -- the course is rated #11 in The Empire State and ahead considerably of a more deserving neighbor in Sleepy Hollow.

Congressional -- Just a long boring slog with little real architecture of note. Just keep pushing the tees back and narrowing the fairways -- doesn't hurt to visit the nation's capital and that majors have been played there. Belongs in the Hazeltine club.

The Quarry at LaQuinta -- Well done TF but frankly he has done plenty of similar efforts elsewhere. The real deal with the course is the final four holes -- the problem is that the first 14 are fairly predictable and at times deadly dull.
Sycamore Hills -- Here's a great example of a previous early style Nicklaus course. Nothing wrong per se -- has its moments but Nicklaus nation has done better recent work. When I compare Red Ledges in Heber City, UT -- it's like night and day differences.

Laurel Valley -- There's plenty of solid golf in western PA. LV is just long, often made wet to the max through man's hands and just a real yawn. Anyone thinking that LV is ahead of places like Fox Chapel and Pittsburhg Field Club erroneously believes that hard slog golf is better than rich diversity which the two I mentioned have in spades over LV. Pine Tree would be a far better choice for a Wilson selection - even

Rich Harvest Links -- No disrespect to Jerry Rich -- a great host and fine gentleman, but RHV is just a hodge-podge of different holes which don't make in unison with one another. Still can't get over the artificial turf on the champ tee at #13.

Interlachen -- Another of the classic courses that has been kept on because of what happened there -- long ago I might add -- then anything else.

The GC at Black Rock -- I like the course but Jim Engh has done a bit better elsewhere.

Sahalee -- To say top 100 is a mistake - to say it's within the top 50 USA is hilarious. Treed to the max with little real shotmaking save for archer arrows you need to fire with at many of the holes. Want a real alternative -- head to the other side of the state and play Wine Valley.

Arcadia Bluffs - The only way this course gets in to a top 100 would be if Kingsley is rated. Since that didn't happen -- then no Arcadia. Way overshaped to the max -- close call but I would just leave it out.

Baltusrol Lower -- Helps to have mega USGA events -- 7-time US Open site and soon to be twice PGA site. The sister Upper has the better terrain and hole diversity and likely most members will say that. The Lower also benefits from Nicklaus winning twice there. Beyond the clever back-to-back par-5 closing -- the rest of the course is on fairly dull terrain (the downhill par-4 3rd is still solid).

Olympia Fields / North -- The Baltusrol of the midwest.

The Preserve -- The storyline here is the beautiful terrain and the 6-mile+ plus ride to get to the course when entering the grounds. Love the opening hole but like a trailer to a movie -- the rest of the course features more of TF's "framing" with so little solid details for the greens and their surrounding areas. What's funny is how Pasatiempo is rated #16 in CA and The Preserve is #8. Serious overplaying of one's hand in my mind.

Other questionmarks --

Wade Hampton in the top 20 in the USA? Not in my book -- borderline top 100 choice for me.

Bandon Dunes -- another borderline call -- reaps benefits from having better support courses with Pac Dunes and now Old Macdonald. #28 rated in the USA? Hardly so in my opinion. If anything more towards the rear of my top 100 but competing hard to stay within.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Matt...
A nice compilation of courses you think do not deserve thier respective placements.
I certainly cannot disagree with much of what you wrote, some I have not played and certainly cannot comment upon.
Acccurate analysis of ThePreserve IMO, Hazeltine 100% agreement, same with Rich Harvest and Sahalee...but I admit I do like Maidstone alot, a top 100 for sure, and Wade Hampton is my personal favourite Fazio...but I agree not top 20 in the US.

And despite what was previously suggested by Jaka, my opiions are not slanted by my position as  GW rater, I just flat out see some of these ratings as being blatant politically motivated.
I told Brad Klein on friday that if GW had rated Alotian as high I would still have disagreed with  #14 placemnet.

[Tony Weiler]

Matt W., as you removed a number of courses, what would go in?  I know you like Kingsley and Black Mesa, but what else?  Thanks. 

[Jim Franklin]

Matt W., as you removed a number of courses, what would go in?  I know you like Kingsley and Black Mesa, but what else?  Thanks. 

good question Tony. Matt, 16 out, we need 16 in. I believe your list was pretty good as well. Fortunately you only asked for 5 from me.

[Jim Nelson]

While you are working on your list of inclusions, what about the new courses that were added.  Should they have been added to the Top 100 and were they placed correctly.  There has been a lot said about Alotian.  What about the others?

[Adam Clayman]

Once again Matt, You can't see the forest through the tress if you don't think Interlachen belongs. I can only assume your modus operandi of judging courses hole by hole is why you miss the whole. I felt it was one of the best parkland course I have ever seen. Which has ZERO to do with what happened there in 1930.

 The routing at Interlachen is bold genius. Shoreacres would also qualify as an example of how your hole by hole judgements fail at evaluating the course.

Please spare me the bullshit personal editorial comments you seem to always make when I try to discuss the minutia with you. There's no tone to my comments, just disagreement and a search for why I think you are in err.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Thanks for posting your list of 16.  Very interesting to read your reasoning.

However, do you REALLY think that Morris County GC is better than Shoreacres, or were you just throwing a local name out there for the hell of it?  I do not disagree with you that Shoreacres has some fairly dull holes, but it also has some brilliant ones.  I can see some people [long hitters especially] thinking it is overrated, but I'll be surprised if you can come up with 16 other U.S. courses that I believe are superior.

Morris County has several holes that I could not remember to save my own life, and the most memorable holes there are a bit over the top.  It is not in the same weight class as Shoreacres or Somerset Hills, in my opinion.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sadly I have only driven to the clubhouse of Shoreacres to buy a shirt one day when I had time to kill.  Obviously any unqualified rater who has spent any time on this site will have made his mind up that it is a top 100 course before they hit the course.  It is good to have people like Matt question these things.  Now if it just wasn't Matt.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

IF courses are to replaced how about using
Colonial
Whispering Pines
Kinglsey
 as replacements.
Worthy advocates of such a move.

[John Kavanaugh]

IF courses are to replaced how about using
Colonial
Whispering Pines
Kinglsey
 as replacements.
Worthy advocates of such a move.

How about The Pete Dye Golf Club.  It's no more than an underfunded Alotian.  How does Golfweek get by with this one?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JK
What do you mean how does Golfweek get away with this one..../
Not trying to be a smart arse, really elaborate for us.

[Jim Franklin]

Pete Dye is #45 already. I loved the place.

As for Matt's list, Shoreacres and Somerset Hills would still be in my top 100.

[John Kavanaugh]

JK
What do you mean how does Golfweek get away with this one..../
Not trying to be a smart arse, really elaborate for us.

Pete Dye Golf Club is top 10 Modern.  That stands out to me like The Alotian stands out to you.  Doesn't make it wrong.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

Can you tell me why specifically -- that you keep Shoreacres and Somerset Hills -- have you ever played Morris County in NJ? Or seen what Bahto / Hanse have done with Essex County (NJ) recently? How do you let slide the fact that Shoreacreas has no less than six dull holes ?

Tony Weiler:

Just to get started I would say the following courses have the goods for me, in no special order ...

Rock Creek
The Kingsley Club
Black Mesa
Red Ledges (Heber City, UT)
Whisper Rock / Lower
Sleepy Hollow (replace Hudson National with it)
Old Macdonal (I know it's too soon for GD but it is soooo special)
Glenwild (Park City, UT) *beats up a number of other TF rated layouts I have played
Sutton Bay
Essex County (NJ) -- replaces Somerset Hills, NJ in my mind *great updating by Bahto & Hanse

more to follow ...

Jim Nelson:

I can't comment on The Alotian Club -- have not played it although I respect what Jim F and Andy T have said on it.

Tom:

I do like Morris County a lot -- plenty of interesting holes and really changes the pace of things. I will concede that I have played Morris County more times than Shoreacres so if home court bias is showing I plead guilty to that. I never said Morris County would be a top 100 choice for me but I believe your memory banks need to be re-charged because you missed plenty. You say -- some holes are over-the-top -- which ones? Are you suggesting that the 7th is in that category? I see it as a gem of a hole -- really changes the pace from the first third of the course.

In regards to Somerset Hills -- it benefits from being in NJ and close to Golf House. The back nine is quite good but the short par-3 12th is vastly overrated -- even you got carried away in naming it among your best 18 in America in CG. The 11th is superb par-4 because it's not long but you need two laser-like positioned shots to succeed -- and that's before the putting commences. But you forget about a number of holes on the front -- after the 1st two holes and the last three holes on the outer half -- the middle of the front side is quite ordinary. You also give too quick a pass to the final two holes - #17 isn't that bad but #18 is truly dullsville -- Tillie must have been in a hurry to complete the layout.

Top 100 courses cannot have a slew of dull holes. Shoreacres has a number of them and I do question just how brilliant they are. Let me mention a Jersey course you should play again -- you rated it quite highly in CG -- The Banks Course at Forsgate. There's a course that is consistently better than Shoreacres from start to finish -- however -- gets so little attention because it's halfway between NYC and Phila.

Adam:

Interlachen gets the nod because of history -- where's the substance? You want better parkland courses? Try the metro NYC area or even Phillie. Can name at least 4-5 from each section which have got more going on than the Minnesota layout. By the way -- if you're only pissed at me for missing one -- than so be it.

[Jud_T]

Matt,

Good points and I agree with most of what you have to say.  However, aside from the ongoing Shoreacres debate, I wonder specifically what you find lacking in Olympia Fields North.  I think it stacks up well against the other local big-shouldered courses, Medinah and Butler, in most categories other than resistance to scoring (and conditioning in Butler's case).  I'd probably have it firmly in the bottom half of a top 100 list.

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

Truthfully, I am not a fan of Medinah #3 - although I have not played the course since the last changes (I call the layout the Michael Jackson of architecture) because the many versions have been all over the place. Butler National I like and would keep in my personal top 100 -- ditto for Chicago. I don't see the need for two (2) muscle courses -- if forced to choose I'd go w BN. On the history and classic side of things -- Chicago stands out.

On the flip side Olympia Fields is a wonderful golf facility with two (2) courses and I see many similarities with Baltusrol. I don't see the kind of design details being better than the courses I mentioned to replace them. Overall, I have to say much of Chicago golf for me is on the good to very good side but very little on the great side to merit a special top 100 placement. Much of that stems from a topography that is quite ordinary in many locations.

Jud, leaving in and forcing out courses is a tough call -- I don't think people can agree 100% but I do believe in what Doak said in CG -- if you can get agreement on the overwhelming number of specifics -- just chalk up the rest as personal differences in taste.

[Tony Weiler]

Jud, leaving in and forcing out courses is a tough call -- I don't think people can agree 100% but I do believe in what Doak said in CG -- if you can get agreement on the overwhelming number of specifics -- just chalk up the rest as personal differences in taste.

Matt, isn't that really what these 11 pages have been about?  And, in essence, can sum up the difference in ratings for each and every magazine??

[Matt_Ward]

Tony:

I believe few people can provide a real overview of the top 100 because too many people are simply regionalistic in scope. I believe the hordes of raters today simply glom on to the usual suspects and throw in a few others based on a wide range of elements -- many of which have little to do with the architecture itself (e.g. hosting majors, etc, etc).

No doubt personal tastes are involved but I can just as much favor an old time classic and modern day marvel.

[Tony Weiler]

Received the issue yesterday and thought it was well done.  One thing I realize is there is an awful lot of courses I need to see yet.  The problem is that many are private and exclusive.  Thus, you need to be either very well connected, and access seeker (which I’ve done) or, apparently, a rater.  So while the raters do get beat up a bit, they do have access that many of us don’t.  To me, that's an inherent flaw in the process.   

[Jim Colton]

Received the issue yesterday and thought it was well done.  One thing I realize is there is an awful lot of courses I need to see yet.  The problem is that many are private and exclusive.  Thus, you need to be either very well connected, and access seeker (which I’ve done) or, apparently, a rater.  So while the raters do get beat up a bit, they do have access that many of us don’t.  To me, that's an inherent flaw in the process.   

Tony, what's the inherent flaw? That you aren't well connected or that there are just too many courses to play but not enough time? I'm afraid I'm not following your logic.

Jim

[Kalen Braley]

Received the issue yesterday and thought it was well done.  One thing I realize is there is an awful lot of courses I need to see yet.  The problem is that many are private and exclusive.  Thus, you need to be either very well connected, and access seeker (which I’ve done) or, apparently, a rater.  So while the raters do get beat up a bit, they do have access that many of us don’t.  To me, that's an inherent flaw in the process.   

Tony, what's the inherent flaw? That you aren't well connected or that there are just too many courses to play but not enough time? I'm afraid I'm not following your logic.

Jim

Jim,

The way I interpretted it was the flaw is that because joe six pack doesn't have access to many of the top courses, the list is in some way incomplete or non-representative of the golfing population in general.

[David Kelly]

So while the raters do get beat up a bit, they do have access that many of us don’t.  To me, that's an inherent flaw in the process.   

So should GD and GW not rank Pine Valley and just put in a note saying, "Dear Reader, Since you have little chance of ever playing this course we are just going to skip it."

[Greg Tallman]

Doesn't Golf Digest attempt to address this issue with their "Top 100 Courses You Can Play"?

I

[John Kavanaugh]

Received the issue yesterday and thought it was well done.  One thing I realize is there is an awful lot of courses I need to see yet.  The problem is that many are private and exclusive.  Thus, you need to be either very well connected, and access seeker (which I’ve done) or, apparently, a rater.  So while the raters do get beat up a bit, they do have access that many of us don’t.  To me, that's an inherent flaw in the process.   

Tony,

Those are strong words for a guy who played Sand Hills with me just last year.  Where do you want to play that you feel you can't but still accepts any rater on a cold call?  There is no such course.