[Michael George]

To the Donald Ross experts out there:

I played Brookside in Canton, Ohio 2 weeks ago and came away more impressed than ever.  It was the first time that I had played it since I became more interested in golf architecture. 

My conclusion is that it is the best Donald Ross course that I have ever played and the best golf course in Northeast Ohio (and possibly Ohio).  While the rankings don't suport it, I think it is a better and more enjoyable golf course than another Ohio favorite, Scioto.  The terrain is very hilly and provides a nice balance of uphill, downhill and sidehill lies.  There is a great combination of short and long golf holes.  The par 3s are all fairly long, ranging from 160 to 210 yards, but they are completely different and never give you the impression that you are playing the same golf hole.  And the greens are the best that I have ever played.  I enjoyed them even more than Oakmont, which is quite a statement.  They are fast and undulating but entirely fair.  Good approach shots are rewarded and missed are taken on a ride to other parts of the green.  There literally were approaches that you have to aim at the back left corner of the green to get the ball to stop on the middle right part of the green (ie. #6).

Really the only downside ofthe course was that the par 5, par 5 finish seemed to have more to do with getting the golfer back to the clubhouse than making the best holes that were there.  I would shorten #17 and make it a challenging and long par 4, as the course could use a long par 4 and it is not much as a par 5.  #18 needs no changes as it is a fine risk/reward par 5.

Can someone with more knowledge about raters please explain how this course is not in the top 100 in the United States.  I know that affinity to golf courses can be speculative and personal to the golfer.  However, I cannot think of any person's criteria that would not have this course in the top 100.  Even outside Ross courses, it is a better golf course than other top 100s like Laurel Valley, Sycamore Hills, Double Eagle and Forest Dunes.  Sycamore Hills and Double Eagle are not even close.

Thanks for your input.

[JLahrman]

Hopefully the statute of limitations for this crime has run out, but I will confess to sneaking out onto this course about ten years ago late one summer evening.

I played the 12-17 loop twice and loved the holes.  And the greens certainly were a lot of fun.

Limited perspective of the course, but if the other 12 holes are as fun as the six I played, I would agree with your assessment.

[Brad Klein]

Golfweek's Best Classic List - 2011
Brookside CC, Canton, Ohio, No. 69

It has been in our top-100 for a decade.

[jonathan_becker]

MG,

You are fastly becoming my new favorite poster.  Brookside is a personal favorite of mine as well.

I'm not a rater, but the fact that the course doesn't have a great historic tournament legacy probably has a lot to do with it.  Also, the course itself really didn't get it's due until the work that was completed by Silva in 2004(?).  They removed hundreds of trees and reclaimed some of the putting surfaces among other things.   It's got that intimidating muscular look to it now and it absolutely love it.

Regarding Scioto, I would play Brookside 8-2 or 9-1, but I'm biased as Brookside is where I started playing the game as a kid.  As for NE Ohio, it might very well be the best.  Country is the only course that can contend with it because Country's routing is spectacular.

Regarding the greens, I think that most on this board that haven't seen them would be blown away with the extreme variety.  They are extremely difficult to manage, but they're not unfair just like you said.  Proper placement is key.  Of the courses I've played, Brookside's greens are in the same league with Seminole, Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Merion, and Inverness among others.  Yes, they're that good.

As for the best course in Ohio, that's a tough one, as The Golf Club is pretty damn good!

I'm going back to play Brookside soon and will take some more photos.

[PThomas]

a tremendous set of greens there!

[Peter Sayegh]

Michael,
I've never played Brookside-knew it only by name.
I just looked at it in Google Earth and I have some questions. It seemed quite a number of 4s and 5s had no fairway bunkering-particularly on the back (if I guessed the sequence right).
Firstly, did you get that impression during your recent round? All the replies so far have praised Brookside's greens. What were your impressions from the tee? Did the lack of bunkers belie the green(s) challenges? Just curious.
Thanks, Peter

[Dean DiBerardino]

I just looked at it in Google Earth and I have some questions. It seemed quite a number of 4s and 5s had no fairway bunkering-particularly on the back (if I guessed the sequence right).

Peter:

Are you looking at an updated Google Earth image of Brookside? The only hole at Brookside without any fairway bunkering is hole #6 which is on the north-eastern edge of the property.

[Peter Sayegh]

Thanks Dean. As they say-same church, different pew. Was looking at Brookside near Worthington, just off Jack Nicklaus Freeway. Who knew?

[Billsteele]

I think the fact that Jonathan Becker learned the game there is holding it back.

I think Brookside is a terrific course...or as I stated in my post-Dunes Club alcohol induced haze, "BROOKSIDE IS AWESOME!" However, I do think three things hold it back a bit. First, the finish is not that strong...as you alluded to. Second, it doesn't have the tournament pedigree that Jonathan mentioned. Third, you really have to seek out Brookside. With a number of great courses in Cleveland and Columbus (and one in both Toledo and Cincinnati), you have to be willing to break away and drive the hour or so from Cleveland or the two hours from Columbus to see and play it. I think it is well worth it but I am not a rater.

This past weekend, I played Springfield Country Club...about an hour west of Columbus.  It is another Ross design. It was my second round there and I enjoyed it more the second time than the first (sort of like sex). The greens there are also wicked awesome.

Best course in Ohio? Personally, The Golf Club and Camargo rank right up there...and I might choose Kirtland over Brookside. But it is awfully good. A nice day would be one where I have that choice.

As far as Scioto, it has the Nicklaus connection. All Brookside has is the Becker connection...not even close.

[jonathan_becker]

Thanks Dean. As they say-same church, different pew. Was looking at Brookside near Worthington, just off Jack Nicklaus Freeway. Who knew?

Peter,

You and many others have made the same mistake.

Bill S,

That's pretty funny.       Seriously though, regarding Scioto, I wish I could have seen it a long time ago before Jack got his hands all over it.  Don't get me wrong, it's a great course but the Nicklaus bunkering is too monotonous for my taste.

[Michael George]

Jonathan:  Thanks for the kind words.    I would agree on NE Ohio.  Country and Kirtland are the only two courses that I would put in its class.  

Peter:  I think the picture that you are looking at is old.  You never get the impression that there is a lack of bunkering.  Plus, the topography is so rolling, that you may not even notice.  For instance, # 6 has no fairway bunkers, but is still an interesting drive because of what plateau you want to approach the green from. Plus, the green is incredible and very difficult to stick from the left rough.

Brad:  I am sorry for not including Golfweek's Classic ranking.  In fact, I have found your rankings to be more accurate than others.  However, I disagree with Canterbury being ranked higher and don't know many people in Northeast Ohio that would disagree with me.  I personally like the course better than Inverness and Scioto, but understand that most people rank them higher.  Cascades (if they cut trees and opened up the course, pumped water through the creeks, got rid of cartpaths, developed a caddie program and maintained the course in better condition) would be better, but unfortunately, it has been neglected too long and needs a significant remodel - great layout though.

[Billsteele]

Jonathan-There is so much to say about Scioto and so little time. I would have liked to have seen it before Dick Wilson got involved with it back in the 60's. Nicklaus is always quick to point out that it is not the same golf course that he grew up on. You can still see some great Ross touches there: Number 2 is a wonderfully conceived hole, Number 9 (to me) is a terrific short par three and Number 16 (if I am remembering correctly) is a wonderful par four.  In fact, I think that three of the par threes are pretty strong (I do not care for the first one on the back nine). However, then you have holes like Number 8 which is entirely a Wilson creation that looks so out of place.

I am also a bit confused now as to who has worked on what. At one time, a few years ago, Mike Hurdzan redid the bunkers. I think he consulted with Nicklaus. When they redid the greens recently, I thought that was all Jack. Regardless, Scioto tends to coast a bit on the Nicklaus connection and its heritage (Jones won an open there, Ryder Cup).

P.S. When are they going to put your plaque up at Brookside?

[jonathan_becker]

Bill,

Now I'm more confused than ever regarding Scioto!  All I know is that my host was a 72 year old woman that flushed the ball and she grew up with Jack.  She liked the course better back in the day.

There won't be any plaque for me at Brookside as I was only there for 2 years as a kid and the course used to torch me!  Then my dad was transferred and that was the end of that chapter.

MG,

#6 might be my favorite hole on the course.  With the terrain bleeding towards the right it's a tough fairway to hit....then you get to the green....which is a picnic in itself.

[Michael George]

Bill:

The 2nd and 3rd things that hold the course back have nothing to do with golf or the course.  To this day, I have no clue why tournament history is a factor in rankings.  Are we ranking the most popular courses or the best courses.  

For instance, I enjoyed Pete Dye GC a lot more than Oakland Hills.  Why should Oakland Hills be higher solely because it hosted a US Open.  Hosting tournaments have nothing to do with the quality of golf course.  Based on my involvement with the Bridgestone Invitational, I will tell you it has everything to do with ticket sales.

Second, I know that the drive is not a factor for you.  Did you laugh when you wrote that?

[Michael George]

Jonathan:

I loved #6 also.

I think the stretch from #4-#12 is crazy good.  There is not one average hole in that entire group. 

The drive on #10 is obviously most people's favorite, but I think the drive on #11 is extremely well designed and great risk/reward.
The green on #8 is my favorite on the course as the landing area is 10 sq. feet. 
The approach on #9 is my favorite as the swales in the fairway make it really challenging.

And I am not even talking about #15 and #16 which are terrific par 4s with great features.  On #15 I felt like I was playing a Colt design with the double wide fairway bunker and #16 has the coolest pin placement that I have ever seen on the back right ridge.

I have to go play there again tomorrow.

[Brad Klein]

I love the greens at Brookside but if there is limitation it's that every bunker is at exactly the same depth and slope and there's too much formula here; but that's a modest criticism compared to the charm and the boldness of the place. And it is 100X better than before Silva's restoration.

[Bill McKinley]

I've played Canton Brookside many times before and after the restoration.  It is a great course now.  But we all need to relax with the rankings discussion.  The bottom line is that there are a lot of wonderful courses in this country and it's all but impossible to have a list tell me and you and the other guy over there which golf course is "better."  I hate those conversations that go like this: How can course A,B,or C be rated better than course D?"

However with respect to the major championship conversation, personally I do think there is a certain je ne sais quoi to playing a course that has hosted a big event.  It is a factor, but one of many factors, that make a person like or dislike a course.

[Billsteele]

I find it extremely fishy that a man named Bill McKinley is discussing a golf course located in Canton, Ohio (resting place of our 25th President).

[Michael George]

Bill McKinley:  The more courses that I have played, the more I can care less about what tournament has played there.  I used to get more excited to play the Firestone's and Balustrol's of the world than the Kirtland's and Canton Brookside's, but not anymore.  Simply put, the later two are a lot more enjoyable to play than the former two, regardless of what tournaments have been hosted there.  I would take a tee time on Crystal Downs (with no tournament history other than a Senior Amateur) over 95% of the courses that have hosted a US Open or PGA Championship.  

If you are going to rank course by tournaments that have played there, then call the ranking the most "famous" or most "norotious" golf courses.  However, the rankings say the "best" golf courses - which means (1) how much fun it is to play, (2) are the holes well designed and is there strategic interest to the holes (ie. use of angles and hazards and green complexes), (3) does the course challenge good players while being playable for average players, (4) is it able to be walked (this is important as artificial looking courses with cart paths down the sides and long walks from green to tee are not golf as it was meant to be played), and (5) is it well maintained.  I am sure there are other criteria, but these are the main ones.  If you want to include a ranking for "intangibles" - fine and if someone feels that a tournament course has more intangibles because of its tournament history, fine.  However, that intangible category can just as easily provide credit for really cool places like The Dunes Club in New Buffalo, Michigan (thanks again to Terry Lavin - I love everything about that place).

Re: needing to relax on the rankings discussions.  rankings are a part of the golf landscape.  They are very important to clubs in terms of membership and notoriety.  Rare is the club that does not care about them.  In fact, you now see clubs adding things to help them in the rankings (ie. adding caddie programs, performing restorations and catering to raters).  So they are a part of golf today, whether we like it or not.  I think the ranking systems are flawed for many reasons (including the fact that remote courses often have not been rated enough to get their credit - ie. Rock Creek Cattle Company).  However, they provide a standard of comparison and for that reason are useful.  Plus, it is what guys like us have to talk about in our spare time (it is a whole lot better than Phil's belly putter).    
  

[Bill McKinley]

Michael,

I actually think we pretty much are in agreement on the rankings philosophy.  But I still do think people get carried away by saying I played course A and there's no way it's "better" than course B.  Chances are both courses in those discussions are pretty good, but because it is printed in a magazine with a number next to it, it tends to get a lot of negative talk about great courses because somebody has a different opinion than GD or GW.  I just find too many people taking them way too serious and using them as gospal.

As for your point on the the major venues...  Again, it's just a factor that will make me want to play that course.  That doesn't mean I prefer them to non major venues.  For example if someone said to me you can go play Shinny or National, I'd choose National.  But at the same time, I might want to go play Atlanta Athletic Club (not over Shinny or National) because I saw the PGA and i want to play some of those holes that I saw on TV.  I may end up not liking the place, but I am interested in playing it becuase it has hosted a major.  Otherwise I probably would not have any desire to play AAC.

[Mark Saltzman]

As for your point on the the major venues...  Again, it's just a factor that will make me want to play that course.  That doesn't mean I prefer them to non major venues.  For example if someone said to me you can go play Shinny or National, I'd choose National.  But at the same time, I might want to go play Atlanta Athletic Club (not over Shinny or National) because I saw the PGA and i want to play some of those holes that I saw on TV.  I may end up not liking the place, but I am interested in playing it becuase it has hosted a major.  Otherwise I probably would not have any desire to play AAC.

Bill,

I completely agree with this.  After watching a tourny on TV, especially if it's a major, I want to go see the course.  So if I were in Atlanta, I would want to play AAC.  Not over something as good as say Peachtree, which I have heard and read about how great it is, but probably over a course that I am sure is good but I know nothing about, like Atlanta CC (which FWIW GD ranks 4 spots higher than AAC on its best in state list).

The same was true for me with Torrey Pines in San Diego.  I had heard it wasn't great and it was overpriced for out-of-state visitors, but after watching Tiger's duel with Rocco there and seeing it on TV year after year, there was no way that wasn't going to be my first choice when in San Diego.

Threadjack now complete.  Sorry. 

Though, FWIW, because of this thread I am now in the process of attempting to make plans to try to get down to see Brookside.

[Tim_Weiman]

Micheal:

Brookside fits into the category of courses golf architecture students should study, thanks to its extraordinary greens, but for some reason I have never been thrilled with the property itself.

Some people feel the 18th hole detracts from Yale, but to me this is really more the case at Brookside.

[Tom MacWood]

No doubt its a hell of a course, but the best in Ohio? It appears they have cleaned up the Xmas tree alley at the 18th...and I'm glad, so I need to play it again, but there is a lot of competition. I can't believe it is better than TGC. And Kirtland, Mayfield, MV and Camargo were better IMO. I like Firestone North too. As far as Ross courses go is it better than Scioto, Inverness, Granville, Westbrook, Youngstown, Congress Lake and Springfield?

[David Royer]

I played Brookside Canton this year for the first time.  As a member of Brookside Columbus I was curious to play Canton after hearing so much about it.  I left Canton feeling it rates in the same class as the very best Ohio has to offer.  I'm not sure you can do better than a visit to Kirtland and B-Canton.  It offers demanding iron play by a matching set of strong short game skills.  The green complexes are outstanding.  It's one of Ohio's quiet gems like Moraine CC.  If you play B-Canton from the tips it is equally a brute with such courses as NCR South, MV.

[Michael George]

Tom:   I would choose Brookside over Kirtland solely because of the greens, even though Kirtland's bunkering is the best in Ohio.  Brookside is much better than Youngstown and Congress Lake - really no comparison.  

Mark and Bill:  When all things are equal, I would play the course that I saw on tv.  However, my point is that rankings should only include an intangible category, which tournament history, as well as other "hard to put the finger on" charms can be considered.   For instance, the simplicity of the Dunes Club can be valued in this category right next to the tournament history of Firestone - funny, because there are probably not 2 golf facilities in the US more different than Dunes and Firestone.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()