[Tim Martin]

Biarritz holes - They just don't work with modern equipment and maintenance.  I haven't seen a single one that plays to its conceptual ideal.

Could you expand on this somewhat, please. I don't understand exactly what you mean.  

Brad I

PS I love Yale's.

Ed can answer for himself, but I bet he made that comment  because 99 % of all golfers who CAN fly it to the back, try to fly it to the back. No one seems to opt for the run up shot unless they have to. (But with the lack of rain this spring,  my course FORCED us to  land it short. especially when we played the back tees at 250.) George Bahto says the hole needs to be between 250-275 given today's equipment.

I would love to know how Tim plays Yale's when the pin is back.

Bill-From the members tee I usually try to fly it back there with a hybrid club and I am lucky that my ball turns left. From the back tee I have no choice but to try to bounce it in with a fairway wood.  

[Mac Plumart]

Many of the best courses are not on the Top 100 lists.

[Bart Bradley]

Many of the best courses are not on the Top 100 lists.

Mac:

It seems to me that if taken as a whole, the lists do mention most of the best courses.  In fact, I would suspect if you look at the TOP 50 courses on those lists. most are truly great courses.  "Many" seems strong.  Care to give us some of the many?

Bart

[Mac Plumart]

Bart...

You are right, many might be too strong.  But some courses on these lists are not the best courses.

The most widely refered to list is the Golf Digest list (due to its circulation).  If you used their lists as your sole reference for playing golf courses, you'd miss Kingsley, Askernish, Rock Creek, Renaissance Club, to name a few.

Also, if you use their list for your benchmarks you might be misled as to what is great.  Here are the courses they list as Top 100 US and/or International (that no one else does):

Canyata
Eagle Pointe
Sahalee
Rich Harvest Links
Sycamore Hills
The Quarry at La Quinta
Flint Hills
Sage Valley
Hudson National
The Prince Course
Ellerston
Nat'l GC of Canada
Yas Links
Hamilton

Now, I haven't played any of these, except Sage Valley which was quite nice, but I suspect that many would argue these are not the best courses in the US/World.

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

Hamilton G & CC is a fine course.  You could argue whether or not it deserves to be on a list of the top 100 in the world (my take - not quite), but it is certainly worthy of consideration, anyway.  It doesn't belong with the group you've listed just above it.

[Mac Plumart]

Mac:

Hamilton G & CC is a fine course.  You could argue whether or not it deserves to be on a list of the top 100 in the world (my take - not quite), but it is certainly worthy of consideration, anyway.  It doesn't belong with the group you've listed just above it.

Tom,

I'm making no statement of quality regarding the courses I listed.  Those are simply courses that, of the Big 3 raters, only Golf Digest lists as Top 100 courses (in US or International). 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Many of the best courses are on the Top 100 lists. (The truth hurts.)

[Mac Plumart]

 

[Mac Plumart]

Another painful truth...

Completely natural looking golf courses aren't essential for great golf.

[Bart Bradley]

Mac:

Here is what I find interesting about our discussion so far.

You said "many of the best courses are not on the lists"...I asked you to elaborate and you listed courses that ARE on the list that maybe questionable" . 

BUT that is not speak to your original point.  You implied that many of the best courses are left off the list.  While that may or may not be true, your response speaks to the notion that it is much easier to point out courses that are overrated and harder to list those that are underrated. 

I actually think very few GREAT courses are not on the list.  After about 40 or 50, there is a clear dropoff and it leaves open an argument what should be listed.  BUT I think the truth is ....The best courses are on the list.

Just my opinion.  Thanks for the kind words on the other thread.  The truth is I am not STRICTLY a belt notcher.

Best wishes,

Bart

[Mac Plumart]

Bart...

I listed 4 courses that were not on the list before I posted that other list.

FYI.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart...

I listed 4 courses that were not on the list before I posted that other list.

FYI.

Oops missed those.  Although Kingsley is on some list already.

Sorry

Bart

[Mac Plumart]

Kingsley is on one and only one list Bart...Golfweek.  Not the Golf Digest list, which I mentioned and was refering to in my post.

[Bart Bradley]

 

I know Mac.  Like I said, I missed the 4 courses.  I was just pointing out that Golfweek properly mentions Kingsley...should have included a  .

Best,

Bart

[Mark Bourgeois]

All of the unadulterated classic courses are way too easy for the elite golfer.

Ryan, I see this one a little differently. Assuming we're not talking about playing a real competition, why wouldn't an elite golfer choose to play equipment that provides a challenge commensurate with original design intent?

The truth that hurts doesn't lie in the courses but in ourselves. (Nonelites too: we're just not good enough to dominate from any tee and / or with any equipment so our atavistic urges don't matter.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()