Ratings: Where Lies The Greatest Gap?

[David Harshbarger]

Thank you, Tom_

I believe Shadow Creek had a similar dalliance with someone's top ten, did it not?

Google has let me down for the first time. I know that this roster exists for individual courses~http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster

Does a list of each year's list exist anywhere on the web?

Ron, it isn't quite the same as the GD list but here is the Golf Magazine list from 1985 on:

Golf Magazine World Top 100's

You can weed out the internationals easy enough....the top 10 are quite familiar.

Dave

[David Harshbarger]

I think you might see a particular TV station that specializes in golf come out with a concept like hotels or airlines very soon.  For instance if you are a Marriott Rewards member you can get points for stays at ritz Carlton all the way down to a Fairfield Inn.  Each has a different number of stars.  I think we will see such a system for member golf courses sometime in the near future.  Imagine going to a town and particular golf course who was a member of a "GolfTV golf course member"  .  you could look on the site and choose a 5 star course or a four star course or a three star course.  You could accumulate some points and use them later at another member course etc.  That's where we are going.  The present Tee sheets just don't work.

Mike,

It's a great concept and could come to pass.  I wonder if the market is large enough for it to be a go?  Are there enough Golfers to join a program that travel enough to care, and enough courses to sign up to have the critical mass?  There's some shadow club doing something similar whose name I don't recall, and Trump offers something similar on owned properties, so examples are there.  But does it scale to mass market, that's my question?

[Matthew Petersen]

Mark, it really feels like you're pulling our collective leg here.

No one is saying that the ranking rises after a successful Open because it's built into the rankings, we're saying it's something that influences raters. How does the shot values score go up? Because some percentage of raters know a US Open was played on the course and therefore figures the shot values must be good, especially if Floyd beat Norman here. Plus, you'll get more raters visiting, and those visiting after (perhaps because of?) the Open are further inclined to have their ratings influenced that way.

I'm not calling raters corrupt, or stupid. I just think high profile exposure on TV and as the host of the national championship is something that subconsciously influences a lot of people.

[Mike Hendren]

Agree on the greens, I may have hyperbolized a little, ANGC is still an excellent course, but in terms of strategy and uniqueness, it's a shadow of what it once was.

Funny how we can see things different ways.  I would confidently opine that Augusta National Golf Club is THE most unique golf course in the U. S.   I would also confidently opine that it is among a handful of the most strategic golf courses in the world.  A shadow of its former self?  I can't say though I'm hard pressed to argue that the original was a superior course - it was just original (at the risk of invoking the wrath of Bob Crosby who usually right).   Sure it had abundant width and no rough, but there sure are a lot of sapplings in the black and white photographs, and today's rough looks like the greens I grew up on.  (7 and 11 are admittedly inexcusable).

Would you also state that the forestation of Pine Valley Golf Club renders it a shadow of its former self as well?  At least Augusta doesn't have bunkers hidden in the woods. 

Respectfully,

Bogey

[Jeb Bearer]

Bogey,

You may be right. You say 7 and 11 are inexcusable, and those are the holes I tend to focus on. I agree that the rest of the course is still way up there in quality, I'm just too much of a pessimist to pay any attention to it! My main problem is that the ongoing tweaking, most of which is, I think, geared towards the Masters, is sort of the epitome of the problems we have with modern technology and the huge chasm between the game that the pros play and that which we play. It's true that most of the changes haven't been too bad. It's still probably the widest course on tour.

The other thing is the conditioning, the ultra-green turf that all other parkland courses try to emulate at the cost of F&F and a whole lot of $. Overall though, there are tons of courses I should be criticizing before ANGC.

[Ronald Montesano]

Leave it to the man from Tennessee to right the ship. For all that we bemoan that old Augusta course, it IS unique and it has amazing, amazing greens that were inspired by the Old Course and, in their way, inspire much that is good in putting on this side of the great waters.

I am guilty of jumping on many a bandwagon, but the fact that Augusta can still be Augusta despite all the cosmetic surgery says so much about the bones of that course. It reminds me in a way (just one way, not all ways!!) of Elvis; I hope that it doesn't die on the kettle.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeb/Bogey...

I'm no Augusta expert, but can you detail why 7 and 11 are inexcusable in your opinion.

Here are some photos of the course, just 'cause I really like looking at pictures of the course...specifically the greens.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51672.0.html


Thanks.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Matthew, I'll address your comments when I have a chance.

How can ANGC be considered unique when a) it copied a chunk of holes from another course (even that approach was unoriginal) and b) lots of courses have since copied (or attempted to copy) it?

[Jeb Bearer]

Mac,

I am undoubtedly even less of an expert, so take everything I say with a grain of salt (or ten).  
Anyways...7 and 11. In a word, narrow. Both play through chutes of trees which isn't really fitting with the intent of the course. On seven, I don't love the bunkering scheme, its too one dimensional. That green is still awesome though. On eleven, I don't like the way they've converted Raes creek into an artificial pond. The big issue there though is definitely the ridiculous narrowing of the dz.

[Ronald Montesano]

I would suggest that there's not a single hole at Augusta that is an exact replica (which is what copy means to me) of any hole at St. Andrews. Inspired? For sure.

No other course has successfully copied any of Augusta's holes from tee to green, in its entirety. Sloppy seconds? From Ontario to Las Vegas and points in between.

I've often told golf course owners that I'm less interested in substandard conditioning than the bones of the course. In Augusta's case, I would not be disheartened by superstandard conditioning as well.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I would suggest that there's not a single hole at Augusta that is an exact replica (which is what copy means to me) of any hole at St. Andrews.

Jud, let me see if I've got this straight: ANGC is original because it didn't perfectly copy the holes it copied from TOC, Alwoodley, Stoke Poges, etc?

mrakkram

[Chip Gaskins]

#5 is about where I start to see the disparity

Royal County Down
Royal Melbourne
The Old Course
Shinnecock Hills
Pine Valley

[Ronald Montesano]

I would suggest that there's not a single hole at Augusta that is an exact replica (which is what copy means to me) of any hole at St. Andrews.

Jud, let me see if I've got this straight: ANGC is original because it didn't perfectly copy the holes it copied from TOC, Alwoodley, Stoke Poges, etc?

mrakkram

You're going to have to give me more than that. Are you telling me that all 18 holes are copies? That none of them is unique in its execution?

[Jeb Bearer]

Mark,

The use of water was then pretty original, or at least rare. Also, its not really fair to say the holes were copied. Inspired yes, but not copied. For example, 5 is supposed to be a road hole. The angles are all there, but beyond that it bears onlya passing resemblance, much less so than many of the template holes CBM did. 6 is a redan in theory, but it is and always was Mackenzies modification on the real redan. All of the template holes are more like variations on a theme than true imitations.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I would suggest that there's not a single hole at Augusta that is an exact replica (which is what copy means to me) of any hole at St. Andrews.

Jud, let me see if I've got this straight: ANGC is original because it didn't perfectly copy the holes it copied from TOC, Alwoodley, Stoke Poges, etc?

mrakkram

You're going to have to give me more than that. Are you telling me that all 18 holes are copies? That none of them is unique in its execution?

You keep referring to the course in the present tense; are we discussing the course as it is or Mackenzie's NLE design?

Jeb, how is the use of water original? Do you mean Rae's Creek was used differently than, say, Swilcan Burn?

[Jeb Bearer]

Rare. Water was not the ubiquitous hazard that it is today, and to use it as a fronting hazard in order to create a risk-reward par 5 was (so far as I know) fairly innovative. And admittedly, most of that innovativness remains today.

[Ronald Montesano]

Mark,

I see now where you are going with the NLE design assertion. Here's a good look at the differences between the original trace of the holes and their current iteration: http://www.historyshots.com/augusta/index.cfm?s=cirk

17 and 18 in particular (back then, 8 and 9) have strangled the flight and landing lines of the ball.

I'd still like to know how many of the holes were lifted from the courses you mentioned.

The creek was such a subtle hazard at one point, in contrast to the smack to the face it and its ponds now represent.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I hadn't seen that before. Did Stan Byrdy do that? If not, I wonder if he feels a little ripped off.

Regarding ANGC, that old course has little to nothing to do with the near-supreme greatness of the course. As much as anyone, Tom Fazio deserves credit.

"Augusta National fluctuated between second and third on each 100 Greatest list from 1985 to 2009, when, after a decade of extensive lengthening and tightening of most of its holes, it edged Pine Valley for No. 1." -- Ron Whitten

The 7th and 11th holes are greater for Fazio's efforts, so I'm not sure what the complaining there is about.

[Sean_A]

Mark

Do you not think the original bunker scheme was something quite original? 

I also agree about the water, not original, but its heavy use for a classic course had to be very rare.  You look at British designs from just 10-20 years earlier and water which could be used to great effect is often taken out of play.  In fact, aren't you one to clamour about no water on heathlands? 

I also think the concept of no rough for a parkland course is quite unusual for the time. 

Visually too, AGNC didn't have a feel of being hemmed in by trees or other holes.  The sense of spaciousness must have been quite remarkable.   

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark

Do you not think the original bunker scheme was something quite original? 

I also agree about the water, not original, but its heavy use for a classic course had to be very rare.  You look at British designs from just 10-20 years earlier and water which could be used to great effect is often taken out of play.  In fact, aren't you one to clamour about no water on heathlands? 

I also think the concept of no rough for a parkland course is quite unusual for the time. 

Visually too, AGNC didn't have a feel of being hemmed in by trees or other holes.  The sense of spaciousness must have been quite remarkable.   

Ciao

Sean, how do you mean the bunker scheme may have been original? Not disagreeing just not sure I understand.

And, yes, I loathe water on a heath but we are not discussing my preferences. We are discussing the elements of greatness.

[Ronald Montesano]

Don't know Stan Byrdy...identification, if you please.

[Mark Bourgeois]

http://bit.ly/UIohYU

[Sean_A]

Mark

Do you not think the original bunker scheme was something quite original? 

I also agree about the water, not original, but its heavy use for a classic course had to be very rare.  You look at British designs from just 10-20 years earlier and water which could be used to great effect is often taken out of play.  In fact, aren't you one to clamour about no water on heathlands? 

I also think the concept of no rough for a parkland course is quite unusual for the time. 

Visually too, AGNC didn't have a feel of being hemmed in by trees or other holes.  The sense of spaciousness must have been quite remarkable.   

Ciao

Sean, how do you mean the bunker scheme may have been original? Not disagreeing just not sure I understand.

And, yes, I loathe water on a heath but we are not discussing my preferences. We are discussing the elements of greatness.

The bunkering was extremely light and sometimes rather unusually placed.  It doesn't seem as though Dr Mac was looking to playing maximize the impact of his bunkers.  I wonder if there was a visual impact?

Do you think the short bunkers on #12 stopping balls from rolling into the water were odd for the time?

Practically no fairway bunkers and some are strangely placed (#s 1, 2 & 14).

10 & 16 feature greenside bunkers away from greens.

3, 8 & 18 feature centreline bunkers. 

I would love to see the original ANGC just for the bunkering - its fascinating placement.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean, you do realize a number of the bunkers (not to mention greens) you reference didn't exist or weren't in their current locations when Mac designed the course, yes?

[Jeb Bearer]

Mark,

What is it Bout seven and eleven that makes you say they are greater for Fazios efforts? Is it that they are harder? Tighter? How exactly are you defining great?

Sean,

Agree on the bunkering scheme. I think many of the bunkers were placed with the ground game in mind, eg. The one 30 (?) yards short of the green on one. That bunker has since been moved tight to the edge of the green to challenge todays aerial game, which is one way the course has been made more conventional.