[jeffwarne]

I find it very hard to believe anyone would pick Seminole over Pennard

Howdy, Jeff.

My Whip Out

7.   Pennard
37. Seminole

Respectfully,

Guy with 2 Jacks in his top 4  

ballsy list , and a great one.

Take out Mach Dunes(sub in Narin and Portnoo), Pinehurst 2 (sub in ANGC), and Turnberry (sub Royal County Down)
throw in  Myopia, Portsalon , an Eastward Ho,Narin and Portnoo, a Kennebunk, a Brora, Apawamis, The Creek, and Goat Hill and  (I haven't played a few of yours so I have room)
and we'd have my list

The problem with these 25 "Top" courses played is everyone is working off a different set of courses played, so we don't know if they don't rank ANGC or Merion in their top 25, or if the simply haven't played them.
I've played Pinehurst , Mach Dunes,and Turnberry, they just aren't in my top 25

[Mike_Young]

If better is better, why is ANGC held in such high esteem here?

Actually, come to think of it ANGC demonstrates the lack of group think here, because there is a lot of disagreement on this website on how good it is.

Disagreement from whom ?  People who have NEVER played it.

I've played it and it's a spectacular golf course.

As to the ponds, they're merely dammed creeks and runoffs

Pat,
Agree 100%.  I remain cynical of so many critics who say they have played a course and really have never been near it.  Sort of like my buddy that played Merion everytime he was in Pittsburg .  ( I'm not sayin the majority are this way..but it exist)  ANGC is not my favorite by a longshot but so much commentary goes on regarding it when the people discussing it have not played it and often never seen it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Donal,

Regarding the Confidential Guide, if it will make you feel better, I have actually given away two copies: one to Arthur Spring for spending a day showing me the Inch Peninsula and the other to Kevin Frost, my best friend in Ballybunion.

But, given the current prices I do have a rule never to lend out my one remaining copy!


Jeff:

You want anti group think. Ok, I'll say it. I love Dooks and think it is one of the very most pleasant places to play golf in the world. Beats many top 100 just for the happiness I have felt playing there!

[jeffwarne]

Donal,

Regarding the Confidential Guide, if it will make you feel better, I have actually given away two copies: one to Arthur Spring for spending a day showing me the Inch Peninsula and the other to Kevin Frost, my best friend in Ballybunion.

But, given the current prices I do have a rule never to lend out my one remaining copy!


Jeff:

You want anti group think. Ok, I'll say it. I love Dooks and think it is one of the very most pleasant places to play golf in the world. Beats many top 100 just for the happiness I have felt playing there!

Tim,
loved Dooks.
a bit of a weak finish though.
I don't think you'll get much arguement here about Dooks, just won't see many pick it  over Seminole or Pine Valley;)
Clearly I need to get back to Pine Valley as it's been 20 years. Perhaps it could work into my Top 25 if they treated me well

[Bill Gayne]

I appreciated Ran not using group think in his willingness to visit and review Fraserburgh. There are other big name courses in the area that could have been selected. I went to Fraserburgh last week based on his review and it's every bit as interesting as he describes it.

  

[Ken Moum]

To all of those people who want to play links courses in the GB&I, well, all I'm saying is have you really played them in the wind...?

They are very serious tests of golf once the wind is above 25 mph...!

Granted match play is different, but links can be de-moralising.

Well, in August and early Sept. my wife and I played several of them in "Scottish" weather.  Brora, St Andrews Jubilee and Eden in pretty steady 20 mph.  Cullen and Fraserburgh in intermittent rain showers with gusts strong enough to make standing upright difficult. Dunbar and North Berwick in winds that were measured by the anemometer on the NB starter's hut at steady 25 and gusting to over 40.

Dunbar was in a mixed foursomes medal comp.

The only one of those that was close to unplayable for me was Jubilee. It was playing REALLY fast and with those narrow fairways surrounded by lost-ball territory in a stiff crosswind, it was no fun.

But the rest of those courses don't pretend to be Carnoustie, and even a hack like me can negotiate them without being demoralized.

IMHO, that's as it should be.

K

[Jim Nugent]

However, my golf course rating criteria has artificial ponds as one of the rating criteria.

Garland, most every course has artificial features.  e.g. Chambers Bay is a heavily manufactured golf course, where they moved over 1.5 million cubic of earth.  I'm pretty sure the earth-moving figures at ANGC are a small fraction of that.  

So my question is why you single out ponds, when there are so many other artificial features at plenty of courses?  

As someone who has never played ANGC, I think those ponds play a big strategic role, in one of the most dramatic, fascinating nine holes of all golf.    

Did Mackenzie design the course with white sand in mind?  

btw, I just read that the sand at ANGC is so white due to its high, pure quartz content, and that "The same stuff in those Augusta National bunkers is now used for silicon chips."

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

I've never been able to hit a recovery shot from the bottom of a pond. Yet I have been able to hit recovery shots from artificial dunes at Chambers Bay.



But, I guess I am just following the site's group think, because Tom Doak avoids putting artificial ponds in play on his courses when possible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

It's obvious that you never played Sebonack, in particular the 8th or 13th holes.

Take a look at them on "Google earth" and let us know if you see anything that looks like an "artificial pond"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

It's obvious that you never played Sebonack, in particular the 8th or 13th holes.

Take a look at them on "Google earth" and let us know if you see anything that looks like an "artificial pond"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

It's obvious that you never played Sebonack, in particular the 8th or 13th holes.

Take a look at them on "Google earth" and let us know if you see anything that looks like an "artificial pond"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

I just knew that you had to be a lefty

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

If you ever paid attention to this website, you would know that Sebonack was build by Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus. You can credit the Jack with the water works. Tom has expressed his displeasure, but must take one for the team.

[V. Kmetz]

Jeff,

I appreciate and enjoy the spirit of this question; yours is a necessary detail question that contributes to the TOTAL discussion (whatever that is...perhaps, the ever-accruing body of knowledge about GCA)...

Yet I want to take a different tack and make an argument for what is not often stated...that some of the repetitive, "can't-diss-or-not include-PV, NGLA, Shinne, TOC-" favorable group-think (you posit) surveys and reviews that issue here are because those places are worthy of their high praise and there is a line (somewhere) between the ugly, pejorative "group-think" and engaged (or expert) consensus.

Scant access to some of these group-think sacred cows is indeed an issue, (for certainly some account must be given that a player who achieves sparing access is likely to treasure the acquisition of the prize beyond what the golf course may be). Yet my view in those sacred cows I have experienced is that, amazingly, they tend to exceed expectations.

This is true for me with NGLA (3 playings) Shinnecock (2 playings), Yale (12+ playings), Fishers (5-7 playings), Fairfield (5 playings, many loops), Riviera (1 playing), Merion (1 playing).

In all these cases specifically, and to a lesser degree at other places, when I went there to play, I found myself delighted by every vista, apparent strategy, new game question and golf exercise they commanded, somestimes equal to, but mostly in excess of any course/hole I had played previously.

I remember distinctly my first play at National; it was like when Luke sees Yoda command the ship out of the swamp in Empire Strikes Back...that first tee and my glimpses of the course on the way in built a desire to play golf shots liek I never have before.  I drove the ball like an absolute animal, hit 13/15 of fairways and shot a fucking 89.  But every hole committed itself to memory within me, and I understood the sequential commands of CBM's "amalgamated" design: a draw called for here; permission to hook there; a lofted precision shot that side, a bold blind drive on the other. Skippers, runners, bouncers, roll-outs, dead punches out of the wind, sand sometimes presented as a "change of surface" hazard, not a "hazard of impediment or equivalent penalty;" National, like Yale, like Fishers, just keeps blowing you away with how they present and what they command

And my god, I've never played AGNC, PV, or Pebble but I've been on those courses as a spectator and they look every bit as fun and amazing as those multiple reports, listings, surveys, favorites, and historically laudatory remarks have made them to be.

My point is: Perhaps they are WORTHY to be so-oft repeated and re-listed, because if this player-reporter is actually going to tell you what my favorite courses are--and you really want my honest opinion--those sacred cows would have to comprise my list. I like playing other courses than these a great deal, but if I'm going to try to make rational sense of out of irrational "like" of something, I have to evaluate that my experiences at those on the "list" were/are more fulfillign than rounds at other fine courses.

I'm too biased about the WF courses and Siwanoy (200+ playings, 1000 loops) to not include them in any list...

...its not just group-think is what I'm saying. sometimes a consensus is reached because as good as an under-the-radar/2nd-rated tier course might be, the experiences at many of the sacred cow list are...wonder of wonders...pretty damn awesome.

cheers

vk

[Dwight Phelps]

Dwight,

It's not letting me quote right now so I'll see if I can remember to cover all your questions.

An artificial pond is a demerit. Lack of an artificial pond is not a plus. Bandon Trails would rate higher for me than Chambers Bay if it were not for the artificial pond.
The ponds at ANGC look quite artificial to me. The demerits therefore go up. The demerits really go up big time when my ball has to run uphill to get into an artificial pond.
Off hand, I can't think of any artificial ponds that look natural. Perhaps the one at Bandon Trails is one that I can think of right now that looks the most natural.

I can see where you're coming from, GJ.  And I do agree that the ponds at ANGC do tend to look quite artificial.  However, I would also argue that is, at least in part, considered a feature by the 'branding' decision makers of the club.  I've always felt that ANGC, as presented via TV for the Masters, strives for an almost-too-perfect vibe.  The grass is too green.  The sand is too white.  The azaleas are preternaturally colorful.  And yes, the ponds are artificial.  All this adds up to a course that holds itself more perfect than Nature.  I don't say any of this to say I dislike ANGC, merely that it seems like the visibly artificial ponds play into this too-perfect brand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

If you ever paid attention to this website, you would know that Sebonack was build by Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus.


Really ?
And all this time I thought it was Tom Doak who routed the golf course.
Silly me.
I guess you'd have to be a moron to think otherwise.

You can credit the Jack with the water works.

Really ?
Silly me.
And where were they going to put the retention pond if not fronting the 8th green ?

How about the pond on # 13 ?

Tom has expressed his displeasure,


Displeasure at what ?

but must take one for the team.

[Patrick_Mucci]

VK,

Great post.

Dwight,

Is your analysis based on what the cameras have exposed you to, from their unique, almost one dimensional perspective, or on site observations ?

The cameras can deceive.

They can show you what they want to show you to the exclusion of everything else.

Specifically, what ponds look artificial, and what creates that artificial look ?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Though a truely great course, the raters have propelled Maidstone way beyond a reasonable ranking! those who rank it so highly must have missed out on many great courses in the British Iles.  No way is Maidstone a greater course than Rye, Deal, Nairne, Baltray, or Ross' Point!  From many years of observation on this site, there have been innumerable threads raving about the majesty of Maidstone, however, even in its wondefully restored state, it must be judged against other links courses since that is why it seems to score so well with raters.  Having gone to a few parties there nearly 20 years ago, I am convinced that the lunch overlooking the beach has given it many plus points.  No doubt, 7 -10 are all-world.  And ofcourse it is at Maidstone where the famous cheating incident occurred--a dropped ball by a very socially prominent player with the discovery of the original ball being a hole in one--this certainly makes the 8th a little greater!

[ChipOat]

Jeff,

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I can answer for myself.

Brora and Dornoch are both aesthetically pleasing in similar and different ways.  Brora defines "fun" (unless there's "a wee Scottish mist" going on).

From a golf architecture perspective, I cannot put Brora in the same league as RDGC.

I could play Maidstone every day for the rest of my life.  It is truly a glorious place.  For my money, both National and Shinnecock demonstrate more superb golf architecture over the full 18 holes, though.

You were right in your opening post - all the usual suspects are, indeed, in a class by themselves.  Most of them combine great architecture with a wonderful setting (e.g. NGLA, Cypress), but even the great parkland courses that are surrounded by houses (e.g. Merion or Winged Foot) are truly memorable in terms of the quality, and quantity, of the holes.

[Garland Bayley]

6. Artificial Ponds

I had the chance to look at someone else’s Master Plan for a new golf course built on flat land a few years back and was taken aback by the approach. It was the typical approach where every time the architect was faced with limited natural features he simply dug a pond to create a pond at the green in the perceived notion that this would add interest. I counted water directly in play on nine green sites including most of the threes and fives. The architect had four holes with water in play from the tee all the way to green and two of those were par fives that doglegged around a large pond all the way to green. If I lived there, I would play Tennis.

The reliance on water as a primary hazard probably began with Robert Trent Jones but it quickly became a staple of modern design. That was the era where “Championship” courses became the vogue and the use of the water hazard was seen as key defence in order to protect par. Since most sites did not offer natural bodies of water, the architects simply added ponds where required at the green sites to add the challenge. Photographers were drawn to the water and the popularity of the holes soared.

The problem came when the “average” player was facing the same level of challenge on an increasing basis. They are far more fearful and intimidated by water since they lack the control to continually avoid hazards. A ball in the water represents two lost shots, whereas a bunker may represent no lost shots if a great recovery is made. Water’s judgment of the shot is absolute and final and in many cases the player is forced to repeat the shot until they succeed or pick up.

I’m not total against the inclusion of water or even completely against “a” pond. In fact I do like the incorporation of streams, burns, rivers and lakes into a design.  But I abhor the continuous use of ponds to bring water in play throughout the round as lazy and dull. I particularly question the need to constantly bring water hard up against the green when the hazard can be varied like the placement of bunkers. Water certainly has its place, but the architect who continually places water in play simply frustrates me and the average player who plays their courses.

Ian:  No wonder we get along.  You were ten for ten in your list from my perspective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

You also need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.

Please reread the text below, which you quoted.

I've highlighted some key words/phrases that you apparently missed.

I’m not total against the inclusion of water or even completely against “a” pond.

In fact I do like the incorporation of streams, burns, rivers and lakes into a design.  

But I abhor the continuous use of ponds to bring water in play throughout the round as lazy and dull.
I particularly question the need to constantly bring water hard up against the green when the hazard can be varied like the placement of bunkers.

Water certainly has its place, but the architect who continually places water in play simply frustrates me and the average player who plays their courses.

Perhaps repeated rereading will eventually bring you to an understanding of what was actually stated and NOT what you interpreted it to say.

Have you ever been to Sebonack and observed or played the 8th and 13th holes ?

[Carl Johnson]

. . . btw, I just read that the sand at ANGC is so white due to its high, pure quartz content, and that "The same stuff in those Augusta National bunkers is now used for silicon chips."

Jim, I've heard, but cannot confirm first hand, that the "sand" used at Augusta is man-ground quartz made at a quartz mine in Mitchell County, NC.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

I really wonder what makes you blather on so.

And, stating what you think are my interpretations of quotes I posted without any commentary on my part as if you know what I was thinking is the mark of a real bore.

At Apache the pond is hidden in the desert just above the seventh green; you can see it only from the ridge on #14 and #15 tee.  [At Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle, it is similarly hidden away from the golf course.]

Generally, though, it is hard to convince clients who have to pay for an irrigation pond NOT to have it in play on the golf course.  Sebonack will have two small ponds, one on the par-3 eighth and one on the par-5 13th, in addition to Peconic Bay being in play a few times.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I really wonder what makes you blather on so.

Your gross inaccuracies for one

And, stating what you think are my interpretations of quotes I posted without any commentary on my part as if you know what I was thinking is the mark of a real bore.

At Apache the pond is hidden in the desert just above the seventh green; you can see it only from the ridge on #14 and #15 tee.  [At Pacific Dunes and Cape Kidnappers and Barnbougle, it is similarly hidden away from the golf course.]

Those courses are totally irrelevant.

I specifically cited Sebonack and the two holes at Sebonack with HIGH visibility ponds fronting the greens

Generally, though, it is hard to convince clients who have to pay for an irrigation pond NOT to have it in play on the golf course.  
Sebonack will have two small ponds, one on the par-3 eighth and one on the par-5 13th, in addition to Peconic Bay being in play a few times.

If you knew, at the outset, which you didn't, then you never would have stated that Tom Doak doesn't employ ponds in his designs, since he obviously did at Sebonack.

Either you misrepresented Tom Doak's work, OR you were oblivious to his incorporation of ponds at Sebonack.

Irrespective of which it is, you're a phony

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

I just thought that I'd remind you of your statement regarding Tom Doak and ponds, especially since he incorporated not one, but two ponds in front of greens.


But, I guess I am just following the site's group think, because Tom Doak avoids putting artificial ponds in play on his courses when possible.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()