New Golf Digest Rankings Are Out...

[Ian Mackenzie]

I guess we should keep in mind that the rankings are not purely based on architectural integrity.

The "Methodolgy:

1. SHOT VALUES
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

3. DESIGN VARIETY
How varied are the holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?

4. MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features provide individuality to each hole yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?

5. AESTHETICS
How well do the scenic values of the course add to the pleasure of a round?

6. CONDITIONING
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?

7. AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?

[Mac Plumart]

Ian...

Excellent point!  The criteria used to create the list is VERY important.

[Tim Martin]

Just makes the quality/$$ equation all the better for those of us who don't prioritize views, exclusivity, difficulty, fairness and keeping up with the Joneses...

The JC Joneses?

[Mark Pritchett]

Friends:

I see the Kittansett description (#84) gives credit to Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul for clearly establishing that this wonderful course was designed by William Flynn, and highlights their book on disk -  the “Nature Faker”. 
 
Kittansett is just a super course that deserves to be ranked higher than some of the modern courses by big “name” architects or massive earthmoving project courses.  A number of golden age courses seem under-rated especially Somerset Hills and Plainfield in N J.


Pikewood National ?


Wm Flynnfan

Kittansett's ranking is well deserved, so is Pikewood National's.  

[Terry Lavin]

The resistance to scoring is what has traditionally kept courses like Shoreacres from being recognized.  To me, this one category seems to be elevated above just about all of the rest, because the real clunkers that keep making the list (Rich Harvest, here in Chicagoland, for example), seem to be well regarded mainly because they can be very difficult.  For me difficult does not equal good and easy does not equal bad.  In any event, that's why I think it's interesting that the three "new" Raynors have made the list.

[Benjamin Litman]

There is an article that accompanies the rankings, and it includes this nice tribute to Seth (Raynor) and Tom (Doak). I wonder if all Yale needs to crack the Top 100 is a little handiwork from Tom?

DEAD HOT
The bad news for today's architects is that the hottest course designer, according to the two-year snapshot provided by America's 100 Greatest, is a guy who has been dead for 89 years. Three Seth Raynor designs join the Top 100 in 2015: No. 52 Camargo Club, No. 64 Yeamans Hall and No. 99 Shoreacres. (Camargo and Shoreacres had been previously ranked. This is the first appearance for Yeamans Hall.)

All three are classic designs, with geometric features and replica holes, each studiously restored in recent years by architect Tom Doak, one of the top design practitioners of today, who worships early architecture and fashions his work in that style, as evidenced by No. 18 Pacific Dunes, No. 38 Sebonack (a co-design with Jack Nicklaus), No. 54 Ballyneal and No. 55 Old Macdonald (a co-design with Jim Urbina). Not for nothing does Doak call his firm Renaissance Golf Design. But the term restoration is misleading. Though Doak has recaptured green sizes and bunker depths, strategies and angles, he has also installed state-of-the-art irrigation and turf. These are classics that have been fully retrofitted for today's game.

[Dan Kelly]

I wonder:

2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

Why is that a criterion for greatness?

And what does "fair" mean?

I'd love to hear those questions answered by the GD raters.

[John Kavanaugh]

Fair means a 10 handicap can look like a 3 having a bad day.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan beat me to the question. And, since I refuse to click on the link, it's the only question I have.

I'm reminded of Bogart's line to Lorre in Casablanca, i.e. "it's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. Likewise, it's not resistance to scoring per se that I mind as a criteria, it's make believe resistance to scoring that's the problem.

How badly does some hack rater actually have to play Shoreacres before it demonstrates enough 'resistance to scoring' to suit him? I mean, if he shoots 82 for example ('Ah, just dropped a few extra strokes here and there, stupid mistakes, or I'd have easily broken 80') is the course resistant enough? Is he much happier to shoot 89 at Rich Harvest? ('Ah, that's the tough test, had to bring my A game today just to break 90!).

Terry - do you think most raters are breaking par on Shoreacres? Wait, not even that: do you think some/most of them are even scoring better than their handicaps?

[Matthew Sander]

Peter,

It may just be semantics, but keep in mind that many of the Shoreacres ballots were cast prior to the recent work that was done. I have not seen it yet, but the popular sentiment is that it is now a much more difficult course. Clearly that doesn't speak to your general point, but I think it explains, in part, the low category score.

[Tim Martin]

There is an article that accompanies the rankings, and it includes this nice tribute to Seth (Raynor) and Tom (Doak). I wonder if all Yale needs to crack the Top 100 is a little handiwork from Tom?

DEAD HOT
The bad news for today's architects is that the hottest course designer, according to the two-year snapshot provided by America's 100 Greatest, is a guy who has been dead for 89 years. Three Seth Raynor designs join the Top 100 in 2015: No. 52 Camargo Club, No. 64 Yeamans Hall and No. 99 Shoreacres. (Camargo and Shoreacres had been previously ranked. This is the first appearance for Yeamans Hall.)

All three are classic designs, with geometric features and replica holes, each studiously restored in recent years by architect Tom Doak, one of the top design practitioners of today, who worships early architecture and fashions his work in that style, as evidenced by No. 18 Pacific Dunes, No. 38 Sebonack (a co-design with Jack Nicklaus), No. 54 Ballyneal and No. 55 Old Macdonald (a co-design with Jim Urbina). Not for nothing does Doak call his firm Renaissance Golf Design. But the term restoration is misleading. Though Doak has recaptured green sizes and bunker depths, strategies and angles, he has also installed state-of-the-art irrigation and turf. These are classics that have been fully retrofitted for today's game.

Scott Ramsay's work at Yale should not be discounted as the transformation since his tenure began in 2003 is nothing short of startling. It would be great to have a consulting architect with Tom's talent available but the tree clearing, green reclamation and bunker restoration components are mostly completed. Lost lines of sight have been reclaimed and proper width has been restored to fairways. Drainage work is ongoing and obviously presents a formidable task due to the soil composition and quirky landforms. Budgets and access to water have always been roadblocks which to some degree have been lifted. Yale certainly deserves and will have it's day in the sun.

[Terry Lavin]

Dan beat me to the question. And, since I refuse to click on the link, it's the only question I have.

I'm reminded of Bogart's line to Lorre in Casablanca, i.e. "it's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. Likewise, it's not resistance to scoring per se that I mind as a criteria, it's make believe resistance to scoring that's the problem.

How badly does some hack rater actually have to play Shoreacres before it demonstrates enough 'resistance to scoring' to suit him? I mean, if he shoots 82 for example ('Ah, just dropped a few extra strokes here and there, stupid mistakes, or I'd have easily broken 80') is the course resistant enough? Is he much happier to shoot 89 at Rich Harvest? ('Ah, that's the tough test, had to bring my A game today just to break 90!).

Terry - do you think most raters are breaking par on Shoreacres? Wait, not even that: do you think some/most of them are even scoring better than their handicaps?

Andy Troeger would be a better guy to answer your question than mine, since he is a GD rater, but I will freely acknowledge that Shoreacres offers very little resistance to scoring.  The only time the course can get demonically difficult is if the greens are really fast and really firm.  Then, a 10 could struggle to break 90.  If the greens are running at 10 and the holes aren't put in difficult to reach parts of the greens, my usual score at Shoreacres would be four to five shots better than at Beverly and maybe seven better than Olympia Fields.

The great thing about Shoreacres' renaissance (sorry, Doak) is that the work that they've done recently has been remarkably minimalist in its scope but maximalist in the returns.  Tree removal, fairway widening, change of the maintenance meld around the greens/bunkers has resulted is a dramatically better presentation, without a lot of money and without much in the way of disruption of play.  As to Matt Sander's point about difficulty, I don't think Shoreacres is markedly more difficult after the recent work; it's just a lot faster, and a lot more fun, especially around the greens.  It's still only "difficult" if they really jazz up the greens.

[Benjamin Litman]

Scott Ramsay's work at Yale should not be discounted as the transformation since his tenure began in 2003 is nothing short of startling. It would be great to have a consulting architect with Tom's talent available but the tree clearing, green reclamation and bunker restoration components are mostly completed. Drainage work is ongoing and obviously presents a formidable task due to the soil composition and quirky landforms. Budgets and access to water have always been roadblocks which to some degree have been lifted. Yale certainly deserves and will
It's day.

Well said, Tim. I agree that Scott has done a fabulous job, but there are some obvious tweaks that still need to be made--e.g., restoring the mounds to the right of 2 green, restoring the punchbowl green on 3 and pushing it closer to the water, and obscuring from view the cart path on 13.

[Carl Nichols]

I guess we should keep in mind that the rankings are not purely based on architectural integrity.

The "Methodolgy:

1. SHOT VALUES
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

3. DESIGN VARIETY
How varied are the holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?

4. MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features provide individuality to each hole yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?

5. AESTHETICS
How well do the scenic values of the course add to the pleasure of a round?

6. CONDITIONING
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?

7. AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?

8.  RESISTANCE TO ACCESS? 

[Tim Martin]

Scott Ramsay's work at Yale should not be discounted as the transformation since his tenure began in 2003 is nothing short of startling. It would be great to have a consulting architect with Tom's talent available but the tree clearing, green reclamation and bunker restoration components are mostly completed. Drainage work is ongoing and obviously presents a formidable task due to the soil composition and quirky landforms. Budgets and access to water have always been roadblocks which to some degree have been lifted. Yale certainly deserves and will
It's day.

Well said, Tim. I agree that Scott has done a fabulous job, but there are some obvious tweaks that still need to be made--e.g., restoring the mounds to the right of 2 green, restoring the punchbowl green on 3 and pushing it closer to the water, and obscuring from view the cart path on 13.

His plan is still rolling out. Be patient.

[Tom Allen]

I am not a GD rater (or for anyone else, for that matter), but as far as Camargo making the jump onto the list, I recall reading somewhere that its prior omission from the national list was because it did not have enough ratings to make it onto that list.  That is the reason it was never there before, not because the value of Raynor's work was underappreciated.  (It was previously rated quite high on GD's best-in-state list, which does not require as many ratings).

It remains the same amazing course, every time I drive by the entrance wistfully.  

[Joel_Stewart]

As a panelist I'm happy Shoreacres made it back to the top 100.  With that said, Shoreacres has a number of great holes particularly in the middle of the round.  It also has some marginal holes including the first 3 and ends with a flat bland 18th hole.  

Personally I think there is some progress in this years list.  Its far from perfect and obviously the Fazio influence continues to prevail. Yale and Pasatiempo continue to astound me but they have several factors which hurt themselves.

Ballyneal, Los Angeles CC, The Country Club, Somerset Hills and Winged Foot (East)  had positive moves up mainly due to some nice restoration work.

Classics like Olympic Club,  Medinah and Baltusrol with questionable renovation work continue to fall.

[Matthew Sander]

Terry,

I may have misinterpreted some of the discussion here and elsewhere re: the changes at Shoreacres. Wasn't some significant yardage added to a few of the holes, at least from the tips?

[Jud_T]

Just makes the quality/$$ equation all the better for those of us who don't prioritize views, exclusivity, difficulty, fairness and keeping up with the Joneses...

The JC Joneses?

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Terry - thanks for the detailed and nuanced answer, I appreciate it. But it made me think that the name of the category/criteria should be changed from "Resistance to Scoring" to "Relative Resistance to Scoring".

Peter

[J_ Crisham]

As a panelist I'm happy Shoreacres made it back to the top 100.  With that said, Shoreacres has a number of great holes particularly in the middle of the round.  It also has some marginal holes including the first 3 and ends with a flat bland 18th hole.  

Personally I think there is some progress in this years list.  Its far from perfect and obviously the Fazio influence continues to prevail. Yale and Pasatiempo continue to astound me but they have several factors which hurt themselves.

Ballyneal, Los Angeles CC, The Country Club, Somerset Hills and Winged Foot (East)  had positive moves up mainly due to some nice restoration work.

Classics like Olympic Club,  Medinah and Baltusrol with questionable renovation work continue to fall.

Joel,  As a panelist for GD do you have a spin on the omission of The Cal Club? One could easily argue it to be the best in SF. Other missing headscratchers are Eastward Ho and Wannamoisette.

[Terry Lavin]

Terry,

I may have misinterpreted some of the discussion here and elsewhere re: the changes at Shoreacres. Wasn't some significant yardage added to a few of the holes, at least from the tips?

There are a few holes, but the only one where the new tee makes the hole demonstrably harder, at least as I can recall, is the 5th hole, which has always been the hardest hole on the course...

[Padraig Dooley]

It's interesting that Olympic Club Lake is ahead of San Francisco.

[Jon Cavalier]

Love to see three new Raynors make the list, and Fishers Island edging into the top 10. Big jump for Somerset Hills too, and deservedly so.

But can anyone tell me how Myopia Hunt Club doesn't make a list of the best 200 golf courses in this country? I'm truly baffled. The only ranking criteria I could think of that would ding Myopia is resistance to scoring, but with the upward movement by those Raynor courses (and places like Eastward Ho popping up in the top 200), it can't be that alone. Is it due to a shortage of panelists having played it? Would love to hear some thoughts on this - while we can all debate the marginal snubs and head scratchers, it's hard for me to believe that there's anyone out there that would rate 200 courses ahead of Myopia.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59738.0.html

[Tim Martin]

As a panelist I'm happy Shoreacres made it back to the top 100.  With that said, Shoreacres has a number of great holes particularly in the middle of the round.  It also has some marginal holes including the first 3 and ends with a flat bland 18th hole.  

Personally I think there is some progress in this years list.  Its far from perfect and obviously the Fazio influence continues to prevail. Yale and Pasatiempo continue to astound me but they have several factors which hurt themselves.

Ballyneal, Los Angeles CC, The Country Club, Somerset Hills and Winged Foot (East)  had positive moves up mainly due to some nice restoration work.

Classics like Olympic Club,  Medinah and Baltusrol with questionable renovation work continue to fall.

Joel,  As a panelist for GD do you have a spin on the omission of The Cal Club? One could easily argue it to be the best in SF. Other missing headscratchers are Eastward Ho and Wannamoisette.

I am more surprised at the exclusion of Wannamoisett than Eastward Ho especially as it relates to resistance to scoring. The outward 9 at Wannamoisett is very difficult.