[MBlackham]

I am not interested in reading the other thread about the "rater" polemic and the diatribes laced with opinions concerning the matter.  I am however very intrigued by the list, and what Golf Digest deems great.  I was hoping we could get back to architecture, and I would like see this groups' opinions on what you each feel are the most significant misgivings to the list, and also, what things Golf Digest has right.

i.e. What are your top 5-10 courses you believe should be on the list?
For me, in order:

1. Cal Club (Extremely egregious, it is in my top 45 and I have played 87 of the GD list and 85 on GM's list)
2. Piping Rock
3. Old Town Club
4. Rock Creek Cattle Company
5. Yale
6. The Creek

What are things they got right:

1. Essex County Club (Truly a great classic)
2. Spring Hill (I am not a huge Fazio fan, but really enjoyed Spring Hill and feel it is deserving)
3. Old Sandwich, Ballyneal, Maidstone Club moving up in the ratings (Maidstone is still too underrated imo)
4. Pine Valley is unequivocally #1 imo
5. I love the added pictures and profiles to each of the respective courses...  it took awhile yesterday, but the site looks great and I found the "panelist" comments and editor write up for each course interesting.

What did they get wrong? (I refuse to be critical of golf courses by name, so I won't, but I will list some observations constructively.  Please feel free to list courses you disagree with if you feel comfortable and choose to)

1. At least 10 courses I believe categorically have no reason being on the list, as I do not deem them to be Top 100 Great.
2. Another 5-10 courses I feel are very borderline, but I am amenable to their argument.
3. National Golf Links, Prairie Dunes, Maidstone, Valley Club, Somerset Hills, & MPCC are ranked way too low, and the Prairie Dunes ranking is tragic...  Prairie Dunes should be ranked much higher!
4. There are too many courses that are Top 100 worthy but are ranked too high.  I agree with Mr. Doak, too many of the difficult, championship courses have rankings that are much too high.  These courses may have a great pedigree and championship laurels, but are not fun or a joy to play on a daily basis.  A course does not need to be hard to be great.
5. I wish Golf Digest would give credit to courses that adhere to the time immemorial tradition of walking when having a game.  Too many of these listed golf courses  are impossible to walk, nor would one want to.  I am not indicating a course must be walkable to be worthy of being "great" but walkability is always a large factor in my consideration if the course is truly remarkable or "great."

I would love to hear your constructive thoughts and opinions on the new GD list concerning what they missed, and what you liked.  Follow my examples if you would like or develop your own. 

[Tom_Doak]

I am a big fan of Yale, The Creek, and Piping Rock [in that order], but if you're going to put all of them on the top 100, along with all the Raynor/Macdonald courses that are already there [Chicago, Shoreacres, Camargo, Yeamans, Fishers Island, etc.], then how many other Raynor courses might as well go in, too?  Don't you have to stop somewhere?


Note that most of the Raynor courses that ARE in are there because they are clearly the best courses in cities with fewer great courses [Chicago, Cincinnati, Charleston listed above].  In the Met area, Raynor's work is not so rare and not head and shoulders above the rest, and all of it pales compared to NGLA, the fountainhead of all his work.


Also, I assume you know that for many years, GOLF DIGEST did give two points on its scale for courses that allowed walking ... then they changed it to a "walkability rating" on a sliding scale ... now it's been shunted off into being part of "Ambiance," for those panelists who care about walking.  And as they've reduced its importance, a handful of unwalkable courses have climbed the list.

[PCCraig]

I was happy to see White Bear YC here in Minnesota crack the top 200, at #199. It should be much higher, but it's a good start.


I personally agree that Rock Creek should be much, much higher on the list. I'm not quite sure why it hasn't gained more traction, but I was blown away when I played it a few years ago.


Glad to see all of the great work in recent years at Shoreacres go noticed with a big jump up to #66 or so. As old votes fall off and are replaced it could keep moving up?

[Josh Tarble]

I am a big fan of Yale, The Creek, and Piping Rock [in that order], but if you're going to put all of them on the top 100, along with all the Raynor/Macdonald courses that are already there [Chicago, Shoreacres, Camargo, Yeamans, Fishers Island, etc.], then how many other Raynor courses might as well go in, too?  Don't you have to stop somewhere?

This is the one thing that kind of bothers me about Raynor/Macdonald.  I don't know if people (I know I sure can't) can separate the quality of the course with the exclusivity of the club.  I have been fortunate to play a couple of the higher ranked Raynors as well as a couple lower ranked ones. Honestly I didn't see a ton of difference.

Maybe I just value variety more than others, but I don't know if Macdonald and Raynor courses deserve 10% of the Top 100.  Just like I don't think Fazio deserves 12% of the list (or whatever his actual total is)

[Tim Martin]

I am a big fan of Yale, The Creek, and Piping Rock [in that order], but if you're going to put all of them on the top 100, along with all the Raynor/Macdonald courses that are already there [Chicago, Shoreacres, Camargo, Yeamans, Fishers Island, etc.], then how many other Raynor courses might as well go in, too?  Don't you have to stop somewhere?


Note that most of the Raynor courses that ARE in are there because they are clearly the best courses in cities with fewer great courses [Chicago, Cincinnati, Charleston listed above].  In the Met area, Raynor's work is not so rare and not head and shoulders above the rest, and all of it pales compared to NGLA, the fountainhead of all his work.


Also, I assume you know that for many years, GOLF DIGEST did give two points on its scale for courses that allowed walking ... then they changed it to a "walkability rating" on a sliding scale ... now it's been shunted off into being part of "Ambiance," for those panelists who care about walking.  And as they've reduced its importance, a handful of unwalkable courses have climbed the list.

Tom-I think Mac/Raynor is underrepresented and would add Sleepy Hollow and Fox Chapel just for sake of conversation.   I'll dispose of 1 golden age Oak Hill East and one modern Valhalla.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom-I think Mac/Raynor is underrepresented and would add Sleepy Hollow and Fox Chapel just for sake of conversation.   I'll dispose of 1 golden age Oak Hill East and one modern Valhalla.

That's low hanging fruit, like the guys who argue that so-and-so should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame because he's better than Freddie Lindstrom or Chick Hafey.  [So are a lot of other guys who aren't in the Hall of Fame, either.]  We all have courses we think are more deserving than Valhalla, and I would be on your side for Oak Hill, too.

[Tim Martin]

Tom-I think Mac/Raynor is underrepresented and would add Sleepy Hollow and Fox Chapel just for sake of conversation.   I'll dispose of 1 golden age Oak Hill East and one modern Valhalla.

That's low hanging fruit, like the guys who argue that so-and-so should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame because he's better than Freddie Lindstrom or Chick Hafey.  [So are a lot of other guys who aren't in the Hall of Fame, either.]  We all have courses we think are more deserving than Valhalla, and I would be on your side for Oak Hill, too.

Tom-That wasn't my intent. There are probably 8 courses I would bump for those two. Sleepy Hollow not getting in is a fail regardless of what criteria you use. I think I would get a fair amount of support on that while still being just "another Mac/Raynor."

[Jon Cavalier]

1. Myopia Hunt Club
2. Eastward Ho
3. Sleepy Hollow
4. Cal Club
5. Old Town
6. Yale
7. Rock Creek
8. Pasatiempo
9. The Creek
10. Glens Falls

1. At least 10 courses I believe categorically have no reason being on the list, as I do not deem them to be Top 100 Great.

2. Another 5-10 courses I feel are very borderline, but I am amenable to their argument.

3. National Golf Links, Prairie Dunes, Maidstone, Valley Club, Somerset Hills, & MPCC are ranked way too low, and the Prairie Dunes ranking is tragic...  Prairie Dunes should be ranked much higher!

4. There are too many courses that are Top 100 worthy but are ranked too high.  I agree with Mr. Doak, too many of the difficult, championship courses have rankings that are much too high.  These courses may have a great pedigree and championship laurels, but are not fun or a joy to play on a daily basis.  A course does not need to be hard to be great.

5. I wish Golf Digest would give credit to courses that adhere to the time immemorial tradition of walking when having a game.  Too many of these listed golf courses  are impossible to walk, nor would one want to.  I am not indicating a course must be walkable to be worthy of being "great" but walkability is always a large factor in my consideration if the course is truly remarkable or "great."

I also agree with everything you said here.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Mr. Doak, too many of the difficult, championship courses have rankings that are much too high.  These courses may have a great pedigree and championship laurels, but are not fun or a joy to play on a daily basis.  A course does not need to be hard to be great.

I re-read your initial post, and wanted to clarify something here.


The GD list contains many "championship" courses that actually do host championships, and many of these are ranked higher than I think they should be.  But at least they have a reason for being so long and difficult.


The ones that really bother me are when a high-end private club or development course is stretched out to 7500 yards, transparently so as to gain points in the Resistance to Scoring category.  When such length is meaningless or even detrimental [because of poor hole-to-hole transitions] to 99.5% of the people who play those courses, giving them extra credit for it is wrong-headed.

[Jud_T]

I refuse to be critical of golf courses by name

Political correctness comes to GCA (zzzz...) sorry, my sleep apnea just kicked in.  Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, I have no such filter.  In addition to a myriad of other sins, the mere fact that Rich Harvest makes this list renders its value somewhat south of 1-ply toilet paper...

[jeffwarne]

I agree with Mr. Doak, too many of the difficult, championship courses have rankings that are much too high.  These courses may have a great pedigree and championship laurels, but are not fun or a joy to play on a daily basis.  A course does not need to be hard to be great.

The ones that really bother me are when a high-end private club or development course is stretched out to 7500 yards, transparently so as to gain points in the Resistance to Scoring category.  When such length is meaningless or even detrimental [because of poor hole-to-hole transitions] to 99.5% of the people who play those courses, giving them extra credit for it is wrong-headed.

Plenty in the Top 100 in that category
Whatever the opposite of extra credit is is what they should be getting.
But,some of this does go back to disproportionate distance/equipment gains of this millenium

[Scott McWethy]

I refuse to be critical of golf courses by name

Political correctness comes to GCA (zzzz...) sorry, my sleep apnea just kicked in.  Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, I have no such filter.  In addition to a myriad of other sins, the mere fact that Rich Harvest makes this list renders it's value somewhat south of 1-ply toilet paper...

+1

[Anthony_Nysse]

Is there a link to the second greatest 100?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()