Courses built or renovated in the last 3 years...

[John Kavanaugh]

that aren't "top 100". Isn't the top 100 just about full?

[Peter Pallotta]

Hopefully no one from Golf Digest or GOLF is reading this, otherwise you've just ensured a brand new Top 100 list -- an evergreen one too, because if they call it, say, Best New Course/Renovation of the Decade, every year's edition will move the markers.
Though it does seem like 200 is the new 100. Bad news for the hidden gems that don't get restored. Hidden they will soon be again!

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't see how a course built for everyone can be top 100 for anyone. The last three years has seen a linear dumbing down of interest at the pleasure of photogenia.

[Peter Pallotta]

The counter-argument:
Back in the 1920s, "everyone" could play the then-new golden age greats (now Top 100 classics) too. It's just that, back then, when average golfers shot their 110s they accepted it as part of the natural order of things and didn't complain; and when better players came in with an 85 or a 79, they called the course one of the finest in the land and were happy with their scores. In that sense, the (old) American classics were as "playable for all" as the (new) American classics are today.
The quasi-supporting argument:
But, yes, a different kind of golfer has indeed engendered a different kind of golf course - not better or worse, necessarily, but just different. Not one in a hundred golfers today (especially around here) could play a new course and routinely come in with a score 15-20 strokes higher than their average/handicap and consider the course "fun", let alone "great".  And it's striking how those two descriptions -- i.e. fun and great -- have become virtually synonymous. The palette/range of what can be considered great does seem to have narrowed.   
Peter   

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Haven't seen it in the flesh, but just from pictures alone Moraine has to crack the top 100, and probably deserves top 50. 


The Golf Digest list seems awful, the Golf Mag list seems at least sensible.

[Sean_A]

And it's striking how those two descriptions -- i.e. fun and great -- have become virtually synonymous. The palette/range of what can be considered great does seem to have narrowed.   
Peter

Pietro

I disagree.  There is still a firm concept of sporty/holiday courses which equals fun but not great except for some folks are now claiming some of these 2nd tier courses are indeed great and that the professional game should have little impact in the matter. Traditionally, with few exceptions, "great" has been reserved for championship venues.  I think the concept of great has expanded since the influx of the Sand Hills Renaissance.  Its true that 60s/7s0/80s style penal architecture is out of fashion, but if you play some of these courses and the newer ones on the same model the reasons for this movement are obvious...these courses try to make golf a two dimensional game.  Overwhelmingly, the highly thought of big modern courses with more room to play share a common trait and that is well draining soil which can be keen in the right conditions. Until you play this sort of course it is difficult to explain why they have the potential to be superior to your very good parkland penal design.  Should you ever live in a place where winter golf is possible the difference is further heightened.   If we are talking about a finite number such as top 100,  it shouldn't be at all surprising to see the new breed shoving the parkland courses aside.  I wondering if the new grass hybrids can help the disadvantaged non-sandy couses reverse the trend.

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

that aren't "top 100". Isn't the top 100 just about full?

You need a new stich, as this is Golf Club Atlas 2017. When was the last time a "Top 1000" course was reviewed?


http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/

• Cape Arundel (too short)
• Full Cry at Keswick (B Team Dye)
• Culver Academies (9 holers, which were made famous by Mr Moore)
• Chechessee Creek (B Team Coore)

There are a couple of others, but it seems the Donald Ross era (Top 101-500) is over too ... Hope you did not buy Golfweek, as that is old news. Sugarloaf Social Club is pushing Top 2000 courses with reasonable pricing:


https://www.instagram.com/sugarloafsocialclub/

[John Kavanaugh]

Sugarloaf Social Club. Just the name makes me wish I had met Wilford Brimley.


diabetes commercial wilford brimley

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I hear you, and I appreciate the thoughts, and you've made similar points before...and they are good points. But just to say: because most magazine lists/rankings are divided in two, i.e. Top 100 Classic, Top 100 Modern, the new courses over the last, say 15 years, can move right to the top of the lists and 'merely' knock out courses at the bottom of the list...and those courses are indeed the 1960s/70s/80s 'penal' and/or tree-lined and/or parkland courses you mention. But imagine if there was only *one* list, the Top 100 Classic and Modern. Now, I have no right to an opinion on the many excellent courses that have been built over the last 15 years and...you know their names as well as I do.  So, let me just grant that every single one of them, by Tom D and C&C and Kidd and Hanse and Nuzzo etc etc are really terrific and merit (to one degree or another) inclusion in a revised Top 100 Classic and Modern List. Then the question/issue gets more interesting (and it's one that I tried to reference) -- *then* the inclusion of these new courses are bumping out of the list not 1960s and 70s and 80s penal/tree-lined/parkland courses, but many older and classic courses, i.e. courses that, when they were built, were considered very good *despite* the fact that the average golfer using the equipment of the day would shoot 100+. In that sense only did I mean to suggest that the range/palette for 'greatness' seems to have gotten narrower.
Here's a simpler way to raise the point: you'd know much better I would, Sean, but has a course like Notts been built recently, anywhere?

Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I understand and woud say that many top 100 classic are not what they were when built.  They have become tree infested, rough pinching narrow corridor penal courses.  And true, that evolved style whether purposeful or not, is not in style these days.  What is in style is something akin to what was being built in the 1910s/20s/30s but on a grand scale.  Meaning properties are twice or three times the footprint.  It seems as though designs have been ironed down to cover more acerage.  I am not sure that always means much more space to play the game.  Often it is much more space not to play the game.  The game is stopped (or not yet started!) for a walk or cart ride. I do disagree with this aspect of the current style which seeks the best view/hole regardless of how the flow of the game is altered or how the course interacts with the house.  It seems downright wasteful to me and I do hope smaller footprint designs come back into vogue. 

Notts...its a huge property, but the course is on a managable scale.  Its not unlike Cleeve Cloud in this respect except CC offers endless views to give the illusion of mega golf.  I spose there must be some Notts-like courses being, but I don't know what they are. Somehow, the smaller new courses don't look or play at all like Notts.  I am thinking of a place like The Grove which is on a big property, but remains walkable.  The Grove has hills, some views, some water so not terribly unlike Notts, but it certainly lacks the class and charm of Notts...I suspect much of this difference is down to the texture of the Notts property and the use of the hill.

One apect to remember about about classic GB&I designs...many evolved into what they are now.  Clubs had time to make the course better (or sometimes worse) over many decades.  Plus, the effect of time helps greatly with the aesthetics.  Archies now are trying to create this age-old aesthetic straight out of the box and so a huge number of courses look similar....especially whe talking about about sand based courses.  Folks get caught up in the aesthetics, but I think we need to concentrate more on the shots offered.  All that said, I understand your concern in that current whoppers all seem as if they come from the same stable of design. To a large degree I think you are right.  People aren't stupid, they will copy a successful model and right now regardless of the shots on offer, huge footprint designs with big features in wide open spaces are being greatly rewarded in the rankings.  As I say, its difficult even for the class designs like Notts to compete when 1) arguably, some of the modern designs are better than Notts and 2) they have the grandeur to wow folks.

I think all this talk about 9/12/14 hole courses, urban courses, par 3 courses, huge practice putting greens etc is a backlash against the mega-trend, but it is also one of the few ways sidelined archies can whip up interest in their work....few get these prime properties to build a possible top 100 course. Thats why I think Doak doing a course like The Loop was incredibly savvy.  He does smaller footprint golf, but on a grand scale!

Ciao

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

that aren't "top 100". Isn't the top 100 just about full?

LA South and Menlo CC are two California renovations that won't crack anyone's Top 100 or probably even Top 200 lists, but they're well done and worth playing. In fact, I'd play these two in lieu of a number of Top 100 courses.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't see how a course built for everyone can be top 100 for anyone. The last three years has seen a linear dumbing down of interest at the pleasure of photogenia.

John:  I get what you are saying.  It's ridiculous that every project aims at the top 100.  Today I played Stoatin Brae, which certainly didn't aim at that, but my crew did a wonderful job of using green horizons to show off views and make it beautiful... not at all at the expense of interesting golf.  Should they not have done that?  It's second nature to them, and most of the customers here have never seen work like that before.  It's got to open some eyes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Pietro

I understand and woud say that many top 100 classic are not what they were when built.  They have become tree infested, rough pinching narrow corridor penal courses.  And true, that evolved style whether purposeful or not, is not in style these days.  What is in style is something akin to what was being built in the 1910s/20s/30s but on a grand scale.  Meaning properties are twice or three times the footprint.  It seems as though designs have been ironed down to cover more acerage.  I am not sure that always means much more space to play the game.  Often it is much more space not to play the game.  The game is stopped (or not yet started!) for a walk or cart ride. I do disagree with this aspect of the current style which seeks the best view/hole regardless of how the flow of the game is altered or how the course interacts with the house.  It seems downright wasteful to me and I do hope smaller footprint designs come back into vogue. 

Notts...its a huge property, but the course is on a managable scale.  Its not unlike Cleeve Cloud in this respect except CC offers endless views to give the illusion of mega golf.  I spose there must be some Notts-like courses being, but I don't know what they are. Somehow, the smaller new courses don't look or play at all like Notts.  I am thinking of a place like The Grove which is on a big property, but remains walkable.  The Grove has hills, some views, some water so not terribly unlike Notts, but it certainly lacks the class and charm of Notts...I suspect much of this difference is down to the texture of the Notts property and the use of the hill.

One apect to remember about about classic GB&I designs...many evolved into what they are now.  Clubs had time to make the course better (or sometimes worse) over many decades.  Plus, the effect of time helps greatly with the aesthetics.  Archies now are trying to create this age-old aesthetic straight out of the box and so a huge number of courses look similar....especially whe talking about about sand based courses.  Folks get caught up in the aesthetics, but I think we need to concentrate more on the shots offered.  All that said, I understand your concern in that current whoppers all seem as if they come from the same stable of design. To a large degree I think you are right.  People aren't stupid, they will copy a successful model and right now regardless of the shots on offer, huge footprint designs with big features in wide open spaces are being greatly rewarded in the rankings.  As I say, its difficult even for the class designs like Notts to compete when 1) arguably, some of the modern designs are better than Notts and 2) they have the grandeur to wow folks.

I think all this talk about 9/12/14 hole courses, urban courses, par 3 courses, huge practice putting greens etc is a backlash against the mega-trend, but it is also one of the few ways sidelined archies can whip up interest in their work....few get these prime properties to build a possible top 100 course. Thats why I think Doak doing a course like The Loop was incredibly savvy.  He does smaller footprint golf, but on a grand scale!

Ciao

Good post