News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2018, 08:35:09 AM »
Palmetto not in the Top 100 classic

This surprises me...a ton.



Palmetto has never been ranked in any of the magazines.  It was off the radar entirely  years ago, due to its length and scruffy condition.  And it didn't get the bump others have gotten after it was restored.  I suppose part of that is that it has to compete with all the well-funded Hilton Head courses for its place in state, as opposed to say Cedar Rapids.


If only they'd made all their par-3 holes into templates, I'm sure it would be top 50! 😉

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2018, 09:37:02 AM »
The Loop may not be Tom's best course (or courses!), but it may well be his finest design.  I think once the old-school fescue grow-in fully matures in a couple years it will only grind higher.
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2018, 10:26:51 AM »
Nice to see Cedar Rapids make the list. It should only move higher as new raters visit and old votes expire.


Also good to see White Bear in good company at #67. The course continues to get better under Jim Urbina's current master plan, with massive tree removals and restored mowing patterns.
H.P.S.

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2018, 02:36:55 PM »
Philadelphia Cricket is #29--impressive!  I don't believe it was ranked prior to the renovation.  If so, this is a nice compliment to the redo.

Wayne Wiggins, Jr.

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2018, 02:58:20 PM »
Olympic #38? Why so low?


Bunker fiasco. Tree re-planting. New holes (7-8) that are out-of-character. other than that, this course is great.

Mark Pritchett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2018, 03:01:22 PM »
Palmetto was in the Golf Week Top 100 Classic a few years ago. 

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2018, 03:20:23 PM »
Golfweek ratings seem somewhat immune to the wild changes from year-to-year by other ranking magazines, however, Seccession fell from #11 on the modern list to #90!?!


Tyler

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2018, 03:32:17 PM »
What happened to Rustic Canyon? It's in my personal top 20. Hopefully with B4's influence we will see it back in the top 100 sooner rather than later.

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2018, 03:54:43 PM »
Golfweek ratings seem somewhat immune to the wild changes from year-to-year by other ranking magazines, however, Seccession fell from #11 on the modern list to #90!?!
Tyler
Secession has been between 83 and 92 for the last 7 years.  Are you saying it was once at 11?
New for '24: Monifieth (Medal & Ashludie), Montrose (1562 & Broomfield), Panmure, Carnoustie (Championship, Burnside, & Buddon), Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop (Red & Black), Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs (South & Bluffs), Kapalua Plantation...

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2018, 03:58:53 PM »
What happened to Rustic Canyon? It's in my personal top 20. Hopefully with B4's influence we will see it back in the top 100 sooner rather than later.
Rustic Canyon has not been in the top 100 modern for several years.  I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be, just that it isn't.  I love the course.
New for '24: Monifieth (Medal & Ashludie), Montrose (1562 & Broomfield), Panmure, Carnoustie (Championship, Burnside, & Buddon), Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop (Red & Black), Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs (South & Bluffs), Kapalua Plantation...

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2018, 04:34:40 PM »
Olympic #38? Why so low?


Bunker fiasco. Tree re-planting. New holes (7-8) that are out-of-character. other than that, this course is great.

How do Olympic members like the changes to 7 and 8? 

Also, were they really necessary from the standpoint of elite tournament golf (which I assume drove them)? 

7, btw, used to be one of my two favorite short par 4s in the world, even though I only saw it from the gallery.  (My other favorite -- 10 at Belfry -- I only saw on TV.) 

M. Shea Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2018, 06:25:32 PM »
.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 06:28:27 PM by M. Shea Sweeney »

Wayne Wiggins, Jr.

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2018, 06:38:05 PM »
Olympic #38? Why so low?


Bunker fiasco. Tree re-planting. New holes (7-8) that are out-of-character. other than that, this course is great.

How do Olympic members like the changes to 7 and 8? 

Also, were they really necessary from the standpoint of elite tournament golf (which I assume drove them)? 

7, btw, used to be one of my two favorite short par 4s in the world, even though I only saw it from the gallery.  (My other favorite -- 10 at Belfry -- I only saw on TV.)


I'd imagine there are plenty that like the changes, thinking the new 8th is a better hole because it's a more difficult hole.  However, when one gets into conversations about specifics, which i won't go into here, the initial positive reaction starts to fade. While it's very photogenic, I think it's a great hole on the wrong golf course.
The 7th didn't change too much, and frankly lengthening it certainly maintains the "shot value" in the face of increasing technology (i.e. distance). I like the restoration of a two tier green vs three tier, but think the ridge that bisects the putting surface is way too severe... it's more like a cliff than a ridge. The other factor in all of this is that more yardage was gained for the 9th as well.Was it for "elite tournament golf"? Don't know the official answer, but I would assume hosting the US Open had a lot to do with it, whether the USGA pushed for these changes or not.

V_Halyard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2018, 07:25:36 PM »
Nice to see Cedar Rapids make the list. It should only move higher as new raters visit and old votes expire.


Also good to see White Bear in good company at #67. The course continues to get better under Jim Urbina's current master plan, with massive tree removals and restored mowing patterns.


Thanks Pat and I can attest that team Cedar Rapids is thrilled. We're all going to watch the Ed Helms movie of the same name. A cinematic classic. As a west coast regular, I am also vexed by the omission of Rustic Canyon from the Modern.
Suspect that it needs new slate of rater visits. I am also a big Davenport Flag waver so that needs more attention as well.
"It's a tiny little ball that doesn't even move... how hard could it be?"  I will walk and carry 'til I can't... or look (really) stupid.

Matt MacIver

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2018, 08:43:33 PM »
  Both Cabot courses too new to rate? 


Matt - I don't think The Donald has yet annexed Cape Breton Island  8) ;)  although he might like to if he could get playing privileges at those two courses ;D


Ha no doubt, my bad. Fingers crosssed the business model is sound enough to keep him far away.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2018, 08:43:56 PM »
Olympic #38? Why so low?


Because they have wrecked the course. They've bulldozed every classic element,  changed the bunkers to be ridicously deep with bright white sand, installed hideous cart paths, and generally made it long, hard and no fun. Other than that it's fine. Seriously they are lucky to be top 75.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2018, 08:51:17 PM »
Olympic #38? Why so low?


Bunker fiasco. Tree re-planting. New holes (7-8) that are out-of-character. other than that, this course is great.

How do Olympic members like the changes to 7 and 8? 

Also, were they really necessary from the standpoint of elite tournament golf (which I assume drove them)? 

7, btw, used to be one of my two favorite short par 4s in the world, even though I only saw it from the gallery.  (My other favorite -- 10 at Belfry -- I only saw on TV.)


I don't think the members like either hole. 8 could have been great if they restored it properly. A short Biarritz style green with great bunkering. Now it's long like 3 of the others.


7 is a mess. When they rebuilt the greens, somebody didn't know how to rebuild the 3 tier green to USGA spec.  As a result they pushed it back a few yards and built something they thought was artistic.

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2018, 11:20:35 PM »
Miscquamicut makes an appearance at #87 on the classics list.  It's one of the few New England courses I've played, and I was lucky to have the opportunity.  Beautiful location, with an understated clubhouse.  Some of the course is hilly, while some is out on a flat marsh.

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2018, 03:31:33 AM »
What we haven't talked about here is the use of the rather arbitrary definition of what a "classic" course is.  Golfweek is using anything pre-1960.  Is this the accepted definition?  I'm sure this is a rather subjective area for most of us.  If we are using dates I would think earlier, perhaps pre WWII.

Or others perhaps define it by architectural elements and discount year?  What are your thoughts?
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2018, 07:31:52 AM »
Miscquamicut makes an appearance at #87 on the classics list.  It's one of the few New England courses I've played, and I was lucky to have the opportunity.  Beautiful location, with an understated clubhouse.  Some of the course is hilly, while some is out on a flat marsh.


The outward nine has some incredible landforms and then 11-17 play out along Narragansett Bay and as John referenced are on flat terrain. Although it doesn’t have the level of land movement as Eastward Ho I think the glacier had a similar effect much to the golfer’s delight. It’s a blast to play and fun to get such a diverse tract of land at sea level. Ross provided a terrific “Volcano” hole on number 8.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 07:41:05 AM by Tim Martin »

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2018, 07:42:20 AM »
What we haven't talked about here is the use of the rather arbitrary definition of what a "classic" course is.  Golfweek is using anything pre-1960.  Is this the accepted definition?  I'm sure this is a rather subjective area for most of us.  If we are using dates I would think earlier, perhaps pre WWII.

Or others perhaps define it by architectural elements and discount year?  What are your thoughts?


I established in an earlier thread that modern golf started with Tiger's victory at the 1997 Masters. Modern ain't what it used to be.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2018, 08:20:52 AM »
What we haven't talked about here is the use of the rather arbitrary definition of what a "classic" course is.  Golfweek is using anything pre-1960.  Is this the accepted definition?  I'm sure this is a rather subjective area for most of us.  If we are using dates I would think earlier, perhaps pre WWII.



I remember Brad Klein telling me at the time that 1960 was the midpoint of age for the 14,000 courses in the U.S. when he started doing the lists.  That, plus Pete Dye's career started about 1960, so they don't split his designs between the two lists.  [The only designers who could plausibly have courses in both lists* are Dick Wilson and RTJ, and neither of them does.]


I suppose you could count everything from the 1960's and maybe the 1970's as "classic" and start the "modern" section with the TPC at Sawgrass c. 1980, but that wouldn't affect the lists all that much, would it?  It would move The Golf Club, Crooked Stick, Harbour Town and Muirfield Village [and maybe one or two others?] over to the Classic side, and make room for a couple more in the Modern.


* I realize there are a few courses in the Classic list that are really modern redesigns, and a couple are listed with their modern designer, but that isn't plausible.




MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2018, 10:21:36 AM »
Miscquamicut makes an appearance at #87 on the classics list.  It's one of the few New England courses I've played, and I was lucky to have the opportunity.  Beautiful location, with an understated clubhouse.  Some of the course is hilly, while some is out on a flat marsh.

Really happy and somewhat surprised to see a course this unorthodox making the list.   There are so many cool holes at Misquamicut but bringing a sense of humor and adventure is required.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2018, 10:28:17 AM »
Palmetto was in the Golf Week Top 100 Classic a few years ago.


Must be all the new pre 1960 courses that have been built since then....
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Peter Pallotta

Re: New Golfweek rankings
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2018, 10:29:33 AM »
Mike - did you have something to do with that? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but when you note that you're "happy" by the inclusion, characterize the course as "unorthodox", and reference its many "cool holes", I'm thinking one Mike Cirba-Rater rated it pretty highly, and helped send it right onto the list.  The smoking gun, of course, is the need to love adventure and to bring a sense of humour....that has Cirba's fingerprints all over it!  :D 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back