GCA's Next 50 section has been replaced by 147 Custodians of the Game

[Paul Rudovsky]

On 3 things we agree...(1) management of a course has the right to decide who plays or sees the course.  And they should and do pay the price for any mistakes in that regard...and reap rewards for good decisions.  My guess is there were some owners that only allowed GD panelists on them back then as well as now...just like there are some who only allowed or now allow GOLF panelists.  That is their decision and it is not clear what the big deal about it is.


Also (2) it seems we also agree regarding the soft wet conditions at Ardfin (and it is now some 4.5 years since I first played it).  Regarding your forecast of improvements, my sense is that lists should be based on what is there NOW, not what is being worked on or hoped for.  When they solve those problems and others, then they may deserve a place on lists...but not before in my humble opinion. 


Finally (3) we both agree this is Ran's list and his choice.  And in our still free country it is our right to agree and/or disagree

[Ally Mcintosh]

Of course Ardfin isn’t a Custodian of Golf… it’s ridiculous to think that it might be.


This list is Ran’s personal list of places that make him feel good about golf. I have my own one…. Really, they’re the only lists that matter.


They are not a “Best” list, maybe not even a “Favourite” list, certainly not a list that should be put on a pedestal as being better examples of something than hundreds of other courses… They are merely lists of courses that to any particular person have a little je ne sais quoi…. Call them your Desert Island pick, the ones you’d be happy to have as a collection to play for the rest of your life…


I’ve a similar list of 50 albums that just give me a tingle.

[Paul Jones]

Does anyone have the list of courses that Ran took off / put on / replaced ?


I notice that Dormie Club is not on the list anymore.

[Ted Sirbaugh]

Does anyone have the list of courses that Ran took off / put on / replaced ?


I notice that Dormie Club is not on the list anymore.

Paul - I've kept the different versions. Below are the changes to each:





REMOVED FROM 148 TO 149
STREAMSONG (Blue)
WOLF POINT RANCH
OLD MACDONALD
HIDDEN CREEK
DORMIE
CANTERBURY
THE DUNES, SC
GEORGE WRIGHT
MID OCEAN
ROARING GAP
GOSWICK

NEW TO 149
OAKLAND HILLS (South)
ST. PATRICK’S LINKS
LES BORDES (NEW)
CRUDEN BAY
BROOKSIDE
KINGSLEY
SOUTHERN PINES
ROYAL ASHDOWN FOREST
ARCADIA BLUFFS (South)
BLOOMFIELD HILLS
RAWLS COURSE AT TEXAS TECH
BELVEDERE

REMOVED FROM 147 TO 148
YALE
CASA DE CAMPO
MILWAUKEE CC
WHISTLING ROCK
HAMBURGER
TACONIC
NEWCASTLE
HUMEWOOD
FRANKLIN HILLS
CANTERBURY, OH
THE GOLF HOUSE CLUB, ELIE
BALTIMORE (Five Farms)
ALDEBURGH
KENNEMER
ROYAL ST. DAVID'S
WE-KO-PA
LITTLE ASTON
FALSTERBO
MID-PINES
ISLE OF HARRIS

NEW TO 148
OCEAN COURSE AT KIAWAH ISLAND
TRINITY FOREST
HOLLYWOOD, NJ
HARBOUR TOWN
SCOTTSDALE NATIONAL (The Other Course)
KITTANSETT
VICTORIA
THE HARVESTER
DAVENPORT
ROYAL MELBOURNE (East)
CHAMBERS BAY
GAMBLE SANDS
BEVERLY
DORMIE
OMAHA CC
LOST FARM
CANTERBURY
TOBACCO ROAD
THE DUNES, SC
MID OCEAN
RHODE ISLAND CC

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am as interested as to why some clubs were deleted as why some came on.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am as interested as to why some clubs were deleted as why some came on.

I hope to never find out because the reason I think makes me very happy.

[Michael Goldstein]

I see that Isle of Harris is removed but the second hole there still has pride of place on the hero image!!! 

[Sean_A]

I guess Ran doesn't like the long sock rule at Elie 😃

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I didn't realise there qas rhat much change from year to year, thanks for the history Ted.


Temporary custodians perhaps.

[jeffwarne]

Entertaining thread


Prior to this thread, I would've had playing Ardfin close to last in the long list of Inner and Outer Hebrides courses I have yet to, and would like to experience.
So many raw, humble courses in such wild settings-the few I've played want me to seek out more.
I'm generallly not a private exclusive course box ticker, preferring more humble courses for travel and relaxation.
(Example i played Arrowtown twice in a week in Queenstown and chose not to play any of its splashy neighbors)


Ironically, after reading this thread, I want to see Ardfin more-perhaps not as much as the more local raw stuff(Iona etc.), but I would look to include it under the right circumstances.(and yes cost and value would come into it)
Ran's endorsement certainly has high merit, despite the fact that it seems counterintuitive(to me at least) that Ardfin be a "Custodian of the game"
Even Paul's non endorsement for Ardfin as a Custodian has appeal with his decription of the site as "the most spectacular site for a golf course I have ever encountered" (pretty heady stuff given his golf travel resume and the fact that he had other criticisms).


I've seen some pretty spectacular sites for golf courses, some so spectacular that a course probably shouldn't have been built, so the site itself seems worth the journey.
Of course it doesn't hurt that there are multiple other humble gems (realtively speaking)nearby that would be included and highlight such a journey.

[Tom_Doak]

IMO: that a quality golf course exists, and that it serves golfers (it matters not how many) and honours/reflects the spirit of the game and of its fields of play, is enough to qualify it for custodian status. That I may never get to play it, that millions of us may never get to play it, seems to me completely besides the point. Such a golf course has inherent value, independent certainly of how it might benefit me. The alternative is to take the kind of utilitarian ethos/approach that has lead to so much mediocrity in so many areas of life, including golf.

I was talking with a documentary filmmaker about this issue just yesterday.  So many people want to write off courses that are very private, based on the "tree falling in the forest" question, and some jealousy that they will never be able to get there.


But, in very few cases is it actually true that you will never be allowed to play a course, if you have a sincere interest in doing so.  I started writing letters to clubs when I was 18-19 years old and had no connections in the golf business whatsoever -- and in the first year I was welcomed with open arms at places like Seminole, Merion, LACC, and SFGC.  Of course, not everyone can write as good a letter as I could when I was 19, but there are some very nice people behind some of those closed doors.  And they do take the traditions of the game much more seriously than the run of the mill club, in part, because they can afford to!


The only course on Ran's list that really shouldn't be there on this basis is Ardfin.  I know he loved it - he gave it a 9 on the Doak Scale - but I suspect the only reason he gained access to the course was so he could give them a high score.  [Well, that and he is old friends with the designer.]  That these ultra-private one-man courses open their doors to raters, and pretty much nobody else, is a little sleazy.  I don't think it qualifies them as Custodians of the Game.

This is the entire quote from 2018, in context, that some have objected to.  I will stand behind it today.  I didn't directly call Ardfin sleazy per se [note that I have never tried to secure access to play there, and have no current intention of doing so] but used guilt by association with the category of super-private clubs that seek recognition by opening doors to raters only, as it sounded like that's what they were doing at the time.

So, since several distinguished DG participants have objected to my comment, perhaps they would like to respond in the spirit of full disclosure:

1.  Did you pay full boat to play there?
2.  Do you think anyone would be paying $1000+ to go there if the course weren't ranked [possibly by guys who didn't pay] ?


Also, maybe it's true that Ellerston couldn't care less whether it was rated or not.  Maybe this phenomenon is more about the status-seeking of the people who go there to rate it, than status seeking by the owners of the golf course?  If so, I'll change my description from "sleazy" to "sad".

[Tom_Doak]

REMOVED FROM 148 TO 149
STREAMSONG (Blue)
WOLF POINT RANCH
OLD MACDONALD
HIDDEN CREEK
DORMIE
CANTERBURY
THE DUNES, SC
GEORGE WRIGHT
MID OCEAN
ROARING GAP
GOSWICK

NEW TO 149
OAKLAND HILLS (South)
ST. PATRICK’S LINKS
LES BORDES (NEW)
CRUDEN BAY
BROOKSIDE
KINGSLEY
SOUTHERN PINES
ROYAL ASHDOWN FOREST
ARCADIA BLUFFS (South)
BLOOMFIELD HILLS
RAWLS COURSE AT TEXAS TECH
BELVEDERE

I have to admit that I was happy when the original list came out that I had so many courses listed, and that Ran didn't have some quota in his head of how many courses any designer could have on his list.


But then Ted had to point out that when two of my courses got added to the list this year, two of my other courses dropped off.    I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[Sean_A]

REMOVED FROM 148 TO 149
STREAMSONG (Blue)
WOLF POINT RANCH
OLD MACDONALD
HIDDEN CREEK
DORMIE
CANTERBURY
THE DUNES, SC
GEORGE WRIGHT
MID OCEAN
ROARING GAP
GOSWICK

NEW TO 149
OAKLAND HILLS (South)
ST. PATRICK’S LINKS
LES BORDES (NEW)
CRUDEN BAY
BROOKSIDE
KINGSLEY
SOUTHERN PINES
ROYAL ASHDOWN FOREST
ARCADIA BLUFFS (South)
BLOOMFIELD HILLS
RAWLS COURSE AT TEXAS TECH
BELVEDERE

I have to admit that I was happy when the original list came out that I had so many courses listed, and that Ran didn't have some quota in his head of how many courses any designer could have on his list.


But then Ted had to point out that when two of my courses got added to the list this year, two of my other courses dropped off.    I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

I gotta believe Ran has spreading the love regarding archies, location and possibly styles in the back of his mind.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

IMO: that a quality golf course exists, and that it serves golfers (it matters not how many) and honours/reflects the spirit of the game and of its fields of play, is enough to qualify it for custodian status. That I may never get to play it, that millions of us may never get to play it, seems to me completely besides the point. Such a golf course has inherent value, independent certainly of how it might benefit me. The alternative is to take the kind of utilitarian ethos/approach that has lead to so much mediocrity in so many areas of life, including golf.

I was talking with a documentary filmmaker about this issue just yesterday.  So many people want to write off courses that are very private, based on the "tree falling in the forest" question, and some jealousy that they will never be able to get there.


But, in very few cases is it actually true that you will never be allowed to play a course, if you have a sincere interest in doing so.  I started writing letters to clubs when I was 18-19 years old and had no connections in the golf business whatsoever -- and in the first year I was welcomed with open arms at places like Seminole, Merion, LACC, and SFGC.  Of course, not everyone can write as good a letter as I could when I was 19, but there are some very nice people behind some of those closed doors.  And they do take the traditions of the game much more seriously than the run of the mill club, in part, because they can afford to!


The only course on Ran's list that really shouldn't be there on this basis is Ardfin.  I know he loved it - he gave it a 9 on the Doak Scale - but I suspect the only reason he gained access to the course was so he could give them a high score.  [Well, that and he is old friends with the designer.]  That these ultra-private one-man courses open their doors to raters, and pretty much nobody else, is a little sleazy.  I don't think it qualifies them as Custodians of the Game.

This is the entire quote from 2018, in context, that some have objected to.  I will stand behind it today.  I didn't directly call Ardfin sleazy per se [note that I have never tried to secure access to play there, and have no current intention of doing so] but used guilt by association with the category of super-private clubs that seek recognition by opening doors to raters only, as it sounded like that's what they were doing at the time.

So, since several distinguished DG participants have objected to my comment, perhaps they would like to respond in the spirit of full disclosure:

1.  Did you pay full boat to play there?
2.  Do you think anyone would be paying $1000+ to go there if the course weren't ranked [possibly by guys who didn't pay] ?


Also, maybe it's true that Ellerston couldn't care less whether it was rated or not.  Maybe this phenomenon is more about the status-seeking of the people who go there to rate it, than status seeking by the owners of the golf course?  If so, I'll change my description from "sleazy" to "sad".

Tom,


You are right that at one point, access was tight, and when you wrote that, it did seem like it might be another Ellerston, but I was happy to set the record straight as they are now open to the public. Did they open the door to raters exclusively at first? I know some who played it before I did that were raters, and some that weren't (for example, I believe they had a trip for tour companies). I don't think this is much different to any other high-profile opening, it's just marketing and PR. Granted, their 'soft-launch' certainly seemed longer than most!


In full disclosure, as I don't think I have anything to hide (but maybe I do!)


1. I'm not sure they had established a full boat rate at the time I played, but I didn't pay what they ask now. Though I will caveat to say it wasn't free 
2. I 100% think people would go there, and even before it was ranked, what I said to those that asked is the same that I say now: it's worth seeing for 3 key reasons: 1 - there are holes there that I have genuinely never seen anywhere else, meaning it's worth a special trip; 2 - the routing is quite clever, and I think it's quite neat how it starts on the cliff top holes, works its way inland, then rushes down to the sea with a string of thrilling holes before tacking back. Pebble might be close, but even at 18, you're not walking on the shore as you are at Ardfin. All the holes feel cohesive and connected, but have different character; 3 - it integrates the surrounds in so well, that you couldn't replicate a lot of those holes even if you wanted to. Whether its the chasm you hit over on 2, or the boulders in the fairway at 9, it incorporated a lot of the natural elements of the property into its holes.

[Steve Lapper]

IMO: that a quality golf course exists, and that it serves golfers (it matters not how many) and honours/reflects the spirit of the game and of its fields of play, is enough to qualify it for custodian status. That I may never get to play it, that millions of us may never get to play it, seems to me completely besides the point. Such a golf course has inherent value, independent certainly of how it might benefit me. The alternative is to take the kind of utilitarian ethos/approach that has lead to so much mediocrity in so many areas of life, including golf.

I was talking with a documentary filmmaker about this issue just yesterday.  So many people want to write off courses that are very private, based on the "tree falling in the forest" question, and some jealousy that they will never be able to get there.


But, in very few cases is it actually true that you will never be allowed to play a course, if you have a sincere interest in doing so.  I started writing letters to clubs when I was 18-19 years old and had no connections in the golf business whatsoever -- and in the first year I was welcomed with open arms at places like Seminole, Merion, LACC, and SFGC.  Of course, not everyone can write as good a letter as I could when I was 19, but there are some very nice people behind some of those closed doors.  And they do take the traditions of the game much more seriously than the run of the mill club, in part, because they can afford to!


The only course on Ran's list that really shouldn't be there on this basis is Ardfin.  I know he loved it - he gave it a 9 on the Doak Scale - but I suspect the only reason he gained access to the course was so he could give them a high score.  [Well, that and he is old friends with the designer.]  That these ultra-private one-man courses open their doors to raters, and pretty much nobody else, is a little sleazy.  I don't think it qualifies them as Custodians of the Game.

This is the entire quote from 2018, in context, that some have objected to.  I will stand behind it today.  I didn't directly call Ardfin sleazy per se [note that I have never tried to secure access to play there, and have no current intention of doing so] but used guilt by association with the category of super-private clubs that seek recognition by opening doors to raters only, as it sounded like that's what they were doing at the time.

So, since several distinguished DG participants have objected to my comment, perhaps they would like to respond in the spirit of full disclosure:

1.  Did you pay full boat to play there?
2.  Do you think anyone would be paying $1000+ to go there if the course weren't ranked [possibly by guys who didn't pay] ?


Also, maybe it's true that Ellerston couldn't care less whether it was rated or not.  Maybe this phenomenon is more about the status-seeking of the people who go there to rate it, than status seeking by the owners of the golf course?  If so, I'll change my description from "sleazy" to "sad".

Tom,


   I think even with the semantic dilution of not directly calling them "sleazy," your quote wasn't accurate when applied to Ardfin.


One of my partners in a new venture worked closely for decades with Greg Coffey, Ardfin's founder and owner, and according to him, Coffey originally had no plans to even open the course to anyone but his family and friends but when faced with the reality of maintaining and operating what he had built, pivoted to allowing outside play, albeit at a hefty fee. This is not dissimilar to an Ellerston, a Porcupine, a Sunnylands. Your "guilt by association" was simply painting everything with the same brush...deserved or not. Neither "sleazy" nor "sad" really fit.

To your (very fair) questions:

1. Yes, booked in advance. That said, it comes with an exceptional set of meals and allows for as much play as you want. It's a better deal IMO than Pebble or Whistling Straights.

2. Absolutely. Like it or not, we are living in a Gilded Age that has seen significant wealth accumulated by all sorts. A good number of high-rolling golfers have the means to travel by private aircraft or by boat and want especially unique experiential adventures. In that league, Ardfin isn't so dissimilar to some of the venues you've contributed to. For example, I know of a 10 person bachelor party that had participants from the US and Europe all descend on it for several days.

I'm told they are tightly booked through 2022 so I guess so. I don't think in this case "ratings" for it matter that much, if at all.

[Sean_A]

Does anybody know which courses were axed and added for the 150 edition?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

One of the courses I’m particularly familiar with on this listing, a yee olde, very rural and rustic, under the usual radar type course, is immensely proud to have been included and importantly has gained a considerable number of additional visitors, both national and international, since it’s inclusion. I would imagine other courses of a similar ilk feel the same and have benefited accordingly as well.
The listing has also gained considerable traction recently after being highlighted on social media.
Atb

[Tommy Williamsen]

Does anybody know which courses were axed and added for the 150 edition?

Ciao

I know Hidden Creek and Dormie are no longer on the list.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Entertaining thread


Even Paul's non endorsement for Ardfin as a Custodian has appeal with his decription of the site as "the most spectacular site for a golf course I have ever encountered" (pretty heady stuff given his golf travel resume and the fact that he had other criticisms).

Jeff--Let me be clear.  First of all, I love Ran's concept and IMO his golf architecture "eyes" are probably the best and quickest I have ever seen.  But I have never understood the inclusion of Ardfin on these lists.  I played it 1x back in 2017 (was comped and I think my wife's round was comped as well).  I learned a lot about the issues they faced in building Ardfin, including the fact that Jura had no natural sand on the entire island...all sand had to be brought in by barge to a single dock. Note that one of the people in our foursome was the guy who oversaw the construction. 

I stand by my comment that it is the single most spectacular course I have ever seen or played.  I would also say that if someone built a course that crossed the Grand Canyon a few times, that course would be even more spectacular...but also worse than Ardfin!!

I would not include in my World Top (or Best) 250 courses.  My point here is that IMHO views, etc are important but far from sufficient to "make" a course great.  I have two major issues w Ardfin. 

First...they wanted to cap the entire course w sand...but as windy (and exposed) as the site is, the sand would blow away before plantings and vegetation could hold it in place.  So as a result (as I was told and experienced), they caped the tees and green sites and surrounds which are small enough to be protected temporarily from the elements.  But the fairways did not receive sand capping.  I found the greens to be superb...nice and firm...but the fairways were soft and wet.  Yes, I was just there one day...but know several others who had the exact same reaction from their visits...in fact while I did not keep track of these comments I would guess that some 60-70% of those I asked had similar reactions to mine regarding this issue and the other 30-40% (including Ran) did not.  To my mind, there are several reasons that golfers go to play golf in Scotland (as well as other parts of GB&I, Australia, New Zealand, Bandon, Pinehurst #2, etc etc) and one of these reasons is fast firm playing conditions some 90-95% of the time.  I cannot imagine traveling to Scotland to play any course on regular basis (even the most spectacular) that is soft and wet 60-70% of the time.  That is NOT what most want to play on in Scotland.

My second major issue relates to forced carries. As I recall, there are 2-3 holes with long forced carries over wetlands in front of the green (I think #11 is a prime example and the carry is about 150 yards).  In these windy conditions, probably 50-70% of golfers could never finish the hole...and I would never call that type of shot/golf "fun".  Yes it might work in match play...except if neither competitor can make the carry!!

Some others on this thread have talked about how the pricing at Ardfin is high but worth it.  That is a judgement call.  But having heard from at least one highly trusted source who experienced having their confirmed trip cancelled because of Coffin's whims and schedule would not seem to be consistent with any sort of reasonable price/reward trade off., even in today's "cancel culture".

Anyhow...one person's thoughts...

[Adam Lawrence]

I didn't hear the story about it being too windy to sandcap fairways, just that when they realised how much it would cost and how difficult it would be to bring in that much sand by barge to the tiny little pier at Craighouse, four miles away, and then truck it down the single track road to site, it was abandoned as being wholly impractical. They ended up scavenging for topsoil across the entire Ardfin estate.

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps it’s worth reminding ourselves and lurkers of Rans criteria ….

A course that provides engaging puzzles to solve beats one which does not.
A course where the ball is encouraged to run beats one where it is not.
A course where you can carry your bag at anytime beats one where you cannot.
A course where you can play quickly while walking, beats one where you cannot.
A course that you can enjoy at all ages beats one where you cannot.
A course with understated maintenance practices beats one with conspicuous green keeping.
A club that emphasizes the simple game of golf beats one which pursues the trappings of status.
A course you want to play again and again beats one you only wish to play annually.

The preamble to his 147 listing is of course well worth a re-read - https://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game/

Atb

[Dunlop_White]

Does anybody know which courses were axed and added for the 150 edition?

Ciao

Roaring Gap

[Sean_A]

Does anybody know which courses were axed and added for the 150 edition?

Ciao

Roaring Gap

Thats a shame, but I expect a compete 147 could easily run to 1000 courses.

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

I doubt we will get it, but I'd like to know why Ran removed some of the courses.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Since several have  asked...the following 14 are new to #150:
Kawana -Fuji   # 10  Japan
Cap Rock         #28  NE
Prairie Dunes   #42  KS
Toronto           #50  Canada
Pikewood Natl #58  WV
Tokyo GC        #65  Japan
Yokohama-W   #90  Japan
Erin Hills         #99  WI
Colorado GC   #128 CO
Blue Mound    #135 WI
Camden CC    #140 SC
Pine Hills        #143  WI
Sunningdale CC  #144  NY
Rockaway Hunting #150  NY


and the following 13
 were dropped from the 149 list:


Dismal River-Red     #92  NE
Royal Melb-East       #114  Australia
Highland Links         #124  Canada
Prouts Neck            #127   ME
Cedar Rapids          #130  IA
National-Moonah     #131  Australia
Roy Ashdown Forest #132 England
Lost Farm               #139  Australia
Liphook                  #145  England
St Emillion              #146  France
Rustic Canyon         #147  CA
Fano                       #148  Denmark
Rhode island CC      #149  RI