[JC Jones]

Post them here.


As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually laughed out loud when I saw Lawsonia Links.  Including this course is indicative of a certain myopia generated by this website.


Lawsonia Links is not in the top 10 of courses within a 5 hour drive of Milwaukee.  In fact, I believe Milwaukee CC is legitimately a top 100 golf course and cannot fathom how it not only doesn’t make this list but Lawsonia Links does.


Another glaring omission for me is Old Town Club and I can only attribute this to the lack of visits by the panelists (although that didn’t seem to affect Wolf Point).  Makes me wonder whether clubs that are off the beaten path like Milwaukee and Old Town who aren’t hyped on social media or GCA.com will get the requisite visits from the Golf Magazine panel to be properly recognized.


What have others seen that could be considered glaring errors?

[Jud_T]

I think JC’s just trying to stir the pot a bit here.  It’s a much improved list.  While we each could quibble here and there, I see nothing wrong with Lawsonia in the Next 50.  I’d happily play it over a number of the Top 100, Whistling Straights included (even beyond the 4-1 cost differential). Perhaps many haven’t seen Milwaukee since Tom’s been consulting, as it’s previous presentation had veered a fair bit from Alison’s vision over the years.  Same might be said for Old Town (?). Based on what folks who’ve been there recently have said I’d expect to see it next time round.  I’d think Kingsley ought to be in the next 50, but it’s quirk is divisive and has been debated here at length.

[Mike Treitler]

The fact that you laughed out loud at the inclusion of Lawsonia links makes me laugh out loud.



If you don’t like courses that are fun, have amazing green complexes, creative routing, playable but still protects par, scenic, great variety, and several world class holes(6,7,13) than I can understand your opinion 


I do agree that Milwaukee cc belongs on this list but Lawsonia definitely deserves its place here for the reasons listed above.


Have you played it since the tree renovation?

[PCCraig]

The biggest error I saw was that Lawsonia Links was not included in the World Top 100.

[JC Jones]

Several years ago there was a GCA.com World 100 and Holston Hills was 64.

[Michael Wolf]

Each of us has courses we would rate higher than someone else. But I wonder if there are still any deserving courses that are not on the list not because the panelists have underrated them, but because they, and we, have not yet discovered them?


Tom has already had a couple new ones in his latest editions of the CD - the highest being I believe Himalayan at 9-8-.



How many other 8+'s are still out there waiting to be rediscovered? What is the total number of courses seen by the panelists as a % of the total courses in the world? Surely there are 1 or 2 they haven't seen that are top 150.


I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I returned from Japan two weeks ago. A country that has 2,000 golf courses, less than 100 of which see even minimal play from outsiders.


Another reason I'd think the answer to my question is "at least one" is because of how little even the architect actually sees of the project he's worked on. Is it possible there's one right now that's hidden right under an architect or shapers own nose? They built the course but never saw it grassed in and underestimated it max potential? Or a clever but humble superintendent who's quietly improved a course up a notch or two after the architect has left?


Wouldn't the math say that's a pretty strong probability?


Michael

[Tom_Doak]

Each of us has courses we would rate higher than someone else. But I wonder if there are still any deserving courses that are not on the list not because the panelists have underrated them, but because they, and we, have not yet discovered them?

Tom has already had a couple new ones in his latest editions of the CD - the highest being I believe Himalayan at 9-8-.


How many other 8+'s are still out there waiting to be rediscovered? What is the total number of courses seen by the panelists as a % of the total courses in the world? Surely there are 1 or 2 they haven't seen that are top 150.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I returned from Japan two weeks ago. A country that has 2,000 golf courses, less than 100 of which see even minimal play from outsiders.

Another reason I'd think the answer to my question is "at least one" is because of how little even the architect actually sees of the project he's worked on. Is it possible there's one right now that's hidden right under an architect or shapers own nose? They built the course but never saw it grassed in and underestimated it max potential? Or a clever but humble superintendent who's quietly improved a course up a notch or two after the architect has left?

Wouldn't the math say that's a pretty strong probability?

Well if you want to go by The Confidential Guide:


from Volume 1, the highest-rated courses not in the 150 are:  West Sussex (7878), County Sligo (7877), Notts (7877), and Royal West Norfolk (7877).  Also Royal Troon, if it's not in there - I don't remember seeing it?


from Volume 2, it's Streamsong Blue (888-), and Cabo del Sol Ocean (8887, but since changed).  Among the courses that got one '8' are Sand Hollow, Shadow Creek, Cuscowilla, Harbour Town, Old Town, and We Ko Pa.


from Volume 3, it's Capilano (7887), Dismal River Red (88-7), and Sebonack (8687).  Among the courses that got one '8':  Chambers Bay, Gamble Sands, Glens Falls, Kirtland, Lancaster, Salem, Milwaukee CC, and White Bear Yacht Club.


From Volume 5, it's Himalayan (9-8-), The National Moonah (7788), St. Andrews Beach (8877), and Victoria in Sri Lanka (a single 8 from me).  Both Himalayan and Victoria have their flaws, and though I voted for both among the top 100, I doubt that many panelists would agree, even if they did go to see them -- which not many ever will.




Do any of those qualify as "undiscovered" to you?  I'd say Glens Falls and White Bear Yacht Club are well under the radar for most people . . . I only got to the former 4 years ago, though I had stumbled onto White Bear a long time before that.  You could maybe make the case for Gamble Sands, Dismal River, and We Ko Pa, among modern courses.




So, that leaves Europe and Africa to explore.  I'm working on it, in my spare time.  I doubt I will find many 8's, but you never know.  Then again, I'm also working on two or three new courses that I expect to have a chance at this list when they are done. 

[Michael Wolf]

Tom,


how likely do you think it is that there is still already a course somewhere out in the world, that's top100 worthy, that none of the  panelists have seen or even heard of yet?


Michael

[Tom_Doak]

how likely do you think it is that there is still already a course somewhere out in the world, that's top100 worthy, that none of the  panelists have seen or even heard of yet?

Well, as you say, everyone has got their own opinion, and I'm sure there are many courses we don't know about that someone would think was worthy, if only it was fixed up properly, or whatever.


There were certainly a few courses that weren't on our ballot, that panelists made write-in votes for.  And if Sand Valley in Poland makes the list, for example, you might say that was undiscovered, even though it was discussed here many years ago.  But there weren't any write-in candidates that I hadn't heard of . . . I had seen a lot of them myself, and knew a fair bit about the rest. 


So, I think the odds that there is a course in Mississippi or Myanmar or wherever that we would mostly agree is an 8, if we'd just heard about it, are pretty long.


I am not saying it's not possible, but I don't think it's much more likely than Bigfoot, or the Tasmanian tiger still being alive.


My feeling goes back to a thread from the other day, about great courses having great greens.  I haven't seen many courses that have great greens by accident; usually, you have to have someone building the course who's seen enough great greens to know what they are doing.  And most of those guys' work is present and accounted for.

[Bill Seitz]

Post them here.


As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually laughed out loud when I saw Lawsonia Links.  Including this course is indicative of a certain myopia generated by this website.


Lawsonia Links is not in the top 10 of courses within a 5 hour drive of Milwaukee.  In fact, I believe Milwaukee CC is legitimately a top 100 golf course and cannot fathom how it not only doesn’t make this list but Lawsonia Links does.


Another glaring omission for me is Old Town Club and I can only attribute this to the lack of visits by the panelists (although that didn’t seem to affect Wolf Point).  Makes me wonder whether clubs that are off the beaten path like Milwaukee and Old Town who aren’t hyped on social media or GCA.com will get the requisite visits from the Golf Magazine panel to be properly recognized.


What have others seen that could be considered glaring errors?

I'd say one glaring error is saying that LL is absolutely not a top 150 without giving any sort of indication as to why.  I haven't played Milwaukee Country Club, but I've played Lawsonia, and I thought it was a legitimately great golf course before the tree removal, and suspect I'd think it's even better now.  Lest one think I'm just being anti JC here (I mean, I'm generally anti JC, but not on this specific point), he's dead right about Old Town, which is my favorite of the three highly rated Maxwells that I've played, and is criminally underrated.  Without some elaboration, I'm not sure what JC has against LL, aside from backlash due its status as a GCA favorite that's lesser known to the public.  Also Milwaukee being off the beaten path is a weird comment, given that he's lamenting the high rating of a course in Green Lake.  Not exactly a major destination.


Also, five hours is a long time.  There's a lot of really good golf courses within a five hour drive from Milwaukee. 

[William_G]

Post them here.





Also, five hours is a long time.  There's a lot of really good golf courses within a five hour drive from Milwaukee.

for 5 months of the year

[Sean_A]

JC

As Doak is want to say, if you want a course in, then nominate a course a course to go.  To be a glaring error error suggests not even in the ball park correct.  If we assume that probably at least 250 courses could challenge for 50-150 on the list, the list is passes my limited experience eye test.

Being picky, I would rather see Gleneagles Kings, Palmetto and The Island make the 150 and Lytham, Woodhall Spa & Machrihanish be the trade offs.  For sure Woodhall is the course that stands out the most to my eye.  But it isn't a massive issue.  I am more inclined to ask what the ranked courses offer in terms of design that the replacements don't.  When I zero it down to Woodhall VS Kings...Woodhall comes out a distant 2nd.

Happy Hockey

[JC Jones]

JC

As Doak is want to say, if you want a course in, then nominate a course a course to go.  To be a glaring error error suggests not even in the ball park correct.  If we assume that probably at least 250 courses could challenge for 50-150 on the list, the list is passes my limited experience eye test.

Being picky, I would rather see Gleneagles Kings, Palmetto and The Island make the 150 and Lytham, Woodhall Spa & Machrihanish be the trade offs.  For sure Woodhall is the course that stands out the most to my eye.  But it isn't a massive issue.  I am more inclined to ask what the ranked courses offer in terms of design that the replacements don't.  When I zero it down to Woodhall VS Kings...Woodhall comes out a distant 2nd.

Happy Hockey

Sean, thanks for your thoughts.


I don’t know if we can assume there are 250 courses that belong on that list.  In theory, any of the 400+ courses that are up for consideration would be courses one could assume would be on the list.  And while I agree there is some room for wackiness on the margins, there is also a requirement of legitimacy too.  And so, were something like Crystal Downs not on the list and something like Wade Hampton on there in its stead, I doubt folks around here would be satisfied with the notion that CD is probably somewhere in the pool of consideration and that’s good enough.


Recency bias is a real thing and a real problem sometimes.  It’s easy to forget that things can be very good, or even great, and not warrant World Top 100 status.  But I think people, by nature, like to be pioneers.  We like to discover, lay stake and claim.  And, we want our discoveries to be know and for our generation to contribute.  So, when we play places like Holston Hills. Lawsonia, Sweetens Cove, Aiken GC that are fun, and great and outside the establishment, we want to put them in the pantheon as our way of making ourselves known.  We tell others who are like minded, we drone it, we discuss it at length and compare it to places we haven’t played and likely never will. 


But I think there should be some honest reflection.  A course can be fun and great and awesome, it can be a place we’d rather play than any other, but that doesn’t make it, necessarily World Top 100.  It makes it a personal top 100.  I’d hope the list is making a bigger statement than an amalgamation of a few people’s personal favorite courses.


Edited to fix the typo in "recency"

[Sean_A]

JC

Sure, there is, or should be, a difference between favourites and best. Although, there will necessarily be cross over between the two lists.

I also agree recency bias can be an issue just as traditional shoe ins can be. One aspect of ranking I hope emerges is 9 hole (or however many between 9 and 18) courses are taken more seriously for rankings.

Despite any possible flaws or reservations, I don't see anything in the top 150 which is outrageous, especially given the history of rankings. I merely express disappointment over the respect shown to some courses which seem to be grandfathered into the rankings. Which is why I raised Kings V Woodhall. I would to see a reasoned defence from a rater for choosing Woodhall as the better course.

Happy Hockey

[Tim Martin]

Each of us has courses we would rate higher than someone else. But I wonder if there are still any deserving courses that are not on the list not because the panelists have underrated them, but because they, and we, have not yet discovered them?

Tom has already had a couple new ones in his latest editions of the CD - the highest being I believe Himalayan at 9-8-.


How many other 8+'s are still out there waiting to be rediscovered? What is the total number of courses seen by the panelists as a % of the total courses in the world? Surely there are 1 or 2 they haven't seen that are top 150.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I returned from Japan two weeks ago. A country that has 2,000 golf courses, less than 100 of which see even minimal play from outsiders.

Another reason I'd think the answer to my question is "at least one" is because of how little even the architect actually sees of the project he's worked on. Is it possible there's one right now that's hidden right under an architect or shapers own nose? They built the course but never saw it grassed in and underestimated it max potential? Or a clever but humble superintendent who's quietly improved a course up a notch or two after the architect has left?

Wouldn't the math say that's a pretty strong probability?

Well if you want to go by The Confidential Guide:



Do any of those qualify as "undiscovered" to you?  I'd say Glens Falls and White Bear Yacht Club are well under the radar for most people . . . I only got to the former 4 years ago, though I had stumbled onto White Bear a long time before that.  You could maybe make the case for Gamble Sands, Dismal River, and We Ko Pa, among modern courses.

Tom-Tom Haggerty at Glens Falls told me that the requests to see the course have ramped up considerably since its write up in the NCG and that it’s tougher to manage the requests. That said he seemed genuinely happy that Glens Falls is getting it’s due.

[PCCraig]

Do any of those qualify as "undiscovered" to you?  I'd say Glens Falls and White Bear Yacht Club are well under the radar for most people . . . I only got to the former 4 years ago, though I had stumbled onto White Bear a long time before that.  You could maybe make the case for Gamble Sands, Dismal River, and We Ko Pa, among modern courses.

When most people think of Minnesota golf, they tend to think of Hazeltine and Interlachen. Hazeltine clearly doesn't vibe with the current tastes of GOLF's panelists, but it was surprising to see WBYC but not Interlachen make the list of Top 150. That has to be a ranking first.


White Bear is still a little under the radar, even among golfers in the Twin Cities, but it seems to be gaining recognition from out-of-state folks.


For a club that was listed in TCG as a "Course Worth Groveling to Play" I'm not sure most people would have to these days as the membership has a better awareness of how special the course is and they enjoy sharing it with others. So perhaps that is helping it be less "under-the-radar."

[Tom_Doak]

 It’s easy to forget that things can be very good, or even great, and not warrant World Top 100 status.  But I think people, by nature, like to be pioneers.  We like to discover, lay stake and claim.  And, we want our discoveries to be know and for our generation to contribute.  So, when we play places like Holston Hills. Lawsonia, Sweetens Cove, Aiken GC that are fun, and great and outside the establishment, we want to put them in the pantheon as our way of making ourselves known.  We tell others who are like minded, we drone it, we discuss it at length and compare it to places we haven’t played and likely never will. 


But I think there should be some honest reflection.  A course can be fun and great and awesome, it can be a place we’d rather play than any other, but that doesn’t make it, necessarily World Top 100.  It makes it a personal top 100.  I’d hope the list is making a bigger statement than an amalgamation of a few people’s personal favorite courses.

JC:


Ran does not make any distinction between the world top 100 and his own personal top 100.  I still do, but it's less of a factor for me than it used to be.


One factor you are overlooking is the value of a course that's really different from everything else.  Places like Tobacco Road, Sweetens Cove, Gamble Sands, and High Pointe [in its day] stand out to people because they are a contrast to the rest of what's being built at the time.  However, if the architect is successful, his style becomes more familiar, he gets to work on even better projects, and his first big project tends to fade in importance.


It might even have been the same for George Crump or Hugh Wilson, if they'd built more, but they apparently knew where to stop.


P.S.  You could explain Lawsonia's inclusion by being a Langford course, or by its being similar in style to Raynor courses, which apparently half the panel have a man crush on.

[JC Jones]

P.S.  You could explain Lawsonia's inclusion by being a Langford course, or by its being similar in style to Raynor courses, which apparently half the panel have a man crush on.

I wish there was an emoji for the old charades gesture where you'd point at your nose to indicate the other person was on to the correct answer.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  You could explain Lawsonia's inclusion by being a Langford course, or by its being similar in style to Raynor courses, which apparently half the panel have a man crush on.

I wish there was an emoji for the old charades gesture where you'd point at your nose to indicate the other person was on to the correct answer.

Yeah but I think you're being hard on it.  I would rate Lawsonia above one or two of the Raynor courses that made the 150, if only for the fact that Langford did NOT just stick to the Macdonald playbook.  [And it feels like it fits the landscape better, too.]  But originality is a more important factor for me than it is for a lot of panelists, who have their favorites and can't get enough of them.

[JC Jones]

P.S.  You could explain Lawsonia's inclusion by being a Langford course, or by its being similar in style to Raynor courses, which apparently half the panel have a man crush on.

I wish there was an emoji for the old charades gesture where you'd point at your nose to indicate the other person was on to the correct answer.

Yeah but I think you're being hard on it.  I would rate Lawsonia above one or two of the Raynor courses that made the 150, if only for the fact that Langford did NOT just stick to the Macdonald playbook.  [And it feels like it fits the landscape better, too.]  But originality is a more important factor for me than it is for a lot of panelists, who have their favorites and can't get enough of them.

No doubt that Im being hard on Lawsonia.  And I very well could point my attention to Sand Valley or Streamsong (Red), neither of which present anything new or original as compared to the rest of the C&C portfolio. 


But I stand by my point that Lawsonia can be very good but just because its newly discovered, presents Raynor-esque architecture while being affordable and accessible to the masses, does not make it a World Top 150 (please note I am talking about the World, not the US; I think an inclusion of Lawsonia in the US next 50 would be warranted).  Especially in light of some glaring errors that aren't on the list, some of which are not on the list because they don't have very many visits from panelists.

[Ted Sturges]

Several years ago there was a GCA.com World 100 and Holston Hills was 64.

To JC:


Why don't you post your top 100 in the world list and let us all share our feelings about your list?


TS

[JC Jones]

Several years ago there was a GCA.com World 100 and Holston Hills was 64.

To JC:


Why don't you post your top 100 in the world list and let us all share our feelings about your list?


TS

Well, there would be at least 1 GCA darling that would be omitted and I think if you scroll up you'd see what people's feelings would be about that.

[Ted Sturges]

Well...you don't like Lawsonia and you don't like Holston Hills.  I'm trying to determine what your definition of good architecture is...

[JC Jones]

Well...you don't like Lawsonia and you don't like Holston Hills.  I'm trying to determine what your definition of good architecture is...

That's the problem with these discussions on GCA (and its been this way for the 13ish years I've been on this board).  At no point did I say they weren't good or that I didn't like them.  That's not what I'm saying at all.

[Kalen Braley]

I think its important to keep JCs comments in context.  Of the 34,000 or so golf courses World Wide, he's simply saying it doesn't belong in the top 150 of them, which is a damn elite group.  Not that Lawsonia isn't very good or great...I'd like to think there are least 500 courses which could easily be called such.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()