[Ian Andrew]

since its write up in the NCG

What is NCG?
Is this referring to the Confidential Guide?

[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...

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.

Then please sir...tell us what you are saying.  Seems like (if) you are saying that those two are not among the best 200 courses in the world, that you must favor a different style of architecture over what those two present.  It would be helpful if you would be more direct and less cryptic and publish your list of favorite courses.  Or at least list the ones not in Golf Magazine's current list that you believe should be.  That would be a good start...

[Ian Andrew]

For me the greatest conundrum is Tobacco Road.
It's got a few glaring flaws, but is so refreshingly original that I don't think any of them matter.

I think it should be part of the conversation.

[JC Jones]

For me the greatest conundrum is Tobacco Road.
It's got a few glaring flaws, but is so refreshingly original that I don't think any of them matter.

I think it should be part of the conversation.

That's a good one.  I think its great, and original and funky.  But you're right, there are some major issues out there, particularly from a routing "flow" perspective vs being a collection of interesting holes.  I haven't played it for 6 or 7 years but Im playing it again the weekend after next and I look forward to another chance to evaluate it.

[John Kavanaugh]

There should be a whole other list for the Tobacco Rd’s and Mystic Dunes in the world. I’ve never said that Mystic Dunes is a great course but it is sure as hell better that TR. 

[David Davis]

JC,


Interesting threads which I've been enjoying discussing with a friend of yours the last few days. A panelist I respect wrote the other day the only perfect list is your own. In that regard I honestly doubt there is a single GM Panelist that agrees fully with the new list. In the same vein there likely isn't a single GD panelist old school or from the new paid ranks that agrees with their list in it's entirety nor the process used to create it. However, that's not why they are involved of course and that's not their mandate.


Personally, I'm no different. I don't agree with any of the lists in their entirety but I do enjoy reading them and trying to create my own.


Your first question which understandably almost nobody answered was to list their glaring omissions. Since I only agree with my own World top 100 list I'm willing to do that. I'll add that I realize all lists are highly subjective and as long as you can back up your reasoning for any given course, whatever that my be I can respect it. Probably the most interesting comment I've read was when Tom D said that regardless of whether your ranking criteria requires you to break down a ranking into 20 different key areas or whether you just go based on your feeling, experience and personal knowledge of architecture they are equally wrong - or right for that matter. I thought quite a lot about this and have debated a lot over the years about it and I'm quite discouraged to have to admit I'm agreeing with it more and more as time goes by. Thanks Tom for raining on my parade of initial thought that you could really break it down to a science and then as long as your pool of experience and courses visited and studied was high enough you could rank courses much better than any other way.


That statement of course renders my accompanying response all but worthless however, you did ask so I will try to answer given I feel I've seen enough of them to do so.


My glaring omissions:


1. Old Town Club - as you already mentioned. If Cal Club a course of similar ilk to me is so high up the list, then now way should OTC have been snubbed.


2. South Cape Owners Club - there is no ranking for me that this is not in the World Top 100 and I guess it's headed there in the future when enough people see it. It's in the discussion for best course in Asia with only Hirono challenging it in my book. It's a visual spectacle supported by fantastic architecture and one of the best (read most spectacular) sets of par 3's on the planet.


3. Ardfin - World Top 30 and very possible to argue it in the World Top 10. For me this course has 18 of the most interesting and varied holes of any course I've ever seen. That's in spite of current drainage issues and the fact that the course is extremely difficult and too unforgiving at the moment. Those elements can be fixed and too difficult clearly isn't an issue in anyone's rankings as Pine Valley is the current poster child.


4. Wade Hampton and Santapazienza - these are the two best courses of Tom Fazio. I'm not a fan of his, but I'm also not biased enough to judge all his work based on the person himself. For me there is no way a list can exist without one of the most successful architects of all time being snubbed because a few minimalists brainwash everyone. Wade Hampton is the best mountain course ever built, has a fantastic routing and wonderful flow, it's playable by all levels and very enjoyable. Santapazienza is not just a fantastic course but also for me a world top 5 golf experience. If enough panelists ever make it there, it's a shoe in.


5. St. Enodoc - Guess not enough people have seen it. Love to hear reasoning from any nay-sayers.


6. Eastward Ho - Myopia made it in which I applaud - as did Utrecht de Pan one of my personal favorites. Eastward Ho belongs. One of the great old school designs in the US that I have seen.


7. Essex County Club - I'm not the biggest Donald Ross fan, at least compared to most of the people on GCA. This however is one of my favorites of his and one that fits in the realms of Myopia and Eastward Ho for me.


8. Paraparaumu Beach - this is the Southern Hemispheres version of Prestwick. An amazing site and routing and my personal second favorite course in NZ behind Tara Iti.


9. Deal (Royal Cinque Ports) - always overlooked somehow. Better than many in the ranking and for me head and shoulders above Rye and I'm a fan of Rye.


10. Naruo, one of Alisons best routings - Royal Porthcawl and Royal Aberdeen. The list is still a bit US centric.


Out of time....so rushed the end.

[Tom_Doak]

since its write up in the NCG

What is NCG?
Is this referring to the Confidential Guide?

It should be the Nottingham Cricket Ground, but I am guessing from the context he meant the New Confidential Guide 

[V_Halyard]

Your laughter at the exclusion of Lawsonia is laughable.  I'm not laughing with you...

[V_Halyard]

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.

About the Sand Valley Poland "Hello Golfers" ad...

[Tom_Doak]

My glaring omissions:

You can't have ten glaring omissions, and actually you listed more than ten.  Unless you think that everyone who disagrees with your own full list is making a glaring error.


You are a particularly big fan [if not a cheerleader] for two courses that most people will never see:  Ardfin and Santapazienza. 


I would just point out that it's doubly easy to make oversized claims about courses when
(a) they treat you like a member just because you're a panelist and
(b) most people can't argue since they have no access. 


I really don't think such courses should be ranked in major publications, because it's so easy to limit access to people who you think will provide a favorable review.  This was indeed the problem with the previous GOLF Magazine list.  There are others, like Ellerston and Shanqin Bay and Wolf Point, that would have to be thrown out on the same basis; luckily, there are plenty of other deserving courses to fill those spots.


P.S.  I was worried at the start that Tara Iti might fall into the same category, but their unaccompanied guest policy nicely solved that problem.  They made it about money rather than about access!

[John Kirk]

Of the courses I know, Dismal River (Red) deserves to be in the conversation.  It has an excellent variety of golf holes and the big sky environment.  I also nominate Pine Tree (Dick Wilson, architect) in Boynton Beach, FL.  This may seem an oddball choice, but Pine Tree would be a unique entry among American courses for its flat topography and the way it uses bunkering and angled greens for strategic challenge.  Nothing special to look at, but a lot of fun to play. 

The course I most feel is rated too high is the Cal Club of San Francisco.  Very nice course, but rating it #50 in the world overstates its case.  I consider both the Olympic Club (Lake) and San Francisco GC significantly more compelling.   

[Don Mahaffey]

My glaring omissions:

You can't have ten glaring omissions, and actually you listed more than ten.  Unless you think that everyone who disagrees with your own full list is making a glaring error.


You are a particularly big fan [if not a cheerleader] for two courses that most people will never see:  Ardfin and Santapazienza. 


I would just point out that it's doubly easy to make oversized claims about courses when
(a) they treat you like a member just because you're a panelist and
(b) most people can't argue since they have no access. 


I really don't think such courses should be ranked in major publications, because it's so easy to limit access to people who you think will provide a favorable review.  This was indeed the problem with the previous GOLF Magazine list.  There are others, like Ellerston and Shanqin Bay and Wolf Point, that would have to be thrown out on the same basis; luckily, there are plenty of other deserving courses to fill those spots.


P.S.  I was worried at the start that Tara Iti might fall into the same category, but their unaccompanied guest policy nicely solved that problem.  They made it about money rather than about access!

I’ve sat back and read JC slam Wolf Point’s inclusion into the next 50 and now I get to read Tom do the same.
I don’t know how many panelist rated the course not do I know how it scored; I’ve never talked to a single panelist about any rating of any course.  But this I know, if WP is off for being too exclusive, then get the effing broom out cause a bunch more need to go.

[JC Jones]

My glaring omissions:

You can't have ten glaring omissions, and actually you listed more than ten.  Unless you think that everyone who disagrees with your own full list is making a glaring error.


You are a particularly big fan [if not a cheerleader] for two courses that most people will never see:  Ardfin and Santapazienza. 


I would just point out that it's doubly easy to make oversized claims about courses when
(a) they treat you like a member just because you're a panelist and
(b) most people can't argue since they have no access. 


I really don't think such courses should be ranked in major publications, because it's so easy to limit access to people who you think will provide a favorable review.  This was indeed the problem with the previous GOLF Magazine list.  There are others, like Ellerston and Shanqin Bay and Wolf Point, that would have to be thrown out on the same basis; luckily, there are plenty of other deserving courses to fill those spots.


P.S.  I was worried at the start that Tara Iti might fall into the same category, but their unaccompanied guest policy nicely solved that problem.  They made it about money rather than about access!

I’ve sat back and read JC slam Wolf Point’s inclusion into the next 50 and now I get to read Tom do the same.
I don’t know how many panelist rated the course not do I know how it scored; I’ve never talked to a single panelist about any rating of any course.  But this I know, if WP is off for being too exclusive, then get the effing broom out cause a bunch more need to go.

W/R/T Wolf Point, my first point was about the math in the methodology and the second point was about the inherent conflicts of interest in having people on the panel who are financially benefited by having a course they were involved with present in the rankings.  Not the quality of the course itself.


Mike Nuzzo’s posts on the other thread and Don Mahaffey’s posts here certainly illustrate my second point and the emotions that come as a result of it.


Edited to clean up a typo in Wolf Point

[Tom_Doak]

I really don't think such courses should be ranked in major publications, because it's so easy to limit access to people who you think will provide a favorable review.  This was indeed the problem with the previous GOLF Magazine list.  There are others, like Ellerston and Shanqin Bay and Wolf Point, that would have to be thrown out on the same basis; luckily, there are plenty of other deserving courses to fill those spots.

I’ve sat back and read JC slam Wolf Point’s inclusion into the next 50 and now I get to read Tom do the same.
I don’t know how many panelist rated the course not do I know how it scored; I’ve never talked to a single panelist about any rating of any course.  But this I know, if WP is off for being too exclusive, then get the effing broom out cause a bunch more need to go.




If you think that was a "slam", you have a reading comprehension problem.


I said that I thought all privately-owned courses with very limited access should be removed from consideration, and listed Wolf Point as one of several that would have to be put into that category.  If you've got others to add to that list, go for it.

[Don Mahaffey]

JC,
I have no comprehension issues. You clearly inferred a conflict of interest.
Like I said, I have no idea how many ballots had WP rated. I can only assume it met the minimum number.  If it didn’t, it shouldn’t have been listed. But to say courses hard to get to, or hard to get on should be limited-even if they receive the minimum number of votes negates the whole damn process.

[JC Jones]

JC,
I have no comprehension issues. You clearly inferred a conflict of interest.
Like I said, I have no idea how many ballots had WP rated. I can only assume it met the minimum number.  If it didn’t, it shouldn’t have been listed. But to say courses hard to get to, or hard to get on should be limited-even if they receive the minimum number of votes negates the whole damn process.

I didnt question your comprehension skills.  The conflict of interest is patent.


Curious, would you be willing to post here what score you gave Wolf Point, how many of the World Top 100 you've played, same next 50 and same of the whole 423 course menu?

[Don Mahaffey]

Obviously I do have reading comprehension issues as I got TD and JC mixed up. I wish I hadn’t done that but probably deserve looking foolish for typing on my phone.
As for the matter at hand, to me it’s a subjective judging process that is objectivity scored. I participate on the subjective side but have nothing to do with the objective process.  I think it important to not confuse the two.
If you think a certain course doesn’t belong based on architectural merits, then have at explaining why. If you choose to attack the objective system developed to score and rank, then go for it. But when a course is named, and you think it not fair based on the objective parameters set by the directors, then attack the system, not the course.


For the record, I liked having WP not on any ballot. I think the course speaks for itself and I don’t care one bit whether anyone likes it or not. I think it’s great, and I have zero issue with anyone who disagrees.  I have no conflict. I just think it weak to use it to further some agenda.  It’s there because it got the votes. Don’t like it? Change the voters or the vote counters

[JC Jones]

Obviously I do have reading comprehension issues as I got TD and JC mixed up. I wish I hadn’t done that but probably deserve looking foolish for typing on my phone.
As for the matter at hand, to me it’s a subjective judging process that is objectivity scored. I participate on the subjective side but have nothing to do with the objective process.  I think it important to not confuse the two.
If you think a certain course doesn’t belong based on architectural merits, then have at explaining why. If you choose to attack the objective system developed to score and rank, then go for it. But when a course is named, and you think it not fair based on the objective parameters set by the directors, then attack the system, not the course.


For the record, I liked having WP not on any ballot. I think the course speaks for itself and I don’t care one bit whether anyone likes it or not. I think it’s great, and I have zero issue with anyone who disagrees.  I have no conflict. I just think it weak to use it to further some agenda.  It’s there because it got the votes. Don’t like it? Change the voters or the vote counters

Don,


I cited Wolf Point among several courses as illustrations in my discussion about the system and the methodology.  The very thing you think I should be discussing.  The fact that you and Mike Nuzzo made that general point specific to Wolf Point again shows the issues with the inherent conflict of interest having members of the golf business present on the panel.


Did you happen to catch my questions re your ranking of the course and the contextual questions?

[Don Mahaffey]

I caught your question but am going to pass on answering other than to say this.
I was asked to join the golf mag panel pre-Ran. I didn’t ask to join, I was approached after being recommended by someone who knew me. It’s up to Ran to decide if my scores are appropriate and if I see enough courses.

[Mike Hendren]

It seems to me that every rater on every panel should have felt obligated to accept Mike and Don’s gracious invitation to the Halloween themed event a few years ago at Wolf Point. I flew to Houston from Nashville and drove down for 18 holes before heading back home the same afternoon. Honestly can’t remember if I had been dismissed from the Golfweek panel prior to the visit but I considered the course a must see.  It was more than worthwhile - that’s all I know for sure.

[Tom_Doak]

Don,

I cited Wolf Point among several courses as illustrations in my discussion about the system and the methodology.  The very thing you think I should be discussing.  The fact that you and Mike Nuzzo made that general point specific to Wolf Point again shows the issues with the inherent conflict of interest having members of the golf business present on the panel.

Did you happen to catch my questions re your ranking of the course and the contextual questions?

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with conflict of interest.  It just shows that they are new to the process.


They are not used to having anyone try to think up reasons why their course should NOT be ranked.  Before now, as hosts of an unknown and unranked course, they would only hear the positives.


In reality, Don is just another voter, and Wolf Point is just another course on the ballot, and (one) "conflict of interest" might be a new record low for the rankings game.  I think I had to point out 40 or 50 conflicts of interest I had, between all the places I consult and have worked on, clients who own other courses, etc.


I suppose you could infer that every living architect should list a conflict of interest voting on the courses built by every other living architect!     But, there are lots of us on the panel, so those things tend to cancel out with one another.


To me, it's much better just to have us all on there, than have everyone working behind the scenes to butter up panelists and see how many proxy votes they can assemble.

[JC Jones]

Tom, I disagree.  I think the emotional response shows how important it can be to those panelists.  Perhaps its less of an issue for you being your level of success. 


Nonetheless, and for the seemingly 1000th time, I wasn't saying Wolf Point was not deserving nor the biggest issue; it was one example of many examples.


Edited to say this: Im done discussing this point as I've said what I wanted to say and I have no interest in making this about Wolf Point.

[William_G]

Mountain Lake

[Jay Mickle]

For me the greatest conundrum is Tobacco Road.
It's got a few glaring flaws, but is so refreshingly original that I don't think any of them matter.

I think it should be part of the conversation.

I wholly agree. If one test of a golf course is wether each shot asks a question, TR fit that. The question seems as often to be, can I hit that shot as where do I hit that shot. I addition to being an amazing strategic/heroic course it includes a psychological component.
From the pucker up first tee shot to the 18th, where did my ball end up, the course is one emotional roller coaster. This is surely not your grandfathers golf course,

[Tom_Doak]

Mountain Lake

Yes, there clearly aren't enough Raynor courses on the list yet.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()