[Dan Gallaway]

I’ve been trying to think which course should be added to the top 100 which would meet the Custodians criteria and be affordable and public?  In WA, Chambers is $$ and 5.5hr rounds.  Gamble Sands is expensive.  Gold Mountain is good, but not worthy of a top 147 list. 

[Sean_A]

Ron

I would lean far heavier toward the combo of good, affordable and accessible than does Ran, but the 147 is his list. I guess it comes down to if you think participation is at least as important as the playing fields.

Happy Hockey

[Ronald Montesano]

Sean,


At some point in the thread, I reached the same acknowledgement that you did, regarding list ownership. I concur, and I don't think that Ran should make room for any list but his own. As an exercise in assessment, I think that this type of thread is valuable to those who opt in.


If Ran is to keep up with the number of Open Championships, he needs to be at 148 by next July. I wonder if he cares to give it thought. I don't have an answer to which course should be added. A Manakiki or a Sleepy Hollow near Cleveland? Those are two municipal courses that deserve consideration in the USA. Certainly others exist, elsewhere.


Not that it has to be a muni. I wonder what Ran would think of Park Club, in Buffalo. The description for Alison's Milwaukee CC could be applied, word for word, to Park Club.


Here's to more contributions to this thread.


Go, Sabres

[jeffwarne]

Sean,


At some point in the thread, I reached the same acknowledgement that you did, regarding list ownership. I concur, and I don't think that Ran should make room for any list but his own. As an exercise in assessment, I think that this type of thread is valuable to those who opt in.


If Ran is to keep up with the number of Open Championships, he needs to be at 148 by next July. I wonder if he cares to give it thought. I don't have an answer to which course should be added. A Manakiki or a Sleepy Hollow near Cleveland? Those are two municipal courses that deserve consideration in the USA. Certainly others exist, elsewhere.


Not that it has to be a muni. I wonder what Ran would think of Park Club, in Buffalo. The description for Alison's Milwaukee CC could be applied, word for word, to Park Club.


Here's to more contributions to this thread.


Go, Sabres

I'd venture a guess that Aiken Golf Club is next.

[Sean_A]

Sean,


At some point in the thread, I reached the same acknowledgement that you did, regarding list ownership. I concur, and I don't think that Ran should make room for any list but his own. As an exercise in assessment, I think that this type of thread is valuable to those who opt in.


If Ran is to keep up with the number of Open Championships, he needs to be at 148 by next July. I wonder if he cares to give it thought. I don't have an answer to which course should be added. A Manakiki or a Sleepy Hollow near Cleveland? Those are two municipal courses that deserve consideration in the USA. Certainly others exist, elsewhere.

Not that it has to be a muni. I wonder what Ran would think of Park Club, in Buffalo. The description for Alison's Milwaukee CC could be applied, word for word, to Park Club.

Here's to more contributions to this thread.

Go, Sabres

I'd venture a guess that Aiken Golf Club is next.

Ran should have taken a view and already listed Aiken. It's a no brainer.

Happy Hockey

[V. Kmetz]

I've wanted to spout off directly against the ethos of the 147; but I too have un-bothered enough to let RM have his head; as a matter of serious GCA points however, I simply wish he never put it up. 

This occasion permits me to say that if anything, this board has made me understand how facile, subjective an/or disingenuously composed almost any list is. I can't completely buy that hurled-in coda about "fostering discussion" because I've never seen Ran answer, take up or defend a post or the list. He posits the list as the "basic undertsanding/sui generis" for which he is just the conduit...it's gets the headline imprimatur of authority...if he was interested in discussion he would answer or allow someone else to headline a counter-argument of a different nature.

Like Wykagyl and not either Winged Foot course?  What? Are you out of your mind? First of all the Wykagyl course has several lovely holes but is nowhere near the puzzle, test, delight, ambiance, history or anything else that either Winged Foot course is...and caddies are mandatory there til the afternoon... not a terrible property walk, but few boomers are keen to or are seen to schlep their own bag on a Saturday afternoon... carts and cart paths too... and then...

...the plain unadorned understanding of "custodian"... what Winged Foot is, how it operates, what roots it honors, its mores, tournaments, cutting edge F/F care in maintenance, what part it continues to play in writing golf's history...I mean how can you know both things Ran and say one is a custodian and the other absent from such a list?  I don't know and certainly haven't played every course on your list but I don't think you could keep to your own criterion, if this is any example.

Yale and Fishers are two others....love the courses... yet I have had the good fortune to play at both a combined 25x and I don''t think I've ever seen anyone but a college student/competitor carrying their own bag. Never at Fishers... not once in maybe 10 plays.  They are both strenuous fatiguing walks, have no regular caddies, and are thus necessarily cart-ball courses, with "disfiguring" (gasp) paths and cart paths to defile the MacRay architecture...how can that be one of Ran's custodians, given the list's persnickety appointments? Beyond the fact of their wonderfulness as courses, what exactly is the custodial nature of their existence or operation?

Golf is a game; it shouldn't be in custody to start with.

[David Harshbarger]

This thread (sans pictures  ) is one of the reasons I never quite left the orbit of this site.

A Unique Google Earth Tour - Sunset Hill Golf Club - "the Ol' Course"

As far as I am concerned, Sunset Hill might as well be no. 148.

[Garland Bayley]

... So I get Tasmania isn't too bad if you live in Melbourne, but given most golfers live on the other side of the globe, still seems like it belongs in the remote bucket. 

So your stand Kalen is that the 1 million Australian golfers have to travel to the US so you can have the convenience of having their best  courses here. You've played at Bandon. I suggest you let oz be oz.

[John Mayhugh]

I can't completely buy that hurled-in coda about "fostering discussion" because I've never seen Ran answer, take up or defend a post or the list. He posits the list as the "basic undertsanding/sui generis" for which he is just the conduit...it's gets the headline imprimatur of authority...if he was interested in discussion he would answer or allow someone else to headline a counter-argument of a different nature.

Yale and Fishers are two others....love the courses... yet I have had the good fortune to play at both a combined 25x and I don''t think I've ever seen anyone but a college student/competitor carrying their own bag. Never at Fishers... not once in maybe 10 plays.  They are both strenuous fatiguing walks, have no regular caddies, and are thus necessarily cart-ball courses, with "disfiguring" (gasp) paths and cart paths to defile the MacRay architecture...how can that be one of Ran's custodians, given the list's persnickety appointments?

Why do you feel that Ran will not allow a counter-argument to his 147 Custodians? Ron M started this thread and it's still up. Maybe he will even write an article for Golfwrx and post a link to it here! There's plenty of opportunity for discussion and IMO pieces but it's a lot more work to create your own arguments than it is to criticize others. Let's hear your 147 or 20 or whatever list of models for the game the way you enjoy it.


As for Yale and Fishers, I've not been to either place as many times as you have, but in multiple trips to both, I have walked - sometimes 36. You exaggerate the difficulty - especially at Fishers. 



In general, the list seems intended to identify some places that should be emulated architecturally and culturally. Ran picked 147 that are important to him, but never says that these are the only ones that get things right. David Elvins grasps this, pointing out the value of influence.


Kalen,
Your take on Barnbougle's inclusion might be the most absurd thing posted in this thread, which takes some doing.
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why do you feel that Ran will not allow a counter-argument to his 147 Custodians?

One of his points was that Ran participate in the discussion. When was the last time that happened?

I don't care one way or the other, personally, and assume Ran is quite busy, but his point was about more than allowing discussion, but actually participating in it.

[Garland Bayley]

Vinnie,

If you don't know why Winged Foot is not included, then you need to pay more attention to what Ran writes.

[Kalen Braley]

John,


You have it twisted.  I have no trouble with Barnbougle's place on the list, i'm sure its more than deserving.  My only comment was given how remote it is, most golfers in the world have as much chance playing it as they do a Pine Valley or Cypress Point...

[John Mayhugh]

Kalen,
Pretty sure I'm not the one that has it twisted. The 147 Custodians represent courses that the author indicates are "where the game, as I enjoy it, are celebrated." He makes clear that these aren't the "only" custodians. Why would you feel all of the courses listed ought to be easily accessible from the US? If these are places that are examples of what Ran thinks represent the right direction for the game, why should location be any more of a requirement than it is for inclusion on a course rating list?

Erik J Barzeski,
The poster wrote that "if he was interested in discussion he would answer or allow someone else to headline a counter-argument of a different nature." The use of the conjunction "or" means that two possibilities would satisfy his expectations but that Ran is an impediment to either. That is silly. If Ran did appear on this thread, I suspect his first act would be to encourage people to read the text that preceded the list. Many people seem not to have.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The poster wrote that "if he was interested in discussion he would answer or allow someone else to headline a counter-argument of a different nature." The use of the conjunction "or" means that two possibilities would satisfy his expectations but that Ran is an impediment to either. That is silly. If Ran did appear on this thread, I suspect his first act would be to encourage people to read the text that preceded the list. Many people seem not to have.

I think you should re-read the whole of what he said. I read it differently.

I can't completely buy that hurled-in coda about "fostering discussion" because I've never seen Ran answer, take up or defend a post or the list. He posits the list as the "basic undertsanding/sui generis" for which he is just the conduit...it's gets the headline imprimatur of authority...if he was interested in discussion he would answer or allow someone else to headline a counter-argument of a different nature.

I took "headline" as being posted on the main site or something, outside of this discussion forum. And the rest of what he wrote indicates clearly (to me) that the beef is mostly with Ran's "here it is, and I won't be discussing this at all" approach.

Again, I don't really care myself what Ran does or doesn't do, but that's how I read what the poster I quoted here wrote.

[John Mayhugh]

Erik J Barzeski,
I am taking what V. Kmetz posted literally. There's little doubt that he feels Ran should answer to his critics, but then in the sentence I quoted, he specifically lists two alternatives, connected by the word "or." Grammatically, that has a specific meaning. I'm commenting assuming that the poster meant what he wrote. You may do whatever you like.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am taking what V. Kmetz posted literally.

As am I, though in addition I am taking V. Kmetz in his entirety, along with the realization/understanding that we aren't drafting legal documents here that undergo rigorous revisions and editing. I also took the "headline a counter-argument" as one being given equal weighting, which is not met by a forum discussion when the list itself is given top or "headline" billing.

You may do whatever you like.

Thank you for the permission.

V. Kmetz, would you clarify please? Be sure to have your legal team vet every word. No room for casual off-the-cuff posts here that clearly mean something to most people but which fail in small ways when every word is scrutinized.

P.S. I don't really even care about the list or whether Ran defends it or not, but I think that some people here have a point that's being brushed aside for the sake of… what? Collegiality? Access? Simple (dis)agreement?

[V. Kmetz]

Why do you feel that Ran will not allow a counter-argument to his 147 Custodians? I don't "feel" that way...rather I know Ran has never discussed/defended his criteria (for instance, about how carrying one's own bag all day is more custodial or worthy of cultural emulation or has anything to do with factual GCA) as any more than just some personal, who-cares-what-you-think nonsense.


Ron M started this thread and it's still up.  I didn't indicate Ran was a ill-spirited censor; but moreover your post seemed to insinuate that no one has discussed this or made rebuttal to Ran, worthy of his answer or headline address...that is not true; I don't surf this board for weeks at a clip and still frequent enough to have seen threads and commentary devoted to this 147 list and nary a peep from Ran. If I'm mistaken and with great absences, missed an exchange or something; I apologize for my failure.


Maybe he will even write an article for Golfwrx and post a link to it here! That may excite some, but not me; because the basis for this phony, made-up discussion is a made-up list that its own producer doesn't defend or detail or explain; a pre-amble of assumed basic virtues and then a list that omits neighbors of its chosen and seems to ignore its rambling criteria, at its whim, where it suits. Why ever would I argue against that?...except  it seems, for the here and the now...and for your entertainment...!


There's plenty of opportunity for discussion and IMO pieces but it's a lot more work to create your own arguments than it is to criticize others.  Also harder than it is to agree with others, including the site proprietor-founder,.


Let's hear your 147 or 20 or whatever list of models for the game the way you enjoy it. Unless it is promised/given the same headline, top of the tab treatment as the thing it counters has enjoyed, no thank you, I work two jobs as is. If yes, I'll have it up there in a week.

As for Yale and Fishers, I've not been to either place as many times as you have, but in multiple trips to both, I have walked - sometimes 36. You exaggerate the difficulty - especially at Fishers.  As a multi-time player yourself, do I exaggerate the preponderance of experience that both are courses where carts are in heavy use? And would likely be less-played if carts were not yet invented? I'll accept your honest answer; I'm not looking to nit pick or contend if I have indeed exaggerated the general case.

In general, the list seems intended to identify some places that should be emulated architecturally and culturally. Architecturally, I bow to Ran's personal investment and accrued guest tags... culturally he is just as full of shit as anybody else and because this list allows that cultural b.s to filter his architectural observations, the two meld and his opinion is as uninteresting, self-corrupted and inscrutable as is Golf Digest's or the Blogger's Social Media Tweet That Lived Down the Lane.


Ran picked 147 that are important to him, but never says that these are the only ones that get things right. He actually doesn't say very much at all about the ones that (inhho) DO get it right...beyond compiling the list, the thing is the preamble essay, which is one fifth architecture and 4/5ths hand-wringing, decrying: "How has our original game, featuring a quick and enjoyable stroll outdoors[...] taken a back seat to the unimportant values of length and difficulty?"

first of all when RM says "our," he must mean the royal "we" and not the plural first person including me, because I wasn't born into nor learned nor thought of golf as a quick enjoyable stroll. I came into golf in the atmosphere of "Massacre at Winged Foot" and the Concord's gargantuan length and Firestone's 600 yard hole and Cypress' 233 yard 16th and the TPC courses and Jerry Pate's orange ball and Doug Sanders' creamsicle visions in argyle...and million dollar purses... certainly I have since absorbed and contemplated earlier traditions and make my own conclusions about what's original to the game and what is not and whether the originality factor is as important and the modern utility of something else.

I can just about end there as I have no desire to poke or prod Ran; he fairly stipulates that its his list and he also stipulates what he thinks is best about gca...the stimulation/inspiration to play again and I can't fault that.  I simply wish he didn't post it because as a healthy discussion point, what is the fucking purpose of arguing about how a culture of carts in use doesn't make that stimulation. What am I going to learn or convert you about THAT necessary discussion?  Nothing; so we better stick to firm and fast...site advantages...hazard and penalty area location... green size...routing advantages...strategic questions, etc...

To give Ran a wee parting roast, let me officially conclude in parody of his own style:

"Features that promote honest discussion and explain their reasoning, not assuming a priori cultural truths or proprietary ownership of the origins of the game and remaining focused on architecture tend to fare better than feature bylines which do not (Sorry '147 Custodians')."

[John Mayhugh]

V. Kmetz, would you clarify please? Be sure to have your legal team vet every word. No room for casual off-the-cuff posts here that clearly mean something to most people but which fail in small ways when every word is scrutinized.

P.S. I don't really even care about the list or whether Ran defends it or not, but I think that some people here have a point that's being brushed aside for the sake of… what? Collegiality? Access? Simple (dis)agreement?

I've never met Ran in person, though I have talked to him on the phone. He's never arranged access to any course for me, and I'm not looking for that sort of concierge service in the future from him or anyone else. My comments are not for collegiality or access. I simply have a different opinion than you and some of the others. That's why I posted on the thread.

When I read comments like your "be sure to have your legal team vet every word" above, it's quite easy for me to envision why Ran wouldn't have much interest in a point by point discussion of his list.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I've never met Ran in person, though I have talked to him on the phone. He's never arranged access to any course for me, and I'm not looking for that sort of concierge service in the future from him or anyone else. My comments are not for collegiality or access. I simply have a different opinion than you and some of the others. That's why I posted on the thread.

That doesn't really answer the question. I asked why some were brushing aside the points, and your answer is that you have a different opinion? Then debate that opinion, don't brush aside their points because Ran lets people post in a forum when that's not what they were saying originally.

When I read comments like your "be sure to have your legal team vet every word" above, it's quite easy for me to envision why Ran wouldn't have much interest in a point by point discussion of his list.

Dude, you're the one whose entire point hinges on a quickly typed "or" while ignoring the whole general tone of the rest of the post, as well as a misunderstanding of what "headline" means as used in the "or" phrase.

Regardless, he has replied on his own and given you many more words to analyze for semantics, and his latest post seems closer to my interpretation of his earlier post than yours. So, you can address that, as the original question about what he actually meant seems to have been resolved.

[John Mayhugh]

V. Kmetz,
I cannot deal with all of the colors. I'll try to respond to your post in order:
1. There is a huge difference between saying that Ran won't engage in a discussion of his 147 Custodians (which seems true) and your suggestion that he stifles discussion or won't permit counter-arguments. There simply is no evidence of this.
2. It's his website. Deciding what gets "headline" status is up to him. I don't understand why this rankles so.

3. Ran makes clear that that the 147 reflect what HE LIKES. Maybe that is also the editorial policy of Golf Club Atlas - I don't know. To me, the discussion group seems to provide ample opportunity to persuade people with other viewpoints, even if you aren't granted the "headline" status. Give it a try. In general, I like your chances better if you advocate for something (e.g. professional caddies are essential to the game) rather than against something (e.g. Ran's culture focus is inconsistent).
4. How about you contacting Ran and asking if he will post your IMO piece? He always seems to grant those "headline" status when originally posted.

5. Carts at Yale - has always seemed to be around a 50/50 mix on my visits. I've only played Fishers in Sept/Oct so cannot talk about how things go in the summer. When I've been there, I've seen more walking than riding. I cannot agree or disagree on what other people do at either of these courses (and why), but in my own experience they are both quite walkable. I will say that seeing most people ride does not automatically mean that a course is a hard walk.

6. I assumed Ran's use of the term "our" took golf back to its beginnings in Scotland - not when participants in this discussion group took up the game. Again, it's simply how he views things. Some may agree, some may not. I don't see anything wrong in disagreeing.

[V. Kmetz]

OK... very well... no more from me...

[John Mayhugh]

Erik J Barzeski
I'm not clear on what question should be answered. I cannot explain why people other than myself are supposedly "brushing aside the points." I attempted to answer for me and counter your suggestions about some form of bias.

Which opinion am I "brushing aside?"
I asked V Kmetz to clarify something he wrote. When I did that, I was basing my question on the entirety of what he wrote. I'm glad you knew what he meant, but I try hard to pay attention to what is written rather than what I think the writer meant. That includes conjunctions like "or", even if they are "quickly typed" (what two-letter word isn't)? The general tone of his post seemed to be that Ran won't defend what he wrote and won't let others post alternatives.

What I didn't seem to grasp is the problem with "headline" status of posts. It's Ran's website and discussion group. He does pin topics that he finds interesting. I think it's quite likely that he could be convinced to pin (or "headline") a RonMon/VKmetz/Barzeski alternative to his 147. Has one of you asked? I haven't seen any evidence of censorship of dissenting opinions. Topics that aren't pinned ("headlined") seem to have a way of hanging around on the first page anyway - take the discussion around an access request going on for 7 pages as an example.

Rather than whinging about everything that Ran got wrong, it would be nice to hear what the dissenters think is better. Present their own thoughts and then defend them. There's more than one way to have discussion of alternatives.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

John, the issue was settled when the poster of the post in question clarified his post (in a way that aligned much more closely with my interpretation than yours). I see no need to continue the meta discussion as it's just that: meta.

I don't care to submit my own list because, as I'll state again, I don't really care much about this discussion. I simply replied to you as I felt (and was shown correct) that you had misinterpreted what someone else had said. My entire role in this has been to try to clarify. And that's been done now.

[Ronald Montesano]

This is Ran's site (in conjunction with Ben and Joe.) That triumvirate has the ultimate say in everything that appears here. Ran's 147 custodians are not mine; while mine are not his. There is some Venn overlap. I am easily swayed, and have enjoyed reading what all y'all have written on this thread. I hope that you continue to add to the discussion. Aiken is a nice prediction, even thought I have not seen nor played it. Same goes for Winged Foot.


If the thread compels you and you and you, to consider your own custodians of the game, then it has served its purpose.

[David Harshbarger]

If the thread compels you and you and you, to consider your own custodians of the game, then it has served its purpose.

I kind of look at the 147 as a capstone statement of the point of view of this site.  To the extent that this site has influence on decision makers, (and it would seem to at least be in conversations), and to the extent that Ran is putting a stake in the ground in favor of courses that challenge the money/status/exclusivity priorities to which golf courses are often put, I think he's done an excellent job with the 147.


My goodness, Minchinhampton Old is in a list of the top courses of the world.  That is so much more vital than any exclusion of a course that otherwise has good claim, isn't it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()