Golf Magazine US Top 100

[Tom_Doak]

To compare to another iconic entity from the area, the 2017 Warriors are the best basketball team I've ever seen. I could give a shit that the bench was rounded out with Javale, Zaza, and old Anderson Varejao. In crunch time, the fact that they could throw five Hall of Famers on the floor sorta trumps the rest of the roster for me.

I agreed with large parts of your post, but this analogy is not so great.  On a golf course every player (golf hole) gets to take its one shot and then you are done with it.  You can't hide the weak holes on the bench where they only play five minutes in breather time.


Years ago someone ran a hole by hole match between Pebble and Pacific Dunes . . . Pebble won every hole from 5-10 plus 14, 17 & 18, but lost all the rest.  Yet no one argues that Pacific Dunes is way better than #10 in the USA.

[Mark Pritchett]

I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course.  [/size]

[William_G]

I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course.  [/size]

agreed

[jeffwarne]

I am not a fan of “hole by hole” match comparisons, because they [size=78%]ignore the routing and journey around the course.  [/size]

Bingo
If matched in sequence especially
 and a great hole that greatly contributes to the sum can be canceled by an epic hole.
Conversely an epic hole can be wasted on a dud.

[Ally Mcintosh]

To weigh in on the above, I very much dislike hole vs hole match plays.


Primarily because it ignores the routing / journey and also because it fails to reward consistency, vibe and general je ne sais quoi... not to mention the random outcomes based on what number each hole falls at.


I’ve mentioned before that I seem to rank golf courses a little more on the overall versus number of great holes compared to a few of the architects on here. That’s not to say that great holes aren’t of the utmost importance, just that the focus on them seems to be imbalanced and moving us worryingly close to the old photographic signature hole theory.


Once you’re talking about great holes designed on uninteresting or subtle land that don’t always photograph well, I’m all yours.

[Jeff Schley]

When rating course it is more than 1 hole, it is 18 parts and collectively are greater than the sum of the parts. Fun to BS about and dissect aspects of each hole, but side by side I don't put alot of weight in. An alternative I heard a friend use is comparing the hole handicapped holes side by side. 1 handicap vs. 1 handicap and so forth. We did it for a pair of local munis and was fun, but wouldn't say that is great either.

[Ira Fishman]

Has anyone broken down the list by architect?


Thanks.

[Jeff Schley]

Has anyone broken down the list by architect?


Thanks.

Ira as a HC I used to work for would say, "that's a great idea, your on it!"

[corey miller]

Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.


I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.


Why not a "match" based on the sum of the Doak ratings on each hole?     

[Ira Fishman]

Has anyone broken down the list by architect?


Thanks.

Ira as a HC I used to work for would say, "that's a great idea, your on it!"

Jeff,


You are way better organized and more efficient than I am.


Ira

[Andrew Harvie]

Collection of golf holes are different than a golf course. Great golf courses have great golf holes, obviously, but the flow, routing, pacing, etc is a huge component of what makes them great

[Mark_Fine]

Why not admit what we all know, there are literally hundreds of courses in the U.S. that could be ranked in the Top 100 in the country. My own list of courses that I have played and consider best on the planet just topped 450.  I think any of those could be argued to be a Top 100 design. 


I think Tom Fazio said it best, “There is one clear #1 course and after that I could name 200 that could be argued to be ranked #2.” 


My suggestion is go experience as many as you can as they all are special in their own way and if you look closely you can learn a lot in the process. 

[PCCraig]

I think Tom Fazio said it best, “There is one clear #1 course and after that I could name 200 that could be argued to be ranked #2.” 

Let me guess...Shadow Creek & 200 more 2nd best courses? 

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.

I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.

I spent years thinking I wanted pace and flow and an elegant routing that made the best possible use of the site, but nowadays I agree with Corey, ie I just want as many great / cool / interesting holes as possible — and as long as you don’t have me walking endlessly around in circles or hiking up and down a 2 mile hill, I don’t care very much about the ‘flow of an excellent routing’, which now feels to me like a made-up concept that I wouldn’t know how to recognize/judge in any event.

Give me 18 signature holes, 18 great postcards. After all, the great (or at least award winning) new courses of the last 2+ decades by the best architects of our times: aren’t they mostly about and don’t they most prominently feature one cool / interesting hole after another? They might not be very much like the postcards that Nicklaus or Jones or Fazio used to send, but they are indeed postcards nonetheless. 

And that is precisely what makes those courses special/award-winning/great. The ‘pace’ and ‘flow’ are just the conceptual eye candy and marketing bumph — and not one single top architect working today is going to create even one single less-interesting golf hole (let alone forego a potentially very good or great one) in order to achieve those concepts.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.

I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.

I spent years thinking I wanted pace and flow and an elegant routing that made the best possible use of the site, but nowadays I agree with Corey, ie I just want as many great / cool / interesting holes as possible — and as long as you don’t have me walking endlessly around in circles or hiking up and down a 2 mile hill, I don’t care very much about the ‘flow of an excellent routing’, which now feels to me like a made up concept that I wouldn’t know how to recognize/judge in any event.
Give me 18 signature holes, 18 great postcards. After all: the great (or at least award winning) new courses of the last 2+ decades by the best architects of our times, aren’t they mostly about and most prominently feature one cool / interesting hole after another? THAT is what makes the courses special — the ‘pace’ and ‘flow’ are just the eye candy.

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.


Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.


Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.


I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.

[Mark_Fine]

I am sure Fazio would list Shadow Creek as one of the #2s and it would be hard to argue with him (though every one here would because that is what we do  ) but his clear #1 is Pine Valley. 

[Dan_Callahan]

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.

Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.

Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.

I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.

Ally,

Wouldn't you say Carne is a poster child for what you're saying? Among the 27 holes on the property, almost all are spectacular. But the routing detracted from the experience. Better-integrating the new 9 with the older layout takes the experience to a much higher level.

[Jerry Kluger]

I see the list of courses as well as the list of raters and I will certainly admit that the raters have backgrounds which have given them the ability to see and play far more courses than I ever will so I will give my observations and take them for what they are.  I am a huge fan of Ballyneal and so much so that I have often said that I wonder if it had been built before Sand Hills would it be ranked higher.  That being said, I would also rank it higher than Pacific Dunes which I also really like but there is something very special about the routing as well as the way the course plays that makes Ballyneal so special to me.  SH opened the door for so many other really good courses and C & C should be recognized for that but after SH it becomes very difficult to rank their courses - perhaps that is because they are all so good but it is still very difficult to do. 


NGLA is no doubt one of the greatest courses in the US but the issue becomes how do you rank the other classic courses which have a predominance of template holes?  I look at the list and wonder how one ranks those courses and specifically what makes one better than the other?


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes last year and thought that Sand Valley was really good but Mammoth Dunes was special because to me it is very unique.  The fairways at MD are enormous but that doesn't make it easy as approaching those greens from the wrong angle can be a bear of a job. On that same trip we played Lawsonia I was amazed at how unique it was but I would question the conditioning as well as the forced play on some holes due to intruding trees. 


So far as #2 goes I think you come to appreciate it when you see it in tournament conditions.  I was at the US Open when Kaymer won and I know that he played it incredibly well but you should have seen the rest of the field struggle with the course and that was with the plantings in the waste areas struggling due to a lack of rain in the spring. It is a brilliant course because of the importance of angles in approaching greens and dealing with the complexes when a green is missed.  Nicklaus said it is the greatest tree lined course he has seen where the trees don't come into play. 

[Tim Martin]

Interesting the lack of appreciation for using the hole by hole or even analyzing the sum of holes vs the sum of the holes for various courses.  I like to play interesting holes and in the end it does come down to an appreciation of all the holes.

I really don't care that it is a genius routing, or the par three's play in different directions or that some hole was designed around an unappealing feature and because of that I am supposed to admire the hole.

I spent years thinking I wanted pace and flow and an elegant routing that made the best possible use of the site, but nowadays I agree with Corey, ie I just want as many great / cool / interesting holes as possible — and as long as you don’t have me walking endlessly around in circles or hiking up and down a 2 mile hill, I don’t care very much about the ‘flow of an excellent routing’, which now feels to me like a made up concept that I wouldn’t know how to recognize/judge in any event.
Give me 18 signature holes, 18 great postcards. After all: the great (or at least award winning) new courses of the last 2+ decades by the best architects of our times, aren’t they mostly about and most prominently feature one cool / interesting hole after another? THAT is what makes the courses special — the ‘pace’ and ‘flow’ are just the eye candy.

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.


Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.


Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.


I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.

I agree that you can have both. A great hole loses something when the trek to the next tee is 200 yards.

[jeffwarne]

Why not a "match" based on the sum of the Doak ratings on each hole?   

That makes more sense than match play in order.
But the order could reduce variety and the balance of the routing(example:if the last four holes were the only dogleg rights)

[Tim Leahy]

Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless. 

Tim


I know your post was tongue in cheek but I for one am glad to finally see a US magazine push Pebble Beach into double figures.


Golf Digest at some stage in early 2000'as had it a #1 in US and has always had it no worse than #7 since 1985. Golf Magazine has had it at a high of #3 in the early 80's and now at #10. For mine #10 is still a little too high but at least it's a start.   

Jack Nicklaus has it #1 and that's all I need.

[Sean_A]

To weigh in on the above, I very much dislike hole vs hole match plays.


Primarily because it ignores the routing / journey and also because it fails to reward consistency, vibe and general je ne sais quoi... not to mention the random outcomes based on what number each hole falls at.


I’ve mentioned before that I seem to rank golf courses a little more on the overall versus number of great holes compared to a few of the architects on here. That’s not to say that great holes aren’t of the utmost importance, just that the focus on them seems to be imbalanced and moving us worryingly close to the old photographic signature hole theory.


Once you’re talking about great holes designed on uninteresting or subtle land that don’t always photograph well, I’m all yours.

I don't look at hole by hole matchplay as a definitive concept. To me it's about really looking at each hole with the aim of being more objective. The other stuff like flow, walk, quality of the turf, drainage and beauty is important though. I recall doing head to head matches with Cavendish and realizing how good that course is. Head to head basically chucks out the assumptions based on reputation and history and makes it quite easy to see what actually exists. I use it a lot as a sort of eye test.

Ciao

[Paul Rudovsky]

I would suggest that those who do not think routing and flow are important for evaluating a golf course should go to Australia to play Ellerston (on the Kerry Packer Estate about 175 miles north of Sydney). 


Ellerston was designed by Greg Norman's firm (I believe Bob Harrison was the point man in the field).  With seemingly infinite land available (as I recall the estate is about 100 sq miles), the course is built on a plot that seems to be about 500-600 acres (pure guess on my part based on a Google Maps look)...and each hole feels like it is in a "perfect" setting.  But the walks from green to tee must average at least 150-200 yards, and almost all must take a motorized cart (given the remoteness of the site caddies are generally not available...it also gets an unbelievably low amount of play).  And remember Mackenzie's 13 Principles of Course Design...as I recall #3 was short walk from green to next tee.


To me, Ellerston is the post child for why flow and routing are so important.  On a hole by hole match (no matter what the rules) it has to be in my world top 5 or 10...but in my overall evaluation I have it in the 76-100 grouping.  One person's opinion!

[Bill Gayne]

Paul,


Concur with your comments about routing and flow. Another example from Norman and Harrison is Doonbeg. When the course first opened it had routing and flow issues that significantly limited opinions and enjoyment of the golf course. I haven't been to Doonbeg in several years but have been told they've made several changes to improve routing and playability.


Bill

[William_G]

love Lawsonia, great place