News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2024, 08:44:46 AM »
It's interesting looking at the state-to-state disparity in public courses vs all courses. For example, NY has 2 courses in this top 100 (Bethpage Black and Bethpage Red) and 14 courses in the Golf.com Top 100 (US), with Shinnecock and NGLA leading the way.


Compare with Florida which I think has 9 on this list and only 3 on the Golf.com Top 100 list (Seminole, TPC and Streamsong Red).


Then California has 13 on the Golf.com list and 11 on this list, so is a lot more evenly balanced.

Alex_Hunter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2024, 09:55:31 AM »
Such a shame for Cape Arundel to be ranked only at 63. I think it is far and away better than that. The preoccupation of raters with length and difficultly of the golf course is likely what has led to its mediocre ranking.
@agolfhunter

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2024, 11:31:48 AM »
Missed this post, probably because it didn't generate much discussion for some reason.
Notable new courses: Lido at #4, Pinehurst10 at #15, Sedge Valley #22, Cabot Citrus Karoo #32, The Park #36, Landmand #46, Fields Ranch East #69, La Costa North #89
« Last Edit: November 27, 2024, 11:51:29 AM by astavrides »

Dan_Callahan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2024, 01:48:11 PM »
Such a shame for Cape Arundel to be ranked only at 63. I think it is far and away better than that. The preoccupation of raters with length and difficultly of the golf course is likely what has led to its mediocre ranking.


Cape Arundel gets a lot of love on here, but I think it has a ton of flaws. And as someone who grew up in New England, I am definitely partial to courses in the northeast. But a round of golf at Arundel on a busy day means keeping your head on a swivel at all times. It’s way too tight, and balls are crossing fairways at all angles. Also, I love quirky greens with lots of movement, but the greens at Arundel are over the top. I get that greens are the defense on a short course. Even so, there’s a line between tricky and absurd. And too many are in the absurd bucket, in my opinion, unless they holes are cut in forgiving areas, which has never been the case when I’ve played there, and that would sort of defeat the purpose of having wild contours. Beautiful setting, and probably more fun when there are only a few groups out there.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2024, 01:50:40 PM »
Lido at #4 deserves a wow. I am tickled to see Bandon Trails move up. I always thought it was the second-best course at the resort.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Alex_Hunter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2024, 02:49:27 PM »
Such a shame for Cape Arundel to be ranked only at 63. I think it is far and away better than that. The preoccupation of raters with length and difficultly of the golf course is likely what has led to its mediocre ranking.


Cape Arundel gets a lot of love on here, but I think it has a ton of flaws. And as someone who grew up in New England, I am definitely partial to courses in the northeast. But a round of golf at Arundel on a busy day means keeping your head on a swivel at all times. It’s way too tight, and balls are crossing fairways at all angles. Also, I love quirky greens with lots of movement, but the greens at Arundel are over the top. I get that greens are the defense on a short course. Even so, there’s a line between tricky and absurd. And too many are in the absurd bucket, in my opinion, unless they holes are cut in forgiving areas, which has never been the case when I’ve played there, and that would sort of defeat the purpose of having wild contours. Beautiful setting, and probably more fun when there are only a few groups out there.


Interesting. I've only played it once (in June of this year) but I had neither experience. It was a fairly busy day when we were there and didn't have any issues with balls flying to other parts of the course and my friends certainly are below average golfers, they made out ok. I didn't think the greens were too tricked up. For sure some parts like the aggressive fall off on the front of the par 3 13th it can get you but with the green speeds at what they are I didn't find them offensive. Short and quirky can work well together and Cape Arundel is one of the best in that regard.


On the other hand I've just returned from a trip to North Carolina where I played Southern Pines, Mid Pines and Pine Needles. I adore Southern Pines, architecturally it is fantastic use of land, but those greens are cooked. Many are too extreme, especially given the speed they were at.


Cape Arundel waxes those three for me.
@agolfhunter

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2024, 03:25:24 PM »

Notable new courses: Lido at #4, Pinehurst10 at #15, Sedge Valley #22


Swept the medals!  We've had a pretty good couple of years.

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2024, 03:27:45 PM »
I compared the list to the 2022 Top 100 in US and was surprised how dominate the rankings are with private clubs.  In 2022 Pinehurst 4 was 100 in the US and now 25 in the this year Courses You Can Play for this year.


The comparison is between 2 different years, but from that data 75 of the 100 in the US are private courses.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2024, 11:06:01 PM by Paul Jones »
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2024, 04:29:18 PM »
I compared the list to the 2022 Top 100 in US and was surprised how dominate the rankings are with private clubs.  In 2022 Pinehurst 4 was 100 in the US and they are 25 in the this year Courses You Can Play for this year.

The comparison is between 2 different years, but from that data 75 of the 100 in the US are private courses.


Actually it's more like 80 out of 100.  Sedge Valley is #22 in this list and didn't make the U.S. top 100 they published last week, using the same votes.

Steven Wade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2024, 06:01:28 PM »
I think Mr. Doak mentioned on a recent podcast that I listened to that often courses that have just opened will get an initial rankings boost because of recency bias. So many raters are excited to see the course, go see it, rank it highly, and voila!, there it is in the rankings. I think Pinehurst #4 was a case study in this.


I will be interested to see where a course like The Lido or Old Barnwell is ranked in 5 years. I’ve played neither, and I’m not assuming they’ll go down. They may follow the Ballyneal trajectory where they seem to climb the rankings year after year.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2024, 10:51:14 PM »
I think Mr. Doak mentioned on a recent podcast that I listened to that often courses that have just opened will get an initial rankings boost because of recency bias. So many raters are excited to see the course, go see it, rank it highly, and voila!, there it is in the rankings. I think Pinehurst #4 was a case study in this.



Recency bias also extends to any course that has recently hosted a major championship, and to courses that have recently done a restoration.  Indeed, the GOLF Magazine rankings have promoted the latter by insisting that anyone who saw a restored course before it was restored shouldn't vote on it . . . so the only votes that count are the recent ones.

Paul Rudovsky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2024, 12:38:03 AM »

[Indeed, the GOLF Magazine rankings have promoted the latter by insisting that anyone who saw a restored course before it was restored shouldn't vote on it . . . so the only votes that count are the recent ones.


Tom-- While your statement above is true from a "statistical" standpoint, do you think it was a mistake for GOLF to only consider post-restor/renov evaluations?  Note that the rule you cite really only applies to major restor/renov.  Evaluations are supposed to be of the course in its "present" format, correct?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2024, 03:31:49 AM »
What is a major reno/resto?

Happy Thanksgiving
« Last Edit: November 28, 2024, 10:15:07 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Brett Meyer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2024, 06:52:48 AM »
My home state of Michigan is well-represented, except for Pilgrim's Run, which should be on the list. But I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Belvedere and Arcadia South. The former is a very nice course with a few excellent holes and a few more excellent greens, but the median hole and green are just good. I don't mind it on the list, but it should be near the bottom. And Arcadia South, while having an excellent set of greens, is just a bit over-designed from tee-to-green, with too much reliance on bunkers that make it feel like you're hitting the same drive repeatedly. I feel the same; on the list, but nearer to the bottom.

Nice to see American Dunes on the list--I don't think that it's gotten as much love as it deserves. There are a few of the best holes in Michigan out there and a few unusual features, like greens that fall away steeply on the par 5s nos. 2 and 13. I think it belongs in the same class as the Forest Dunes's and Greywalls.

One course I've seen recently that I think is underrated is the Pfau Course. I was really impressed; the land is outstanding and there's a lot of variety in the design, with holes falling across the land in different ways (a few blind drives) and good variety in the bunker scheme. It's hard, but not as hard as I was led to believe and nowhere near unreasonably so. There are a few squared-off greens which reminded me of Arcadia South, but I thought this was a better course--the land is just so much better and the design doesn't lean so heavily on bunkering.

Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.




Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2024, 07:29:27 AM »
I feel same way as Brett about Arcadia South. I never believed Belvedere is better than UofM.

Happy Thanksgiving
« Last Edit: November 28, 2024, 10:15:29 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Paul Rudovsky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2024, 02:51:45 PM »

What is a major reno/resto?


Happy Thanksgiving


Sean--difficult to define precisely but not just a redo of a few greens or bunkers, but a major effort to redefine the course and/or bring it back to the concepts that underlaid its original design.  The GOLF panelists receive a ballot that listed about 610 courses (for the 2024 USA Top 100) and next to the names of (I am guessing) about 60-70 courses it says something like "only rate if you have played since 2017, or June 2023 etc etc." the date the course's last renovation or restoration was completed.

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2024, 03:42:05 PM »
Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.


This wasn't to debate your opinion. I think most feel like you do and its easy to understand why. I happen to prefer Southern Pines. Did so even before all the renovations. I prefer elevation, love false fronts and enjoy playing up to elevated green sites. It's harder to play. Even to walk. But those choices set up many of the great elevated tee shots that follow. Again, you are in the majority, but thought you might like to hear why on the other side of the fence.
"Appreciate the constructive; ignore the destructive." -- John Douglas

Chris Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2024, 07:20:23 PM »
The "you can play" verbiage is kinda interesting...


I've been fortunate to play The Black close to 100 times and as a NY State resident never paid more than $80...NON-RES folks pay double ($160).  (price hasn't changed in a decade)


Regular folks "can play" The Black, not sure that's the case with any other course in the top-10.
Fear not C.S. -- the rule-of-law will prevail again soon -- this long-running feature premiers on January 20th.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 02:14:25 PM »

[Indeed, the GOLF Magazine rankings have promoted the latter by insisting that anyone who saw a restored course before it was restored shouldn't vote on it . . . so the only votes that count are the recent ones.

Tom-- While your statement above is true from a "statistical" standpoint, do you think it was a mistake for GOLF to only consider post-restor/renov evaluations?  Note that the rule you cite really only applies to major restor/renov.  Evaluations are supposed to be of the course in its "present" format, correct?


Paul:


You can't really rate every course in its "present" format . . . you are putting votes down on many courses that you haven't played for years, as is every other panelist.  But renovations are designated for special treatment.

The designation that the renovation is "significant" is a bias in and of itself.

If it was me, I would have kept the old votes and let them slowly be replaced by the new votes, so that a restoration is recognized over time, instead of crossing out all of the old votes and giving recently renovated courses an artificial boost in the rankings.  But then, Ran was on a mission to promote restoration, and I'm not.


I look at this the same as telling panelists to ignore conditioning except for egregious cases . . . I think everyone should rate the course as they encountered it, because that's the best way to reduce all of the biases.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 02:16:37 PM by Tom_Doak »

Peter Sayegh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 04:11:46 PM »
Good to see the love for the Pinehurst area courses, but I think people have gotten overly enthusiastic about Southern Pines too. It's a beautiful course, but too many greens have severe false fronts and it feels like you're hitting the same approach too often. For me, it's a class below Mid Pines and Pine Needles.


This wasn't to debate your opinion. I think most feel like you do and its easy to understand why. I happen to prefer Southern Pines. Did so even before all the renovations. I prefer elevation, love false fronts and enjoy playing up to elevated green sites. It's harder to play. Even to walk. But those choices set up many of the great elevated tee shots that follow. Again, you are in the majority, but thought you might like to hear why on the other side of the fence.

Ian, I'm with you on the other side of the fence.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 04:45:09 PM »

What is a major reno/resto?


Happy Thanksgiving


Sean--difficult to define precisely but not just a redo of a few greens or bunkers, but a major effort to redefine the course and/or bring it back to the concepts that underlaid its original design.  The GOLF panelists receive a ballot that listed about 610 courses (for the 2024 USA Top 100) and next to the names of (I am guessing) about 60-70 courses it says something like "only rate if you have played since 2017, or June 2023 etc etc." the date the course's last renovation or restoration was completed.

Often times even serious work doesn’t redefine a course. That said, serious tree removal can do this far more often than bunker or green work. Cutting back serious rough can achieve this as well. Yet somehow I don’t think this is what you mean. I agree with Tom. Ratings shouldn’t be dropped unless replaced by a later visit. Let the panellist decide if any work merits a significant score amendment.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Paul Rudovsky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf.com Top 100 you can play 2024-2025
« Reply #22 on: Today at 06:54:14 PM »

[
If it was me, I would have kept the old votes and let them slowly be replaced by the new votes, so that a restoration is recognized over time, instead of crossing out all of the old votes and giving recently renovated courses an artificial boost in the rankings.  But then, Ran was on a mission to promote restoration, and I'm not.


I look at this the same as telling panelists to ignore conditioning except for egregious cases . . . I think everyone should rate the course as they encountered it, because that's the best way to reduce all of the biases.





Tom--


Two thoughts:


1.  To some degree, the reader of ratings who may be contemplating player the course (as opposed to the rater who participated in the rating) is most likely looking to find evaluations based on th course's "current" condition (he obviously she understand that weather and course conditions can change very rapidly)


2.  What would you think about a firm, time limit on number of years since last played (irrespective of how many times the rater played the course prior to his last round there)?  Could be 5 years or 10 years of whatever but shouldn't be too long (which would make it meaningless) or too short (which would make it very difficult to have enough ratings for "statistical significance".


Best
Paul