Golf Digest Best New

[Sam Morrow]

Matt, it's always gonna go on but I wish we could actually discuss the golf and the architecture.

I will try to "be the change I want to see" then. I'll start adding some threads on some of Club TFE's course profiles to balance out these dumb list threads. I don't Andy & Co's system is perfect, but they very obviously care more about celebrating places than the lists do.

I do enjoy their stuff and you can tell they genuinely love golf.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Derek I am surprised you continue to post but wish it was more your architecture based thoughts vs defending yourself.  This site sadly won’t allow that 

What is preventing anyone on this site from saying anything (within reason) on any topic?

[Mark_Fine]

Kevin,
The constant abuse is what holds some people back (ask Derek).  Why would he bother to share his expertise?  There are many of us questioning this right now and have said as much to Ran.  The quality of discussions on this site has diminished dramatically over the last several years. It is a shame but a sign of the times as their is little mutual respect any more for different opinions.

[Sam Morrow]

Kevin,
The constant abuse is what holds some people back (ask Derek).  Why would he bother to share his expertise?  There are many of us questioning this right now and have said as much to Ran.  The quality of discussions on this site has diminished dramatically over the last several years. It is a shame but a sign of the times as their is little mutual respect any more for different opinions.

Mark, your statement probably won't be well received but it's 100% true.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Mark, I have been on the site since day 1 (or maybe 30), and complaints like yours have been constant.


A regular piece of advice for new members back in the day was "have a thick skin".  That hasn't changed.  No one is telling anyone that their kid is ugly...it is just golf course architecture so have an opinion and be prepared to defend it if you go against the grain.


See TD's new post on the also-rans in the Best New.  He's never afraid to offer "frank commentary."

[Tom_Doak]

Kevin,
The constant abuse is what holds some people back (ask Derek).  Why would he bother to share his expertise?  There are many of us questioning this right now and have said as much to Ran.  The quality of discussions on this site has diminished dramatically over the last several years. It is a shame but a sign of the times as their is little mutual respect any more for different opinions.

Mark:


As is often the case, I don't agree with you on this.


Derek is in an unusual position . . . his career is with GOLF DIGEST, and that is what makes it hard for him to just express his opinions . . . it's not the "constant abuse" but the fact that he has never been on here to say what he thinks and earn people's respect.  Ron Whitten struggled to participate here for much the same reasons, and in some respects, so did Ran for the last few years, once he became the head of one of the ranking panels.  They've got to write up whatever their panelists voted as the gospel, even if they personally disagree with it, and defend their methods and the honor of their publication, because it is their job.


Likewise, many golf course superintendents and club professionals lurk on the site but struggle to participate, for the same reason.  They can't talk out of school about their jobs or their bosses.  Same for young design associates with most firms . . . there is nobody on here who works for Gil Hanse, and only an occasional post from a couple of the guys who work for Coore & Crenshaw.  That certainly isn't because I'm holding them back.


Golf course architects may struggle, too . . . there are times when I can't say anything about a certain project because the client wants to control the narrative.  Generally, I have a lot of leeway in that regard because of my reputation, and my clients know that I'm going to say what I think, but there are times when it's hard to do.  But there are a lot of architects who think it's unprofessional to criticize others' work, which leaves . . . a lot of platitudes about how great Pine Valley is. 


No doubt there are some personal issues between some of the DG participants here, and we would all be better off without it.  But that's not new to the site . . . Mucci and Tom Paul used to get so wound up arguing with each other that Ran would have to make them sit in the corne, and God knows how many times John Kavanaugh was suspended.  But each of them contributed more to the discussion than 90% of the people still around here.  Nobody likes a critic, but isn't that the whole reason we're here?

[Mark_Fine]

Kevin and Tom,
I have been on this site almost as long as you both and you have to have seen how it has evolved.  Tom Paul, who I know well and who still will occasionally contact me about posts on this site (but won’t participate anymore) and Pat definitely got into heavy discussions/debates but there is a difference between disagreement and disrespect.  Maybe we disagree on that as well but I will leave it at that. 

[Andrew Carr]

This is perfectly said.  While we all clearly do not need to agree with each other here, the whole idea of this site is to have the ability to disagree and share opinions regardless of how popular or unpopular they are.  I understand the position those at the top of these rankings are in, but as you yourself were in leadership of a panel at one time, what advice can you offer for those that either participate as part of or run a panel?


Furthermore, while it's easy to attack the position The Covey finds itself in, let's start actually discussing the architecture and why (or why not) The Covey should be at the top spot of 2024 courses.  That discussion is what validates the existence (to me) of the rankings year in and year out.


Personally, I only saw Old Barnwell and Tree Farm.  While I loved both, I found myself drawn to the above ground features and wild greens at Old Barnwell.  As a big Walter Travis fan, I'm not surprised I love OB more.  That's not to say I didn't enjoy TF, because I certainly did.  I am not willing to assert one as absolutely better than the other, but only assert I enjoyed OB more.  In the hypothetical 10 round distribution, I'm going with 8 OB / 2 TF.  Not claiming I'm correct, but that's my opinion.


For those that have seen The Covey and Old Barnwell and Tree Farm, what is your ranking and why?

Kevin,
The constant abuse is what holds some people back (ask Derek).  Why would he bother to share his expertise?  There are many of us questioning this right now and have said as much to Ran.  The quality of discussions on this site has diminished dramatically over the last several years. It is a shame but a sign of the times as their is little mutual respect any more for different opinions.

Mark:


As is often the case, I don't agree with you on this.


Derek is in an unusual position . . . his career is with GOLF DIGEST, and that is what makes it hard for him to just express his opinions . . . it's not the "constant abuse" but the fact that he has never been on here to say what he thinks and earn people's respect.  Ron Whitten struggled to participate here for much the same reasons, and in some respects, so did Ran for the last few years, once he became the head of one of the ranking panels.  They've got to write up whatever their panelists voted as the gospel, even if they personally disagree with it, and defend their methods and the honor of their publication, because it is their job.


Likewise, many golf course superintendents and club professionals lurk on the site but struggle to participate, for the same reason.  They can't talk out of school about their jobs or their bosses.  Same for young design associates with most firms . . . there is nobody on here who works for Gil Hanse, and only an occasional post from a couple of the guys who work for Coore & Crenshaw.  That certainly isn't because I'm holding them back.


Golf course architects may struggle, too . . . there are times when I can't say anything about a certain project because the client wants to control the narrative.  Generally, I have a lot of leeway in that regard because of my reputation, and my clients know that I'm going to say what I think, but there are times when it's hard to do.  But there are a lot of architects who think it's unprofessional to criticize others' work, which leaves . . . a lot of platitudes about how great Pine Valley is. 


No doubt there are some personal issues between some of the DG participants here, and we would all be better off without it.  But that's not new to the site . . . Mucci and Tom Paul used to get so wound up arguing with each other that Ran would have to make them sit in the corne, and God knows how many times John Kavanaugh was suspended.  But each of them contributed more to the discussion than 90% of the people still around here.  Nobody likes a critic, but isn't that the whole reason we're here?

[Tom_Doak]

This is perfectly said.  While we all clearly do not need to agree with each other here, the whole idea of this site is to have the ability to disagree and share opinions regardless of how popular or unpopular they are.  I understand the position those at the top of these rankings are in, but as you yourself were in leadership of a panel at one time, what advice can you offer for those that either participate as part of or run a panel?

Zachary:


When I ran the GOLF Magazine panel it was a much smaller affair than it is now, and Golf Club Atlas didn't exist.  [The internet barely existed!]  Plus I was never on salary at GOLF Magazine, so I didn't have a job to lose.


It's not the same world anymore.  There are corporate HR departments whose job includes perusing the internet for things that would reflect badly on your corporate overlords.  Even the people here who don't work in the golf business could lose their job if they posted something vaguely racist or sexist.  It's a wonder anyone posts at all.


So you really have to think, not what people have to lose by posting here, but what do they have to gain?  You would think that more golf course architects would post, to demonstrate their individual genius and readiness to go and build something great . . . I can't for the life of me understand why they don't.  For sure, I've scared off some potential clients over the years by being opinionated, but I've attracted others; as Ron Whitten advised me long ago about The Confidential Guide, "You should publish it, because it shows what makes you different, and everyone is already upset about it anyway."


But golf course architects are independent contractors -- we have to always be out selling ourselves, because when one job is finished, our income is zero until another job starts.  If you're on salary somewhere -- like an associate for a design firm [mine are all independent contractors, so no worries], or a superintendent, or a golf writer with an actual salaried position [Derek Duncan is in rare company there nowadays], or a PGA Tour official -- you probably have too much to lose to post meaningfully here.


That's a shame, because you've lost the wide range of golf business expertise that Golf Club Atlas used to have.


It's a sad world when people are unafraid to re-post political vitriol, because that's accepted as part of the mainstream, but they can't post what they actually think about anything, because it could go on their permanent record.  I'm glad I didn't grow up with that.

[zachary_car]

This is perfectly said.  While we all clearly do not need to agree with each other here, the whole idea of this site is to have the ability to disagree and share opinions regardless of how popular or unpopular they are.  I understand the position those at the top of these rankings are in, but as you yourself were in leadership of a panel at one time, what advice can you offer for those that either participate as part of or run a panel?

Zachary:


When I ran the GOLF Magazine panel it was a much smaller affair than it is now, and Golf Club Atlas didn't exist.  [The internet barely existed!]  Plus I was never on salary at GOLF Magazine, so I didn't have a job to lose.


It's not the same world anymore.  There are corporate HR departments whose job includes perusing the internet for things that would reflect badly on your corporate overlords.  Even the people here who don't work in the golf business could lose their job if they posted something vaguely racist or sexist.  It's a wonder anyone posts at all.


So you really have to think, not what people have to lose by posting here, but what do they have to gain?  You would think that more golf course architects would post, to demonstrate their individual genius and readiness to go and build something great . . . I can't for the life of me understand why they don't.  For sure, I've scared off some potential clients over the years by being opinionated, but I've attracted others; as Ron Whitten advised me long ago about The Confidential Guide, "You should publish it, because it shows what makes you different, and everyone is already upset about it anyway."


But golf course architects are independent contractors -- we have to always be out selling ourselves, because when one job is finished, our income is zero until another job starts.  If you're on salary somewhere -- like an associate for a design firm [mine are all independent contractors, so no worries], or a superintendent, or a golf writer with an actual salaried position [Derek Duncan is in rare company there nowadays], or a PGA Tour official -- you probably have too much to lose to post meaningfully here.


That's a shame, because you've lost the wide range of golf business expertise that Golf Club Atlas used to have.


It's a sad world when people are unafraid to re-post political vitriol, because that's accepted as part of the mainstream, but they can't post what they actually think about anything, because it could go on their permanent record.  I'm glad I didn't grow up with that.

Wrong Carr I think. Andrew has two RRs, and I have R!

[Tom_Doak]

Ah, sorry.

[Ben Sims]

I introduced myself to Armen Suny at my local club one time. I’d read some of his blog a long time ago and knew of him. It was odd to see him in the grill at little old Woodmoor. After a minute of conversation I said something along the lines of “I hang out on Golf Club Atlas a bit.” He jokingly but seriously replied “why would you do that!?”

I chewed on that for a long time. Why indeed? I guess industry insiders find this site odd. Why would you subject yourself to this if you didn’t have to? I certainly have little interest in being questioned on a site of enthusiasts over my job/craft unless I’m mentoring. Plus there’s the ever present danger of speaking one’s mind in the modern world.

But for the enthusiasts? Why *wouldn’t* I hang out here? It’s a treasure trove. Offering my opinion has never been met negatively by any club in which I am a member. Though I am relatively careful to represent well.

[Joe Hancock]

I introduced myself to Armen Suny at my local club one time. I’d read some of his blog a long time ago and knew of him. It was odd to see him in the grill at little old Woodmoor. After a minute of conversation I said something along the lines of “I hang out on Golf Club Atlas a bit.” He jokingly but seriously replied “why would you do that!?”

I chewed on that for a long time. Why indeed? I guess industry insiders find this site odd. Why would you subject yourself to this if you didn’t have to? I certainly have little interest in being questioned on a site of enthusiasts over my job/craft unless I’m mentoring. Plus there’s the ever present danger of speaking one’s mind in the modern world.

But for the enthusiasts? Why *wouldn’t* I hang out here? It’s a treasure trove. Offering my opinion has never been met negatively by any club in which I am a member. Though I am relatively careful to represent well.

If the thread is morphing into a “GCA Participation” question, then here’s my view; I joined back in 2002, and as I transitioned from a grass grower and course owner in 2007, the amount I learned here has been invaluable. Now, as a shaper and opportunistic architect, I don’t have as much to offer. The architectural views here tend to revert to a single source, which has been great and a hinderance at the same time. I, and I suspect many other architects/ industry insiders don’t have the stamina to defend a different point of view, which so many here adhere to. I still read, learn and contribute if I feel led to, but I also have learned that my views also can be attached to the many others in the business I work with, so I have to be careful.

[Andrew Carr]

Not to stomp out that discussion as it's a worthy one, I would request that we potentially return to the origins of this post and maybe dive deeper into something I said yesterday:

"For those that have seen The Covey and Old Barnwell and Tree Farm, what is your ranking and why?"

I introduced myself to Armen Suny at my local club one time. I’d read some of his blog a long time ago and knew of him. It was odd to see him in the grill at little old Woodmoor. After a minute of conversation I said something along the lines of “I hang out on Golf Club Atlas a bit.” He jokingly but seriously replied “why would you do that!?”

I chewed on that for a long time. Why indeed? I guess industry insiders find this site odd. Why would you subject yourself to this if you didn’t have to? I certainly have little interest in being questioned on a site of enthusiasts over my job/craft unless I’m mentoring. Plus there’s the ever present danger of speaking one’s mind in the modern world.

But for the enthusiasts? Why *wouldn’t* I hang out here? It’s a treasure trove. Offering my opinion has never been met negatively by any club in which I am a member. Though I am relatively careful to represent well.

If the thread is morphing into a “GCA Participation” question, then here’s my view; I joined back in 2002, and as I transitioned from a grass grower and course owner in 2007, the amount I learned here has been invaluable. Now, as a shaper and opportunistic architect, I don’t have as much to offer. The architectural views here tend to revert to a single source, which has been great and a hinderance at the same time. I, and I suspect many other architects/ industry insiders don’t have the stamina to defend a different point of view, which so many here adhere to. I still read, learn and contribute if I feel led to, but I also have learned that my views also can be attached to the many others in the business I work with, so I have to be careful.

[Joe Hancock]

Not to stomp out that discussion as it's a worthy one, I would request that we potentially return to the origins of this post and maybe dive deeper into something I said yesterday:

"For those that have seen The Covey and Old Barnwell and Tree Farm, what is your ranking and why?"

I introduced myself to Armen Suny at my local club one time. I’d read some of his blog a long time ago and knew of him. It was odd to see him in the grill at little old Woodmoor. After a minute of conversation I said something along the lines of “I hang out on Golf Club Atlas a bit.” He jokingly but seriously replied “why would you do that!?”

I chewed on that for a long time. Why indeed? I guess industry insiders find this site odd. Why would you subject yourself to this if you didn’t have to? I certainly have little interest in being questioned on a site of enthusiasts over my job/craft unless I’m mentoring. Plus there’s the ever present danger of speaking one’s mind in the modern world.

But for the enthusiasts? Why *wouldn’t* I hang out here? It’s a treasure trove. Offering my opinion has never been met negatively by any club in which I am a member. Though I am relatively careful to represent well.

If the thread is morphing into a “GCA Participation” question, then here’s my view; I joined back in 2002, and as I transitioned from a grass grower and course owner in 2007, the amount I learned here has been invaluable. Now, as a shaper and opportunistic architect, I don’t have as much to offer. The architectural views here tend to revert to a single source, which has been great and a hinderance at the same time. I, and I suspect many other architects/ industry insiders don’t have the stamina to defend a different point of view, which so many here adhere to. I still read, learn and contribute if I feel led to, but I also have learned that my views also can be attached to the many others in the business I work with, so I have to be careful.

👍

[Tom_Doak]

Not to stomp out that discussion as it's a worthy one, I would request that we potentially return to the origins of this post and maybe dive deeper into something I said yesterday:

"For those that have seen The Covey and Old Barnwell and Tree Farm, what is your ranking and why?"

Okay . . . but I've only seen two of the three [which I started a separate thread about], so I can't comment, and we've yet to identify anyone who can.

[Ben Sims]

Not to stomp out that discussion as it's a worthy one, I would request that we potentially return to the origins of this post and maybe dive deeper into something I said yesterday:

"For those that have seen The Covey and Old Barnwell and Tree Farm, what is your ranking and why?"

That’s my bad Andrew. I was responding to Tom’s post earlier.


Frankly I’ll be very surprised if anyone posts here that’s seen all three. 

[Tom_Doak]

Wouldn't the solution to this problem just be a moratorium on brand new courses being evaluated for these type ratings?

I know we're talking about "best new" but for a product that is intended to last decades to centuries, wouldn't the product still be new after 3-5 years?

Similar to other sports hall of fame criteria concerning a player being eligible after a set number of years post their career end, shouldn't the course be open for some time before being eligible for rating, allowing a greater evaluation of the course's qualities rather than a more narrow day one perception?

Ben:


This is a nice sentiment and GOLF DIGEST in fact used to hold back new courses before they were eligible for the Top 100 lists.  But then they got tired of being "scooped" by GOLF Magazine or others who put those courses straight onto their lists, and all of the new courses would quote "the GOLF Magazine rankings", so GOLF DIGEST gave up their waiting period.


Of course the internet is now scooping all of the magazines 365 days a year.

[Tom_Doak]

Frankly I’ll be very surprised if anyone posts here that’s seen all three.

I looked back.  So far in four pages of this thread we've only heard from three people who have visited The Covey: 


Sam Morrow [who's a fan, and hasn't seen the other contenders],
Paul Jones [who hasn't said much about it],
and Derek Duncan [who is obliged to defend the result].

[Andrew Carr]

This is part of my curiosity.  I did read your thread on Old Barnwell vs. Tree Farm.


There just seem to be so few people who've played The Covey, so I'm starved for an opportunity to pepper someone with questions about it, and there is very little in terms of video and photos on it.  It's quite amazing to me that in 2025 a new course can keep such a low profile.  Heck there are more pictures of San Francisco Golf Club and those aren't even allowed to be taken!

Frankly I’ll be very surprised if anyone posts here that’s seen all three.

I looked back.  So far in four pages of this thread we've only heard from three people who have visited The Covey: 


Sam Morrow [who's a fan, and hasn't seen the other contenders],
Paul Jones [who hasn't said much about it],
and Derek Duncan [who is obliged to defend the result].

[John Kirk]

As someone whose played The Covey and is a fan I've gotten a kick out of the architecture world today. There's been comical outrage from some about it. I haven't played Tree Farm or Old Barnwell so I can't compare them but I'll say that The Covey is one of the best things I've ever played. It's hard and had it's way with me but it's a fantastic golf course that should be seen before people make douchy jokes

Hi Sam,

I thought I'd include your initial comment here.  It must be nice to have another premium design by Chet Williams in your region.  I like the way the course looks in the few photographs I've seen.  I love mature oak woodlands, partly due to my upbringing in northern California.


The stated definition of a Doak 7 golf course is:  "An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles.  You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf."


This comment is tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I thought it was worthwhile to share the extraordinary agreement between the Golf Magazine and Golf Digest Top 100 courses in the U.S.

I compared Golf Digest's 2023 top 100 list to Golf Magazine's 2024/2025 top 100 list.

For context, there are about 16,000 courses in the U.S., according to the National Golf Foundation.
 
--  Each list has the same top 8 courses.
--  17 of GD's top 20 are in GM's top 20.
--  29 of GD's top 40 are in GM's top 40.
--  47 of GD's top 60 are in GM's top 60.
--  61 of GD's top 80 are in GM's top 80.
--  74 of GD's top 100 are in GM's top 100.

Not only that, but Golf Magazine's new list includes the Lido, CapRock Ranch and Old Barnwell, which could all conceivably make Golf Digest's next top 100 list.

So out of 16,000 golf courses, these two lists with very different evaluation criteria agree on about three-quarters of the top 100 courses.  How do you explain that?  Why is there such an extraordinary agreement?  It could be groupthink, but my ongoing inner debate about subjectivity versus objectivity is piqued by this result.  I'm willing to concede that "there is no objectivity, only intersubjective agreement built around agreed-upon frameworks for analysis."  But the level of agreement here is astonishing.

I guess this is my way of reminding everybody how uniform and refined the evaluation of courses has become.

[Mark_Fine]

Good post John! 

[Sam Morrow]

As someone whose played The Covey and is a fan I've gotten a kick out of the architecture world today. There's been comical outrage from some about it. I haven't played Tree Farm or Old Barnwell so I can't compare them but I'll say that The Covey is one of the best things I've ever played. It's hard and had it's way with me but it's a fantastic golf course that should be seen before people make douchy jokes

Hi Sam,

I thought I'd include your initial comment here.  It must be nice to have another premium design by Chet Williams in your region.  I like the way the course looks in the few photographs I've seen.  I love mature oak woodlands, partly due to my upbringing in northern California.


The stated definition of a Doak 7 golf course is:  "An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles.  You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf."


This comment is tangentially related to the topic at hand, but I thought it was worthwhile to share the extraordinary agreement between the Golf Magazine and Golf Digest Top 100 courses in the U.S.

I compared Golf Digest's 2023 top 100 list to Golf Magazine's 2024/2025 top 100 list.

For context, there are about 16,000 courses in the U.S., according to the National Golf Foundation.
 
--  Each list has the same top 8 courses.
--  17 of GD's top 20 are in GM's top 20.
--  29 of GD's top 40 are in GM's top 40.
--  47 of GD's top 60 are in GM's top 60.
--  61 of GD's top 80 are in GM's top 80.
--  74 of GD's top 100 are in GM's top 100.

Not only that, but Golf Magazine's new list includes the Lido, CapRock Ranch and Old Barnwell, which could all conceivably make Golf Digest's next top 100 list.

So out of 16,000 golf courses, these two lists with very different evaluation criteria agree on about three-quarters of the top 100 courses.  How do you explain that?  Why is there such an extraordinary agreement?  It could be groupthink, but my ongoing inner debate about subjectivity versus objectivity is piqued by this result.  I'm willing to concede that "there is no objectivity, only intersubjective agreement built around agreed-upon frameworks for analysis."  But the level of agreement here is astonishing.

I guess this is my way of reminding everybody how uniform and refined the evaluation of courses has become.

John,


Glad you mentioned Northern California, one my partners that day used to live in Sacramento and played all over the area and made a comment how much it reminded him of Northern California!

[Mark_Fine]

John,
You asked why so much overlap? Out of 16,000 courses GM has managed to include 74 of the same courses on their Top 100 list that GD has on theirs.  Why would GM include so many courses that are on a list like GD’s that most here say is useless?? Maybe it’s not 

I am sure this post will earn me more negative votes on this stupid new system that GCA added 

[Paul Jones]

Frankly I’ll be very surprised if anyone posts here that’s seen all three.

I looked back.  So far in four pages of this thread we've only heard from three people who have visited The Covey: 


Sam Morrow [who's a fan, and hasn't seen the other contenders],
Paul Jones [who hasn't said much about it],
and Derek Duncan [who is obliged to defend the result].

Tom,


I loved the course and think it is the best in Texas.  However, it seems that Sam is the only person that played it so not much to discuss.  I spent 2 days with a friend who is a member and attend the club Christmas party.


I remember just about every hole and could talk more about the course, but this discussion seems to go in different direction.


I have played Tree Farm couple of times, but only the loop (7-hole preview loop) at Old Barnwell.