[Carlyle Rood]

I was just browsing Golf Digest's Top 100 golf courses in the United States.  Am I to understand that ONLY ONE COURSE IN TEXAS is rated?  (Colonial CC is #35)

That astounds me for two reasons: (1) Statistically, being one of the largest states, it should produce a substantial number of candidates, and (2) there have been so many outstanding golfers from Texas.

[Tom_Doak]

Carlyle:  What other course would you have in there?  I can't think of one that's even close.

Lou and Matt:  I know you're going to say Dallas National, but it's not ten minutes old yet.  So let's not bother with that discussion now, since I haven't seen it yet.  Any other candidates, or was DIGEST's last list correct at the time of publication?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Texas ranks fourth in the country as far as number of golf courses (Fla, Ca, Mi are 1,2 3).  Yet, the collective quality of golf in Texas likely ranks near the bottom of all the states.  Besides Dallas National (I also haven't played it) there are only two other courses in Texas that come to mind that would make a 100-200 list.  Champions - Cypress and Barton Creek - Canyons.  Others have to explain why this is so for I can't.

JC

[texsport]

Maybe it's because raters think that hills mean good golf design? We don't have many "Top rated " courses but we've got a lot of top rated golfers. I wonder how that happened?

Maybe it's because raters don't like really long flat courses that have a lot of wind? How many hills have I seen at St. Andrews?

Maybe it's because the PGA doesn't have a clue holding so many tournaments in Texas every year? I know, it's that big Texas oil money.

Maybe it's because it's Jan. 11th and I'm going out to play in another hour, and you're not?

  Texsport

P.S. And here I thought that so many folks on this site felt that the raters were full of it anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carlyle,

Alaska is two and one half times the size of Texas.

What top 100 course can they claim ?

It's not about size, it's about historical and current population centers.

[Tom_Ross]

Carlyle,

Alaska is two and one half times the size of Texas.

What top 100 course can they claim ?

It's not about size, it's about historical and current population centers.

Wow, I almost believed Pat for a second there, and then he threw in the comment about current population centers.  Are Dallas / Ft.Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin not big enough to build decent courses?  Maybe this is a great example of the argument about location being a HUGE factor in the ranking of a course.  Considering the winds and firmness of ground in parts of Texas, why hasn't somebody pulled a Macdonald and replicated TOC in Texas and created a Top100 course?

[CHrisB]

Not hard to figure out, really. If you subscribe to the theory that great architects can craft a good course out of practically any piece of land (and we've got all kinds of land in TX, from swamps to plains to forests to hills to desert), then you'd have to think that if the great architects had done much work in TX, then there might have been some great courses lying around today.

But look at the list below--these are the number of courses in the state that were designed by some of the more well-known architects of the first half of the century (plus RTJ). These include 9 hole courses and courses that no longer exist:
John Bredemus (27)
Tom Bendelow (
RTJ (
Perry Maxwell (5)
A.W. Tillinghast (4)
Donald Ross (3)
Alex Findlay (2)

Texas is geographically about as far away as possible from the main centers of GCA in the first half of the century--the Northeast/Midwest/East and California. The game's best designers, esp. in the Golden Age, didn't do too much work in TX.

Combine that with the fact that, in order for a new course to break into the top 100, it has to be an extraordinary work, and there you have it -- TX is a big state with many above average courses but nothing world-class or even "nation-class".

It's the land of Joe Finger, Jay Riviere, von Hagge & Devlin, and Leon Howard; solid but unspectacular design.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am a bit confussed as well. I will say there are plenty of courses in Texas and I mean plenty that are better than anything at Reynolds Plantation other than Cuscowilla. The whole top 100 creates such subjective analysis that I am not sure about the top 100. I mean there are courses like Seminole, Cypress, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills etc that are so special they belong in their own class. I almost feel there is a top 40 or so then the next 300 to 500 are almost interchangable. Texas would be well represented in a larger list. There is a bravado about Texas that does not seem to think it matter what others think and maybe the promotion is not what you find other places. I might add that bravado does not extend to college football these days lol

[Tom_Doak]

John,

You're in good company.  Pete Dye always told me he thought there were about 40 courses that were at the top of the list, and then there was everything else.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Common -- let's be a bit fair now. You're the guy with Pac Dunes and it's included among the best in the nation after only being opened for such a short time -- why can't Dallas National also make such a claim?

I've said this before -- I would put Dallas National and Glenwild (Park City, UT) as among the best 3-4 TF designs I have played. Clearly, Dallas National is eons beyond what others call themselves as "golf courses" in the Lone Star State. Dallas National also goes beyond being just the best in Texas -- it's clearly a top 100 course and if Colonial is included then it most certainly makes the grade very comfortably.

Tiger B:

The physical size of a state and the amount of courses that inhabit the landscape are immaterial and completely irrelevant to what constitutes superior golf course architecture. If one had a contest for the state with the most "worst" golf courses you can be sure that the Lone Star State would even surpass the state I love so much -- Florida.

P.S. You do make a point about the "interchangeable" aspect of courses. Let me also point out there are literally numerous solid candidates in the Northeast and Mideast that get far tooooooooooooo little attention. Plenty of focus sometimes develops in the ratings game to those courses that are "new" and happen to be locales few have ever been to.

I have taken people from around the country to a number of low key courses / clubs in New Jersey and the reaction has usually been very surprised that such courses consistently fly below the radar screen (e.g. Hollywood, Forsgate, Montclair, etc, etc).

Let's not forget the bulk of Texas has some of the most blah looking non-descript land one can imagine. In my opinion -- quality land is what elevates the nature of the great golf courses -- of course, in tandem with the superior architecture produced on such canvases. The exception? Visit Dallas National and you will see why people like Lou Duran and I speak so highly of it.

Let me also point out that clearly there is the possibility of future "great" courses being built there. But, given the track record and the natural obstacles one encounters the prognosis isn't that promising IMHO.

Texans generally have an ego to match the size of their state but on the golf meter the results are closer to pip squeak than jumbo.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Matt, We have been around the block on your view of Texas golf. I am glad you have not put the nail in the coffin containing Louisiana golf. lol I am going to try and see and play alot in Texas this year. I probably said that last year before I started dating the girl in Orlando. I do feel Texas, like the states you mentioned, have a lot more solid courses than it gets credit for. Remember the wind, for much of Texas has alot of wind most of the year. Some of that featureless land makes for great golf, I will not miss Florida this year after my time in Orlando. I did like the high quality of practice facilities I found in the Orlando area though.

[Matt_Ward]

Tiger:

There's a H-U-G-E difference between "solid" (your word) and courses that merit top 100 status as the best in the business. Your intial focus was the Top 100 -- not just courses that are solid. Dallas National meets that threshold in my book -- the rest of the courses -- including Colonial -- doesn't.

I'll say this again -- you might be surprised as to how many superior courses are rarely played, let alone discussed, here on GCA from the Northeast and Mideast. They have the land, the routing and the compelling architecture but are often lumped into high profile areas and don't get much notice / recognition.

Florida has plenty of golf -- it's akin to fast food places -- sad to say but that doesn't add up to cuisine in my book. Maybe for others it does.

You can push the editors of the golf magazines to rate the best practice facilities -- that might be the ticket for many Florida courses -- ditto Texas because the actual course architecture isn't that noteworthy in most of the instances.

P.S. I have only played sparingly in Louisana -- I get very nervous when courses are literally b-e-l-o-w sea level!

P.S. Plus -- Although it requires a bit of a trek I would thoroughly recommend playing Doak's new layout in Lubbock --The Rawls Course -- the wind you referred to is clearly an issue when playing there.

Tom Doak:

You asked about other courses listed by GD in their top 100 that would not be worthy candidates. I'll give that some thought and post later -- possibly on another thread.

After giving it some thought -- I agree that there is some level in which the maximum superior architecture begins to level off -- I don't know if I would put the number at 40 but it does raise a valid point that while a course may be a top 100 it may not be among the ultimate "must play" layouts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have to admit, as a transplanted Texan from Chicago, that I have always thought the Chicago courses were better.  I remember being the most dissapointed at our ASGCA meeting in Dallas in 1983, compared to other venues we have had the privelge of playing.  And, I know that the patrons of LA, Philly and NY here would probably argue that their locales are even better.  

I think some of it is in the cool season grasses, and slightly leafier and taller trees, which most have come to think of as ideal, at least for USGA events, as well as their better aesthetics.  Any Texan will also tell you that there is a strong NY bias in the media and golf!  Lastly, for any stereotype there may be about wealthy Texans, I am always amazed at the wealth around the four cities named above, and the ambiance, often owing to maintenance, found at the best courses (i.e. top 100 material) in those cities is always striking to me.

Texas does have many different landscapes, and Dallas National is on some pretty striking land, and near a cosmopolitan city.  It will probably recieve some consideration for top 100 because of that and the Fazio connection, but I think it would be lower half.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Ross,

What were the populations of those cities in 1900, 1920 and 1940 ?  And how many golf courses were built in those cities from 1900 to 1940 ?

Their population growth tended to be much more spread out geographically rather then centered in cities and their immediate suburbs, such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities.

The Dallas/Fort Worth airport alone is the size of Manhattan.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I don't know the populations of the cities, and suspect that southern cities didn't really take off until the advent of air conditioning in the 1950's or so.

However, River Crest in Ft. Worth and Dallas Country Club in Dallas were both established before 1900, so turn of the last century Dallasites jumped on the golf bandwagon not long after New Yawkers did.....later, we developed some local arhictects in Bredemus, et al. and Maxwell being just over the border in Oklahoma.  Although good, they was not the caliber of the Philly school, or the NY school.

Certainly, though, the roaring 20's was good to Texas, with Ross working in at least Houston and Galveston, and Tillie doing two courses in Dallas.  Later, Texans certainly jumped on the name architect bandwagon.  So, population alone doesn't explain how Texas architecture developed.  Perhaps pure distance from the home office?

[Carlyle Rood]

Carlyle:  What other course would you have in there?  I can't think of one that's even close.

I'm not familiar with any of the courses in Texas.  I just thought it was remarkable that a top-tier course hasn't been produced in a state that possesses so many courses and so many talented players.

The following is Golf Digest's ranking of the top Texas courses, with Colonial being the only Top 100 U.S. Course:

1. Colonial C.C., Fort Worth [1] *
2. Brook Hollow C.C., Dallas [4] *
3. Whispering Pines G.C., Trinity [2]*
4. Champions G.C. (Cypress Creek), Houston [3] *
5. The C. at Carlton Woods, The Woodlands *
6. Briggs Ranch G.C., San Antonio *
7. Preston Trail G.C., Dallas [6] *
8. Shadow Hawk G.C., Richmond [5] *
9. River Oaks C.C., Houston [11] *
10. Royal Oaks C.C., Houston *
11. Crown Colony C.C., Lufkin [9]*
12. Horseshoe Bay Resort & C.C. (Ram Rock) [10]*
13. Barton Creek C.C. (Fazio Foothills), Austin [7] *«
14. The Tribute G.C., The Colony *«
15. Austin C.C. [18]*
16. Champions G.C. (Jackrabbit), Houston *
17. The C. at Comanche Trace Ranch, Kerrville *
18. Deerwood C., Kingwood *
19. Pine Dunes Resort & G.C., Frankston *«
20. The Tradition Cse. at Cypresswood, Spring [15] *«
21. The Quarry G.C., San Antonio [13] *«
22. La Cantera G.C. (Palmer), San Antonio *«
23. Hill Country G.C., S. Antonio *«
24. Barton Creek C.C. (Fazio Canyons), Austin [12] *«
25. Meadowbrook Farms G.C., Katy [17] *«

Key:
* walking permitted
« public access

[Mike_Cirba]

I recall some controversy here a few years ago when some pics of C&C's Austin GC were posted and some people were underwhelmed.

Anyone here played it?  What are its plusses and minuses?  

Does it fall into the category of "really good member's club", and how does it stack up against other courses in Texas.  Apparently, the Golf Digest raters don't think too much of it, but I suspect it might be due to "resistance to scoring" issues.

I'm also a bit surprised to see the omission of the Weiskopf/Morrish course at La Cantera, yet the Palmer course was selected.  I haven't heard particularly good things about the Palmer course, but thought the original was good fun.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike the original is great fun. I have not played the Palmer as yet though.

[Lou_Duran]

In my estimation, Dallas National is world-class, and by far the best we have in Texas.  Colonial CC is very nice, and a true shot makers' course when firm, but not one which inspires.

Spanish Oaks (Weed) near Austin and The Vaquero Club in the metroplex are notable.  There are many, many excellent courses (e.g. Pine Dunes, Whispering Pines, Carlton Woods, etc.) which are not well-known, but favorites of well-travelled, knowledgeable golfers.

Pat Mucci probably has it right about the why.   The combination of population, old money, and culture was not in Texas during pre-1930s.  I believe that the courses built here over the past 10 - 15 years are light years better in relative terms than what was done prior to that time.

In regards to Austin Golf Club, the club has chosen to keep a very low profile.  Unlike Dallas National, people who've played it do not rave about it.  Supposedly, Bill Coore had only a very small part in its design.  It is supposed to be very difficult and rustic; a place where one can loose a bunch of balls.

[Steve Lang]

 

Hey Y'all... its going to be 70°F today and tomorrow in Houston, so go talk amongst yourselves about ink words on glossy paper whose purpose is to make money ..  I'm going out for some field work at Memorial Park lunch.. and tomorrow afternoon for 27 at the WCC..

Who really gives a hoot about ranking courses that are either 1) antiques, 2) private and singular in nature, or 3) so expensive that with out complimentary passes, or vacation type economics, folks would only play once..

Golf is alive and thriving down here, its a year round sport or game or what-ever you wish to call it.. that we actually have the opportunity to play in a wide variety of weather conditions, not just 3 dozen times scattered during the spring, summer, and fall.  

If it helps your self esteem to associate with greatness that you can't enjoy, then go for it.. If you have priviledge, great for you.. but give me a break about TX gca.. it ain't Philly, it ain't LI, we didn't have the glaciers carving things up into valleys and depositing tons of sand and rock debris in hilly morraines etc.. give me the hundred odd public access courses and 200 privates within 50 miles of downtown Houston..  and let me play.  

The new stuff only gets better down here, and at least we have new stuff.

Pat Mucci, here's Houston's population data..

year    USrank   population

1900       85         44633
1910       68         78800  
1920       45        138276    
1930       26        292352  
1940       21        384514  
1950       14        596163  
1960        7        938219  
1970        6       1232802
1980        5       1595138
1990        4       1630553
2000        4     ~1953631 with SMSA ~ 4MM folks

p.s. yes I feel better now
p.s.s.  Other census data for the Pop hypothesis

values in 1000's
Cities   Dal   FW   DFW   NYC   Newk      Philly
1920   159   106   265   5620   415   1824
1930   260   163   423   6930   442   1951
1940   295   178   473   7455   430   1931
1950   434   279   713   7892   437   2072
1960   679   356   1035   7782   405   2003
1970   844   393   1237   7896   382   1949
1980   904   385   1289   7072   329   1688
1990   1007   448   1455   7323   275   1586
1996   1053   480   1533   7381   269   1478

[Bob_Huntley]

I have a friend who splits his time between Dallas and Carmel. He knows his golf and assures me that Crown Colony is the best course in Texas. Anuone here played it?

[Lou_Duran]

Bob,

Several times.  It is a very nice course- an inland Harbour Town with much better topography- and a perennial on the Dallas Morning News's annual list of the best Texas courses (included at #1 in the past).

It is a TX top 10 in my book, several notches below Dallas National, and more of a peer golf-wise to Colonial CC.  When the course is running fast, it can be a lot of fun.  An equal # of 3s, 4s, and 5s on the back is unusual but it works well in terms of variety and use of the land.

Even though it is in east Texas, the course no longer has a tranquil, rural feeling about it.  The residential development around it was poorly planned, and the mix of housing and proximity to the course detracts from the golf experience.  The clubhouse area has the feel sometimes of a strip (retail) center.

Crown Colony is probably Devlin & von Hagge's best work, and a course I always enjoy playing.  Pine Dunes, an hour+ further west near Frankfort, is a course which I like as much, and the setting is superior.

[David Wigler]

I have played a number of courses in Texas and I have to be honest, GD is probably right on this one.  In my opinion Whispering Pines belongs in the top 100 modern in GW without question.  It is that good.  It would be borderline top 100 overall although probably just miss the cut.  BrookHollow is just not top 100 - Close but not.  I have not played Dallas National.  I have no issues with GD's assessment.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Bob, I will second Lou's assessment of Crown Colony. He and I played there together once. The only negative is the residental developement. Much like Whispering Pines, it is a very solid golf course.  Whispering Pines has a far superior feel, due to the lack of developement. I would drive up there any weekend to play. Both are very good courses and about 45 minutes apart.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I've mentioned this before, but it's possible that Austin GC is so private that they don't allow raters as raters (like at Friar's Head now).  They might have to find they own way on, and the desire (and rater population, I'm guessing) just isn't there to get the 10 votes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()