Can any make the Top 100?

[Joel_Stewart]

I've looked at the best new courses released by Golf Digest yesterday and wondered which if any would be Top 100 material in GD bi-annual review.  

Looking at the history of the best new courses usually (but not always) the best new private course seems to make the list.  The following are all winners of the best new and are private unless noted.  Furthermore, they are all currently on the Top 100 list as other have made the list then fallen off.

1984 - The Honors Course
1987 - Wade Hapton
1988 - Black Diamond
          Blackwolf Run - Public
1989 - Forest Highlands (finished 2nd in the best new)
1990 - Shadow Creek (rated as a private course)
          Prince Course - Public
1991 - Ocean Course - Public
1992 - Atlantic
1994 - World Woods - Public
1995 - Sand Hills
1996 - Estancia
          Ocean Forest
1997 - Sanctuary
1999 - Victoria National
          Sand Ridge
          Bandon Dunes - Public
2001    Pacific Dunes - Public

Thus you have 12 private courses and 6 public/resort courses that are now on the Top 100 list.

The point being you have to be very-very good especially recently to make the top 100 and your odds seem to be better if you are private.

I have not played any of the winners but wondered if Tullymore, Rustic Canyon and especially (since its private) The GC at Briars Creek have the mojo to make it on the Top 100 list?

[David Wigler]

If Rustic Canyon makes GD's top 100 list, I will be absolutely shocked.  It will score extremely low on resistance to scoring, get a 0 on tradition, and has none of the accompaniments that tend to go with the GD list.  Rustic might make a GW top 100 (Where there is no resistance to scoring or tradition) but I cannot fathom it on GD.

[THuckaby2]

DW makes a good point - Rustic is gonna have a tough road to hoe the way GD does things.  Resistance to scoring isn't gonna come out TOO BAD - all this talk about the course record being 67 ought to make most raters put such in the middle range at the lowest, so that hurts but not too much... But yes, that is a mark that is gonna have to be overcome.

As for tradition, that actually is called "ambiance" and the short defintion is:

"How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?"

By my take Rustic scored pretty damn high there.

Interestingly, it also might not score very high on "walkability" - there are some serious green to tee hikes on the back nine.  There's a chance that low marks might be given in "Esthetics"  - the beauty isn't obvious...

In everything else it will likely score pretty damn high.

We'll see how it goes.  Add all this up and keeping in mind how very tough it is to get into the Top 100 overall, and I do kinda agree that this is gonna be very tough... but I also really have no clue how this all shakes down.

TH

ps - if it DOESN'T make GW top 100 modern I'll be shocked.  It seems to be the poster course for everything most GW raters hold dear.. which is a GOOD thing!

[corey miller]

Tom H- Why does Golf Digest not just use the course rating numbers for the resistance to scoring category?  since you are both a GD rater and course rater can you explain the difference and how you would apply them to RC.

[THuckaby2]

Corey - great question - the way GD explains things, they used to use course ratings for this but they found they weren't satisfied with the results, as they felt different states applied the USGA course rating guidelines differently, resulting in regional biases.  The USGA actually goes to great pains to try and ensure that such regional biases DON'T OCCUR... a rating in CA is supposed to be the same as a rating in NY... but GD has its own reasons for doubting this, I guess.  Dave Schmidt and I discussed this at some point and perhaps these do occur - they sure are not supposed to at any rate.

On top of this, certain definite top 100 type courses either don't have course ratings (Sand Hills, Augusta among others) or won't allow such to be published.

Thus the current method.  

TH

[David Wigler]

Tom,

As for GW rankings, I think it will be very interesting.  I believe this is a top 10 course from 60 yards in and not a top 200 course from the tee box to 60 yards.  The green complexes will give it a shot but I am uncertain if it has what it would take to be a top 100.  

My real curiosity is how this course would be viewed if it was moved to Northern Michigan, Hilton Head SC, Scottsdale AZ, or some other place that was not the architectural wasteland that is So Cal public golf.  GW raters do not have regional biases and many of us are well traveled.  It will have to compete with Kingsley, Manele Bay, Flint Hills National, Red Mike and Belfair (Among others) to make the bottom of the top 100.  I just do not think it has the overall course that those do (Although it is better than any of them from 60 yards in).  GW has no score for great value or significantly better than any other course within 60 miles of it.

[THuckaby2]

Hmmmm... well said and very valid points, DW.  I should know better than to sell you GW raters short like that!  You make great sense (as always).  This will indeed be interesting.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Admittedly having never seen RC, I would think that that is a golf course that could be plunked down anywhere and the strategic as well as entertaining aspects would be appreciated by most if not all of the golfers world wide.

I'll use the caddies at TOC as an example: WHen they were over and had about three weeks to sample some of the best, PB, CPC, SPanish, Stevenson ranch. Most loved Pacific Grove. My take on it was that it was the demands on the tee shot that made playing the "biggies" unenjoyable. While little old PG had none of that and they were able to play the game they were use to back home. Says alot don't it?

[THuckaby2]

Interesting, Adam.  I've always thought it was the exact opposite - people enjoy the courses most UNfamiliar to their "home" game... Guys like me love UK links golf (and drool over PG's back nine), Scots come over here and love Myrtle Beach.  God love the Old Course caddies for appreciating Pacific Grove!

TH

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I did a little research on GD's Bonus Tradition category.  Here are some numbers: Bandon Dunes 0.08, Bethpage Black 3.00, Crystal Downs 3.74, Double Eagle 0.54, Honors Course 1.9, etc.  Given that, RC will get a 0.  If you look at the last 4 in GD's ranking, Aronomink got a 7.64 in Resist to Score and a 4.93 in Tradition = 12.57, Atlantic got a 7.63 and a 0.48 = 8.11, Wilmington  7.12 and 3.88 = 11, World Woods PB 7.83 and 0.40 = 8.23.  I would give RC a 6.0 and a 0 = 6.  That means it has a lot to make up and very few categorys to do it in.

[THuckaby2]

DW - fair enough.  I gather GD does leave this open, and counts what we put for "ambiance" (as I defined it above) as much or as little as they want in giving these "bonus tradition points."

I still kinda think that Rustic is gonna score well in Ambiance - and this is supposed to count for 40% of the Bonus Tradition Points given.  The remaining 60% is determined by the editors and we'll see how it goes...  You make some damn good points that Rustic may well get 0 if it goes like those other courses did...

One way or the other, it is an important numerical value that is tough to overcome if you don't get it, as you set forth.

We'll see how it goes!

TH

ps - where'd you get all these numbers?  I'd love to look at such myself...

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I do not think GD used ambiance to get 40% of the number.  Using math, that would mean that Bandon Dunes got an average score of 0.2 in ambiance (On a 10 point scale) to end up at 0.08 (Assuming a 0 from the editors on the other 60%).  A couple of other examples (all of which would exceed 7 on my rating) Double Eagle would have averaged 1.35, Estancia 1.2, your beloved Sand Hills 1.55, Sand Ridge 0.1, Victoria National 0.25, Whistling Straits 0.15 (Assuming in all cases that they got an even 0 from the editorial staff).  The only way those numbers work is if the editors assigned the entire number based on the historical significance of the course.  As such, RC is lower than Whistling Straits (Which got a 0.06 in the category).  It is a 0.  FYI, the highest score was 8.39 for Oakmont.

Here is the link to GD's top 100 and the scores in each category for their last ranking.

http://www.golfdigest.com/pdf/gd200105_bestcourses.pdf

[THuckaby2]

DW - perhaps they didn't in the past, but it's right in our materials that Ambiance is going to count for 40% this time.  Given what a newbie I am and how detached I am from all of this, I honestly have no idea how they did it before.  You're right, it sure seems like this is a change for 2001-2002.

Thanks for the link to the data also...

TH

[Matt_Ward]

The issue I have with GD's top 100 listing is the assumption of a great many panelists make that so-and-so course that has been in the Top 100 in a repeated manner automatically deserves to stay. I am speaking specifically about courses that fall beyond the elite 25 and make up the bulk of the middle of the survey.

David's point about what courses get considered is a good one because if you really examine the turnover it falls to a great degree on the final 25 selections from #75 to #100. You have had situations whereby a course that has been in the ratings (i.e. Grandfather, to name just one), is dropped and then reappears later again.

I also believe that upscale golf, and in some narrow instances taxpayer owned facilities, get short shrift. Yes, it's apparent that winners of the Best Private seem to be likely contenders for top 100 considertion. However, I can easily make a case that there are plenty of public courses that can easily go toe-to-toe with these layouts and best them in several clear examples.

In my own state of NJ it was clear not more than 10-15 years ago about the dominance of private golf. That has dramatically changed and I dare say it has done the same thing nationally.

Quality architecture is not the sole domain of private golf and if those who do ratings actually do the digging / due diligence you will certainy notice what I talking about.

What often amazes me is that certain key metro areas have the ability to place "x" number within the top 100, but if you were really to examine the situation more closely you would see that these same courses have the advantage in being located in an area where more attention is usually paid to what is located there (hint, hint -- the NY metro area).

P.S. Any publication that inserts "tradition" is simply attempting a protectionist scheme in order to keep old name clubs as high as they are. Ditto the placement of ambiance! In many cases I can see how the category of ambiance tilts towards the private clubs because of the placement of all sort of bell and whistle features.

I also have an issue with any bonus points towards walking. Yes, I enjoy walking and will do when available, however, again we are talking about adding points that fall beyond the scope of directly related architectural and shotmaking characteristics. When you use these non-related categories you often find that with the margins so tight it is these categories that can often be the difference in either keeping a course among the top 100 or even bumping it further up.

How are these categories DIRECTLY related to architecture and the analysis of the type of shotmaking that is called for?

Lastly, I agree with David on his assessment of Rustic Canyon now, but I do believe that if certain key tweakings did take place at the course -- specifically elevating the tee game requirements on certain holes, the course would have a shot for consideration.  

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Your inocent comment is a huge revelation.  If GD actually does it, it will materially change their rankings.  If you add the 3+ points that Whistling Straits is sure to get, it moves from the 60's to the top 10.  Sand Hills ends up in the top 10 as well.  This will also mean the end of Aronomink, Wilmington and probably 10 others that Tradition allowed to stay in the top 100 because all new courses got close to 0, instead of 3 or 4.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Tom--

Believe it or not, The Ocean Course scored "0" on Ambiance in the last polling.  During the last ranking period, "Ambiance" actually meant "ambiance in relationship to age."  Raters were allowed to rate a course's over ambiance as it related to the grand traditions of the game of golf.  Then, came the math.  Courses 0-10 years old got 0% of that score.  Courses 10-20 years old got 10%, Courses 20-30 years old got 20%.  A course had to be over 100 years old to score it's full "Ambiance" points.  We at the relatively young courses can only hope that Ron Whitten had the chance to fine-tune the whole "Ambiance" category.

[THuckaby2]

DW:  All I know is what I read in the materials they send me.  I guess we'll see how things change when Top 100 gets released in a few months....

Matt:  My only difference from you is that I continue to believe, as I always have, that these are rankings of COURSES, not ARCHITECTURE.  That is a subtle but huge difference.  In the former, things like esthetics, tradition, and yes, walkability all do matter - a lot.  They are definitely part of the enjoyment of the game (or not) at these courses, and it's undeniable that each course has these in different measures.  If we are to rank courses based solely on architecture, then fine - you are right on, none of this should matter.

But is that what any of the magazines purports to do?  What they should do?

I may well be off my rocker but these are rankings for golfers, not developers or architects, and thus I say NO to both those questions.  I'm sure you see it very differently.

TH

[David Wigler]

Mike V,

Thank you for the explanation.  Now it makes sense.  If they do it the same way, then RC is assured of a 0 in that category.

[Dan Kelly]

I continue to believe, as I always have, that these are rankings of COURSES, not ARCHITECTURE.  That is a subtle but huge difference.  In the former, things like esthetics, tradition, and yes, walkability all do matter - a lot.  They are definitely part of the enjoyment of the game (or not) at these courses, and it's undeniable that each course has these in different measures.  If we are to rank courses based solely on architecture, then fine - you are right on, none of this should matter.

But is that what any of the magazines purports to do?  What they should do?

I may well be off my rocker but these are rankings for golfers, not developers or architects, and thus I say NO to both those questions.  I'm sure you see it very differently.

Tom IV --

I'm mostly with you here -- but I really, really don't understand why Tradition should count for anything. Anything!

I'll ask you:

When you stood on the 1st tee at Sand Hills, or any tee thereafter, did you give the tiniest hoot about Tradition?

I'll tell you:

I didn't.

"Tradition" points should go.

[THuckaby2]

Mike V - thanks also for the clarification.  Just do realize again that I quoted damn near directly from the materials given to us raters - 40% is supposed to go to ambiance, and it was defined verbatim like I say above (and below).  So this does seem to be VERY different from how they did it before... and would assure to me that at least in this 40% part, Rustic gets a very good grade - as would Kiawah from all I hear and see!  But again we shall see how it goes.

Dan K:

I wouldn't put tradition at zero, but I would also find a way to make it only a positive thing.  Yes, I have no idea how to do that.  In any case, if 100% were devoted to:

"How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?"

then I'd make this worth a LOT.  The first tee at Sand Hills only slightly OOZED tradtional values of the game of golf.... To me this should count for something.  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Perhaps I'm confused.

How does GD define "Tradition"?

[THuckaby2]

DK:

I'll send you an email re this.  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tom H:

I hear what you're saying but at the end of the day what really counts is the A-R-C-H-I-T-E-C-T-U-R-E. How well designed is the course? How well does the architect blend a superior and diverse array of holes that call for the utmost in skill / shotmaking dexterity and decision making throughout the round? When a publication says these are the "greatest courses" I have to ask what is the first and major priority in making that assessment -- it has to be the architectural qualities -- nothing less and nothing more.

The other categories serve only to obfuscate the whole selection. I mean -- tradition? What possibly does that have in defining courses of architectural quality? Does one give extra brownie points to a course simply for hosting an event - even if it has hosted a major?

Once they are added to the mix you will get some sort of outcome, but likely it will be far less so in terms of merit / credibility, in my opinion.

Tom, I perfectly understand, there is no absolute right way in rankings / ratings because, at the end of the day, it's subjective and based on the person doing the evaluating.

However, I do believe there are issues in having too many panelists. More panelists doesn't mean, ipso facto, more coverage. Too many of the panelists for the major publications actually stay relatively close to a home region and are far from able to do the kind of painstaking cross comparison analysis that's needed.

There are a number of people who I respect who know the golf courses of the NY / NJ / CT area, but are utterly clueless on the growth of design in other areas of the country and I am not referring to those destination spots (AZ, FL, CA, SC) that generally draw a major amount of visitors. Sometimes that clueless feeling transforms itself into a bias to a particular region and as a result you get some courses simply hanging on to their position for no other reason than sloppy homework by those who are panelists. My intent is not on broad brushing all who are panelists, but after having done this for 17 years for a major publication I think I might have some idea on what's happening and what corrections might work.

I will say this again -- there are a number of outstanding daily fee courses that have come into existence in the last 10-15 years. David's point about the top private courses selected by GD having a good shot in cracking the top 100 is factually true. All that is good among new designs today is not simply the haven of private clubs.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Tom H:

 When a publication says these are the "greatest courses" I have to ask what is the first and major priority in making that assessment -- it has to be the architectural qualities
 

Matt I have to agree with Tom here.  While your quote is correct first and foremost must be the architecture, but that doesnt mean that everything else doesnt matter at all.  It only means that architecture is the most important of many categories.  And I think that is reflected in the formula they employ.

I think it gets back to a comment I heard on a thread earlier.  That these ratings are targeted towards the average reader of the magazine.  Not us golf architecture junkies who make up maybe .001% of the overall golfing public.  Lets face it we are (and I say this myself included) the lunatic fringe of the golf architecture fanatics.  There is nothing wrong with this, but we shouldnt be so bold as to also think that there is something wrong with the golfers who also place importance on such things as astetics, ambience, etc.   There are many folks (certainly no one on this DG) who wouldnt care if they put in waterfalls, and railroad tie bulkheads on several holes at Cypress Point, they would still think it is a "pretty cool" place to play.

I am obviously taking this comparison to extremes, but I really think that there are other items that at least have to be considered in the overall experience.

There are some great low handicap players I have met who (to steal a line from someone I heard recently) "Dont know a redan from a sedan." But still would have a preferance of one course over another.

[THuckaby2]

Darryl summed it up right for me.  Architecture is the most important thing, it's just not the ONLY thing.

TH