[Andy Hughes]

In the first iteration of 'would anybody notice', Pinehurst #2 was under the microscope. I don't believe any type of consensus was reached as to whether it would be as highly regarded as it currently is if built today, though there did not seem to be an argument as to the merits of the course. But other courses, such as Augusta National and Oakmont, did come up.
And I wonder: if those courses that are generally held to be America's best, such as Augusta National, Oakmont, Merion, Winged Foot (West), Oak Hill, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Oakland Hills et al were built today, would they still be regarded as the best of the best?  How much of their lofty status is a result of their always having been considered the best, or from inertia, or from their history?

[Chris_Clouser]

Oakland Hills, Oak Hill would not.  They would seem like almost any other parkland course produced by Nicklaus or Fazio today.

Merion and Winged Foot, maybe.  

Oakmont, Cypress, Pine Valley and Augusta (before the first cut) I would like to think would be because they are very different from your average run of the mill course.  I think in this day and age, if you aren't a little different then you might not get noticed nearly as well, regardless of the quality of architecture.  

Others that probably wouldn't be IMO, CC at Brookline, Medinah, Congressional, East Lake, maybe Olympic.

Others that would Shinnecock, Priarie Dunes, Crystal Downs, Pebble, National, maybe Seminole.  They all present something different from the norm.  

[Jfaspen]

It is tough to imagine an Augusta National without the history of Roberts, Jones, Mackenzie, ect.  If it were opened today, I really think it would be relegated to a resort style course with "tough greens" that is in the middle of GA.  

I think Cypress would be noted for the same things it is now, the ocean holes.

I agree with the above authors note on Oakland Hills, a good G.C. but without the history, nothing..  

Jeff

[Brian_Gracely]

Are we talking about Oakland Hills before or after the RTJ facelife and tummy-tuck?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Part of the issue when using the word "notice" is the capacity of the person being able to do that very thing -- notice.

I know plenty of people who are stuck on one version of what constitutes quality golf courses. Give them something different -- albeit better -- and they are literally clueless on what it is about. Golf is not about formula -- it is about expression and it's crucial for people in positions of influence to move beyond their limited understanding and recognize courses of that type.

Adam -- the best became the best because they were noticed for what they had then -- and if they were built today -- minus a few exceptions -- would likely be noticed today for the same reasons. How do I know this? Many of the people who love the game have grown weary of the same dumb-down designed cookie-cutter formulistic courses that seem to grow like bad weeds. Courses like Winged Foot, Cypress Point and Oakmont, to name just three -- would be seen for what they are and be held to the same esteem that they have always been.

[Andy Hughes]

Adam -- the best became the best because they were noticed for what they had then -- and if they were built today -- minus a few exceptions -- would likely be noticed today for the same reasons. How do I know this? Many of the people who love the game have grown weary of the same dumb-down designed cookie-cutter formulistic courses that seem to grow like bad weeds. Courses like Winged Foot, Cypress Point and Oakmont, to name just three -- would be seen for what they are and be held to the same esteem that they have always been.

Matt, to accept what you think, one would have to also accept that none of the 30 or 40 best American courses ever built were built in the last 30 or 40 years or so (exempting those with the Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes-type of landscape, as previously discussed). Now, that may be true, or it may not.
Do you believe that Augusta National, to take one example, would be honored as one of the 5 best courses in the country if it opened tomorrow? Would it even be ranked ahead of a Tobacco Road?
Perhaps the courses mentioned to start this thread would be 'noticed', but where would they fall out in a list like GD Top 100?

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

The reason for the dearth of great design say in the last 30-40 years is twofold IMHO: the desire to please clients became front and center the primary emphasis for architects tied to the mass production mentality. You also have the narrow approach taken by many architects in what constitutes superior design. Many simply followed the pattern of others in order to pay the bills. Unfortunately, much of the assembly-line junk that passes itself off for golf is simply there to buy homes.

If you have any point to make Adam I believe you could arguably say that building golf courses today is tied in so many ways to real estate development. Given that reality it's possible many of the top tier golf courses from years gone by may not have been designed in the manner they were.

However, if those courses from years gone by were in fact designed today despite what I just mentioned I have no doubt they would be noticed and lauded for no other reason that they are so very different than what is being pushed out today. Clearly, you would still need people with the capacity / expertise to "notice" in order for that to happen.

To answer your question regarding ANGC -- keep in mind what I said earlier -- ANGC / Masters are tied to the hip. The fanfare that ANGC gets because of the Masters cannot be dismissed so easily. The issue with ANGC is how destructive the totality of all the recent changes has been to the spirit that Mackenzie and Jones sought to create. The ANGC of today is a hodge-podge of jibberish that has been overlayed on that great canvass. A true pity.

When you ask would ANGC be rated ahead of Tobacco Road I would say so because the fanfare tied to the Masters would propel ANGC. Let me state this point even further -- ANGC is ahead of other more noted classic courses today for no other reason than it's connection to the tournament and all the pomp and circumstance that comes from it.

Courses like Cypress Point, Winged Foot and Oakmont, to name just three -- would still occupy their rightful place among the elite ten best courses in the USA IMHO. The very nature of what they provide is so patently beyond the redundant junk that calls itself golf today that those with the eyes to notice such dynamic design would have no problem in placing them in their rightful place at the top of any discussion concerning great golf courses IMHO.

[Gerry B]

Agree that Oak Hill, Oakland Hills, Congressionaland East Lake  would not be held in such high regard if not for the "publicity" from tournaments. Also add Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and Wentworth to the list. Have not played Pinehurst # 2 (therefore  I cannot comment).I am on the fence in respect to Medinah and Brookline. Pine Valley,Merion, Seminole, Olympic, Cypress, Shinnecock, NGLA,Oakmont plus San Francisco, Fishers Island, Bethpage Black and Chicago Golf Club are all timeless gems. They are all (in my opinion) special for different reasons- design, topography, variety / flow of holes and ambience.  

[Andy Hughes]

Are we talking about Oakland Hills before or after the RTJ facelife and tummy-tuck?

The way it is now. That's how the courses are currently rated, as they are now. Would Oakland Hills and all the other annual top 20-30 courses be there if they were all built today and didn't have inertia on their side?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy --

Define "inertia" as it applies to the top 20-30 courses currently listed by any of the major magazines.

By the way -- while we're on the subject -- how bout listing your top 30 courses (with or without "inertia")!

[Andy Hughes]

Andy --
Define "inertia" as it applies to the top 20-30 courses currently listed by any of the major magazines.
By the way -- while we're on the subject -- how bout listing your top 30 courses (with or without "inertia")!

By inertia, I mean the process by which a course gets into the top 10 or 20 or 30 of rankings (be it the Top 100 in America or the World or whatever) and then, essentially, stays there.  And then once it is there, its reputation grows because it is there, so it is even more likely to stay there.  Not to say that no course has moved up or down, perhaps even dramatically, but more generally.
I gave the example of Augusta National (I know you feel the tournament can't be separated from the course, and I don't disagree). Setting aside the tournament, I do not believe it would be ranked in the top 5 courses in this country if it opened today, but it has gotten there and now inertia has made it hard to dislodge.


I'm afraid I have not played enough great courses to put together a top 30 list like most of the people here. My list would have to be more like a top 10 or so I'm afraid  

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Let me explain something to you -- raters / reviewers do
not -- check that -- should not bestow nobility to any course. You should earn your place in line each and every time such an assessment is made.

People who do that fail to understand that past performance is not indicator of future standing. God -- I sound like one of the financial service firms.

I don't concede that any number of courses should "automatically" be granted their "usual" position at or near the very top. Or stay there because they have been there for a period of time.

The assessment of courses is too fluid to simply say well course "A" should always be granted the top status simply because it's always been there.

The reason why ANGC stays where it is has to do with the Masters event -- pure and simple. The course that exists today is far removed from what Mackenzie / Jones envisioned simply because the powers-that-be are so enamored with scores and what takes place during one week of the year.

I don't doubt that courses do receive a good bit of exposure and with that an added edge against other courses where such exposure may be limited or nonexistent. However, raters / reviewers should work through and assess the core aspects that are tied to the architectural depth that the course has.

Andy -- I have played a good selection of the present top 100 and been fortunate to have played a number of the top tier ocurses more than once over the last 30 years. I think you have to be a bit more precise about your generalizing that if top tier courses were built today it's unlikely they would receive the prestige / placement that have.

You have to name names in order to really know if your hypothesis is accurate. I don't see that with Pinehurst #2 and I did mention The Golf Club in Columbus as another course that doesn't have exciting land or other off-course frills but is held in generally high regard because of its consistent design dynamics.

The issue really is about the due diligence of the people doing the ratings. People should not BESTOW anything -- this isn't the House of Windsor where your place in royalty is assured simply because of your bloodline.

[SPDB]

Adam -- the best became the best because they were noticed for what they had then -- and if they were built today -- minus a few exceptions -- would likely be noticed today for the same reasons. How do I know this? Many of the people who love the game have grown weary of the same dumb-down designed cookie-cutter formulistic courses that seem to grow like bad weeds. Courses like Winged Foot, Cypress Point and Oakmont, to name just three -- would be seen for what they are and be held to the same esteem that they have always been.

Matt - This is terribly flawed logic (affirming the consequent).

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

Where's the flaw -- the issue was whether or not certain classic courses (those routinely in the top 40-50) would merit such standing if they were to open today.

The point made by Andy is that only those "new" courses that possess some nique aspects (e.g. spectacular setting or superior land) would get the attention of those who review courses and ultimately place them in the top tier of layouts.

I feel otherwise and have mentioned places such as Winged Foot, Pinehurst #2 and Oakmont, to name just three stellar layouts that don't have fronting oceans or over-the-top land forms.

If I'm missing something from your point please enlighten me.

Thanks.

[SPDB]

I'm not certain you proved anything by, and I paraphrase:

The best became the best because people noticed them for what they were. The same courses today would be seen for what they are and held to the highest esteem, as they always have.

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

You need to review the point made by Andy -- not I. He said because of "inertia" there are courses that continue to be rated just becaue they always have been. I mentioned that need not be the case provied you have people who are quite discerning on what it takes to stay there -- not just beause they always have been.

I also stated that one should not assume a course's standing simply becaue of its past record -- things do change and raters / reviewers need to be current and reflect such things when they occur.

[Andy Hughes]

The point made by Andy is that only those "new" courses that possess some nique aspects (e.g. spectacular setting or superior land) would get the attention of those who review courses and ultimately place them in the top tier of layouts.

While I happen to believe that based on what I have seen, that is not actually what I have said in this thread Matt.  

I also stated that one should not assume a course's standing simply becaue of its past record -- things do change and raters / reviewers need to be current and reflect such things when they occur.

Raters do need to be, but are they? Aren't the top 30 rankings generally the same year after year? Is it possible that none of the best 30 courses in the country were built in the last 30-40 years? I assume that's possible, but is it actually the case?
I should add that I have firsthand knowledge of almost none of the courses being discussed.

[Andy Hughes]

You need to review the point made by Andy -- not I. He said because of "inertia" there are courses that continue to be rated just becaue they always have been. I mentioned that need not be the case provied you have people who are quite discerning on what it takes to stay there -- not just beause they always have been.
I also stated that one should not assume a course's standing simply becaue of its past record -- things do change and raters / reviewers need to be current and reflect such things when they occur.

Matt, this sounds like the way you think ratings should be. Are you saying, though, that this is the way ratings actually are? I gather you have far more experience playing the majority of these courses: is it your opinion that the top 30 courses in the US actually all were built over 30 years ago?
Also, as to 'inertia', do you think that some raters vote for highly ranked courses because they are already highly ranked?

[Gerry B]

The entire ratings system is so subjective. Part reputation, part fact and partial politics. There are always 3 sides to a story - my side  - your side and thetruth.

Individuals  loves a particular course for different reasons - whether it be a love of a certain designer, historical signifigance, exclusivity, location, ambience or a combination of all of the above.

I personally love the old classic designs-however there are some new gems such as Pacific ,Bandon, Kingsbarnes that I thought were incredible in their own right. I have not played Friars Head, Sand Hills or Old Head but have heard great things about all of these "new" courses.

Take Australia -Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath are held in high regard but I prefer New South Wales and the National -Old Course in Cape Schank.In fact in my opinion (and in many of my friend's opinions who have all played at least 30 of the top 50 in the world -Kingston Heath and Wentworth may be 2 of the most overrated courses in the world. I would take Walton Heath Old  over Wentworth on a bad day.
Shinnecock is in the top 10 -but I prefer NGLA.Both great but for me NGLA is the one.
Baltusrol Lower is ranked in the top 30 but i prefer Somerset Hills.
Many people love Eastlake - i prefer Peachtree.
Many people love Medinah and Butler -i prefer Shorecares and Chicago Golf Club.
One could even regionally debate Pine Valley vs Merion / Cypress vs Pebble / San Francisco vs Olympic  / LA North vs Riviera / Brookline vs Salem / The National Golf Club of Canada vs St. Georges /Congressional vs Baltimore CC Five Farms East / Oakland Hills vs Crystal Downs /St louis CC v Bellerive / Kiawah Ocean Course vs Yeamans Hall  / Royal Portrush (Dunluce) vs Royal Count Down and even Bandon vs Pacific.

One could debate this issue over the best single malts, anejo tequila,super tuscans, big bad bold california cabs or the best bordeaux / burgundy's until the end of time.
To  quote a line from Woody Allen's film Radio Days -"The Atlantic is a much better ocean than the Pacific"

Enough said!!!!

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

My point -- which I have made several times -- is that people need to be current in their assessments. Many of the people who rate / review see courses from a fixed point in time -- sometimes that point in time is from many years ago and therefore they hold to a certain position even though changes may have indeed taken place at that respective course(s). Just like time -- courses change or at minimum evolve.

I have played nearly all the top courses you described but I have always made it a point to touch base with people who do see / play the courses on a fairly continual basis. Clearly, it's important for people to see things as they are TODAY -- not just from years gone by. When I hear about changes taking place at a particular facility that are beyond merely trivial matters I make it a point to return and see what has happened and what impact, if any, it has had.

Let me give you an example -- the Geronimo Course at Desert Mountain by Jack Nicklaus. This used to be one of my favorite courses because of the terrain, the on and off course beauty and the array of holes. Unfortunately, a short time ago there were serious changes made to two key holes -- the long dog-leg left par-4 13th and the dynamic short par-4 14th with its green hidden in a old canyon. These two holes were altered significantly and a good part of the appeal of the course was lost IMHO. I can romance about the "old" layout but it's the "existing" one that needs to be assessed today.

Currency is an essentiality in establishing or re-establishing the credentials of any course.

I don't hold to your view that no quality courses can break into the top 30-40 -- my point is a simple one -- it's time raters and reviewers start to apply the same lasor-like scrutiny to these courses as is done to the others. I'm not suggesting that all or even a good number of the courses in the elite groupings would be lowered because their pedigree is very good in most cases, however, I do believe it would put all of them on notice that nothing is guaranteed given the nature of what meaingful reviews / evaluations should be about.

P.S. To answer your last question -- yes, I believe some raters fall prey to the "star" syndrome of courses no less than people are sometimes mesmermized by the celebrity nature of certain performers in Hollywood and the like. Like I said -- it's not so much where a course was -- but where it is NOW!
 

[Andy Hughes]

I don't hold to your view that no quality courses can break into the top 30-40 -- my point is a simple one -- it's time raters and reviewers start to apply the same lasor-like scrutiny to these courses as is done to the others. I'm not suggesting that all or even a good number of the courses in the elite groupings would be lowered because their pedigree is very good in most cases, however, I do believe it would put all of them on notice that nothing is guaranteed given the nature of what meaingful reviews / evaluations should be about.

Matt, you may not agree that a new course can't break into the top 30-40, but the sad truth is that essentially they don't.
Muirfield is at #18, and that's it for the top 30. Now, I have never played Muirfield; perhaps it truly is deserving of its status. But I would suspect that the fact that it hosts the Memorial has a large part to play in its standing.
As well, I have never played Sand Hills--are there truly almost 40 courses in this country better?
I suspect that your opinion is based on the way you feel it should be, the way ratings should be done. It sounds to me that in your opinion each year is a fresh start and everyone should be judged on what they offer today.  You said "people need to be current in their assessments."  No argument here; but it sounds like you also believe that is the way it does happen now?
Where, in your opinion, should Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes fit in the ranking of American courses? Also, do you believe any of the 40 best American courses have been built in the last 30 years?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()