News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2007, 08:03:51 PM »
My goodness this was hard to swallow if one took GD seriously. Loch Lamond at 11. please it is barely top 100 UK, much less 11th in world. Kingsbarns is way to high as is Royal Porthcawl and TEC should not be in the rankings at all. Where are the Suningdales, Swinley Forest etc? Many of these courses top 20 to 30 of this list all day and night. Did I miss Rye? How did Deal ever get put ahead of Rye?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 10:35:51 PM by Tiger_Bernhardt »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2007, 08:58:21 PM »
Interesting that Royal Dornoch gets ranked #3 in the world (ex-the U.S.), yet did not come close to making the Top 10 in GB&I in the most recent Golf World (UK) rankings issued this past summer. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it just goes to show how subjective and imperfect (and possibly useless) rankings like these are!  

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2007, 09:04:31 PM »
Tiger B. -

While you obviously disagree, Loch Lomond has been ranked in the Top-10 in the last couple of GB&I Top-100 rankings from Golf World (UK) magazine. Clearly, the course is highly regarded by many of those whose opinions are used to formulate these rankings, however arbitrary they may be.

DT    

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2007, 09:30:32 PM »
Shane,
   What makes #2,5, and 8 standout holes at Metro?

Not likely to have time to see it, but there are a couple of open mornings. One of which I think we will use to see Mike C's work at Peninsula. Have you been over to see the work?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 11:38:32 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Robert Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2007, 10:18:43 PM »


As for Canadian courses, I would have thought Jasper would be in there but otherwise the order of ranking is not surprising considering past rankings in this country.

Sean, re Greywolf, I have heard good things but have never played it or other courses in that area of the Kootenays. It is a Doug Carrick course and from what I understand he is a buddy of Mr. Whitten.

Bob Jenkins

Bob: While I agree with you regarding Banff, I don't think there's any truth to Carrick being a "buddy" of Ron Whitten. I have not played Greywolf so I can't comment on its quality, but the one exceptional hole looks impressive. Nonetheless, I didn't see it on this list anyway. The Canadian courses looked about right to me -- not in order, but the right names anyway. Well, Beacon Hall doesn't fit....
Terrorizing Toronto Since 1997

Read me at Canadiangolfer.com

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2007, 10:33:19 PM »
David, I am surprised to hear that. I found LL to be an average, by UK standards. parkland course. It is a very good course but my goodness I do not think it would be top 10 in the London circle.

Mark_F

Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2007, 11:07:08 PM »
One of which I think we will use to see Mike C's work at Peninsula. Have you been over to the work?

Ed,

Haven't seen the North yet, played the South a few weeks back. It is an intriguing piece of work.  Quite schizophrenic.
A few dead flat holes and dead flat greens, interspersed with the odd green or two that would make a National member think he was on The Old Course there.

It fails Shane's cast iron test of No Obvious Dog holes, but is still worth seeing more than Metropolitan.

 

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2007, 11:39:25 PM »
David Elvins,
   What makes Metropolitan so good in your opinion? In my notes I have compiled in the past year the main point of emphasis seemed to be great conditioning.

Ed,

Metropolitan is a really nice course to play but not a golf course I would travel to see.  It really lacks anything dramatic mainly due to the flat site.  The course lost some land in the 60s and Dick Wilson came in and built 8 new holes on new land.

To me the new holes (and fiurther work to toughen the course up for tournaments) lacked subtlety.  It seemd that the architects tried to compensate for the flat land by raising the greens and surrounding them with bunkers, and building big high fairway bunkers everywhere well above the natural ground level.  

The older ninth green is really cool.  Doesn't look like much from the fairway but has some really interesting contours and bunkers that you only notice when you get up there.  The Dick Wilson greens, by contrast, look dramatic from the fairway but once you get up there they are relatively flat and surrounded by bunkers.  Of course when you surround a green with bunkers, you cant make them too punishing or the course becomes unplayable for many of the members and the short game can get a bit repetive on the Wilson holes.

Recent work by Mike Clayton has reduced the number of bunkers and tried to add a bit more strategy and subtlety into the course.  It looks to be heading in the right direction.

THe conditioning of the course was great during the World Matchplay and it received a great reputation from that.  On recent visits, the conditioning has been higher than most on the sandbelt but not up to the standard of Kingston Heath in my opinion.  it is worth noting that the newer holes are not really on the sandbelt, but some pretty tough clay.  THe superintendent does a fantastic job to make these holes look like they are on the sandbelt, however the roughs don't really compare.   So whilst I say that Kingston Heath is better conditioned, it is not neccesarily a reflection ofn the greens staff, I just think Kingston Heath has a better, and more interesting, "look" for a visitor to see.

I would definetly recommend dropping in and having a look at Peninsula.  THe 2nd hole on the north course, for example, is worth travelling to see.  The redesign of the south course has only just been completed and it is looking a little young but there are some great examples of the Clayton Golf Design work, in particular the green complexes.  They have done some really interesting work there on a course that could potentially host a major australian tournament one day.  The three drivable Par 4s, 1, 7, and 12 are really interesting, the 8th green has 3 tiers over 5000sqfeet.  I think the greens on the south course draw alot of influence from the sandbelt and also the work Clayton did with Doak.  It has resulted in quite a distinctive Clayton style which includes broad flowing lines in the greens and bunkers, with plenty of strategic interest and subtlety.  Worth checking out IMO.
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Wayne_Kozun

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2007, 12:09:17 AM »
The Canadian courses looked about right to me -- not in order, but the right names anyway. Well, Beacon Hall doesn't fit....
And then there is the ommission of Jasper and the Paintbrush.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 12:11:00 AM by Wayne_Kozun »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2007, 12:24:54 AM »
Shane,
   What makes #2,5, and 8 standout holes at Metro?

Not likely to have time to see it, but there are a couple of open mornings. One of which I think we will use to see Mike C's work at Peninsula. Have you been over to see the work?

Ed, 2 is a nicely bunkered short par 3 surrounded by natural heath growth. The green has some subtle contouring. 5 is a medium length par 4 played over a rise and then down to a well bunkered green  that slopes hard right to left and slightly away from the player. Good hole. 8 is a reachable par five (for the better player  ;) ) that doglegs right, with a well contoured green. They would be my three favourite holes there, although as David mentions the 9th green is very good as well.

See the two Peninsula courses in preference to Metro if time is an issue.

Shane.

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2007, 12:27:46 AM »
It fails Shane's cast iron test of No Obvious Dog holes, but is still worth seeing more than Metropolitan.
Mark,

I would be interested to hear what you though was a "dog hole" at Peninsula.  

I think the "schizophrenic nature" of the course, as you call it, will be reduced when vegetation becomes established in the next 3-5 years.
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Mark_F

Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2007, 01:02:17 AM »
David,

My comment about the schizophrenic nature of the course is more to do with the differences between the greens - the wildness of the 8th and 17th, for example, with the flatness of several others, coupled with the flat nature of holes like 2, 3 and 6, with the more undulating ground of some of the others. It's a bit like the course is half Woodlands and half Royal Melbourne.  :)

Will be interested to see what others think of the 8th and 17 greens - I doubt any green on Gunnamatta would be as severe as either of those two.

I have no doubt the course will look entirely different in the next 3-5 years. I enjoyed playing the course, and really liked the 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 16th holes.

The first three weren't anything special, but the dog was the par three 9th.  It looks completely out of place. The 15th has a bit of a Queensland resorty look to it as well.  And surely the 5th green is far too large and flat for such a short par five?

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2007, 01:55:16 AM »
Mark,

I think you are right in some respect.  The 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th and 16th(?) greens have not been rebuilt.  Maybe they will in the future.  All are significantly flatter than the other greens.  All are pretty good but a bit more contour could emphasize the strategy of these holes -5 and 7 in particular.  10 is the one that looks out of place to my eye.  


The 9th hole is an interessting one.  An old style hole that is a pretty cool hole and demanding of a really good shot but probably a bit different to the rest of the course.  Perhaps if it was the only old green left on the course its difference might be celebrated.

I think you are underestimating the first three.  All have really interesting greens.  
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 02:29:02 AM by David_Elvins »
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Mark_F

Re:GOLF DIGEST TOP 100(OUTSIDE THE U.S.A)
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2007, 02:18:02 AM »
David,

My first time playing the course was my single round a few weeks back, so I was unsure of exactly what had been changed, or what they had allowed to be changed.

The greens were a little fuzzy, so the course would obviously play different at a later period.  It would be interesting to see the first three again - there was nothing wrong with them, I just thought they were a little bland in a way I can't quite put my finger on.  The 6th was another similarly flat hole which I thought was okay, but the course is surely worth playing just for the 12th, 13th and 16th alone. 12 is fantastic.  Especially considering what it replaced :)

And the 17th, which was interesting, to say least.

It would be a fantastic club to be a member of, that's for sure.  Much closer to me than St Andrews Beach, too. :-\
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 02:18:23 AM by Mark Ferguson »