I'm talking about the preservation of classic architecture, and the appreciation of same, the process of insuring that these courses never become outdated, out of style or out of favor.

And, how is the "fix" in.

Through "Golfweek's" ingenius ranking methodology.

By bifurcating their rankings into Modern and Classic, they automatically preserve a closed, but very special set of golf courses.

While there may be some movement, with a few additions and deletions, the list is inately static.  In fact, its only real movement is that of constriction.

The "Modern" list presents a unique set of problems, for this is not a closed set of golf courses, rather it's an open and perpetually expanding set of golf courses, far more prone to changes, additions and deletions, when it comes to the rankings.

Staying on the classic list is easy.
Staying on the modern list is a challenge, for a variety of reasons.

Should there be a revision, or the introduction of a new ranking category ?  Absent a freeze on golf courses built between 1960 and .... let's say 2010 or 2020, the modern list will continue to expand and churn like butter.

The classic courses aren't prone to fads, the modern courses are, hence standards and stability can be fleeting.

Should there be a realignment with the creation of another category, let's say Neo-classical golf courses from 1960 to 2010, with the "modern" category being confined to all courses built after 2010 ?  

Are courses like Pine Tree, and their architecture no longer relevant ?  How can a golf course ranked in the top 30, over time, slip higher and higher until it's out of the top 100 ?
If the golf course remained the same, what changed ?

Are all courses built between 1960 and 1990-2000 destined to experience a limited shelf life ?

It would seem to be a numerical issue.

For example, If 1000 golf courses were built between 1860 and 1960, ranking in the top 100 is relatively simple, but, if, from 1960 to 2060 10,000 golf courses are built, then ranking in the top 100 is far, far more difficult, and perhaps unfair in comparison to those courses ranked in the top 100 classic list.

So, should there be another line of demarcation ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

P.S.  Brad Klein, I thought the website presentation was very  
       good, and user friendly.

       Any chance of including a private State listing ?

Bill,

Like your car radiator, it's a closed system, and movement within it is limited.

At what point will we have three lists - Classic, Modern, and Post-Modern?
 

Like your car radiator, it's a closed system, and movement within it is limited.

What list should Augusta and Oakland Hills be on?

The idea of seperate listings is excellent – but only if the rating criteria are adapted for the different listings. At present the top 100 system can put pressure on the slipping « classics » to facelift their courses , « greening it up » and adding « standard » bunker sand into their bunkers thus converging all courses to a standard common denominater.
Golf Courses should also receive rating points for « individuality » thus encouraging the differences.
There should be a list not only of classic but also of « ANCIENT » golf courses with rating points for respecting the history and originality of the golf course. This would increase more awareness of the heritage that should be preserved.
An ancient golf course that already has good player frequency and no financial problems would not then feel the need to spend their money to change their courses.

Pat:

You're joking.   To start, there is not one original bunker left on the golf course except for the 10th which is now just a monument to Mackenzie.  As you know the green was moved back and to the left.  I could go hole by hole but lack the time and really not interested in you arguing for the sake of arguing.

I agree with you that most classical courses have had some form of change although ANGC is by far the highest rated and most extreme in its changes over the last 40 years which seems to get a free pass on the Golfweek rankings.

John Chilver-Stainer :  

You are my new hero.  

If the ratings of classic courses gave points for preservation, instead of encouraging "restoration" in all its many guises, they would truly be a worthwhile exercise.

Tom H.:

The reason it's worth looking at to combine the two lists is precisely because they weren't meant to be combined.  Only one of the eleven individual criteria is different, and the courses are only rated on the basis of the overall score, anyway.  What this does do, is strip away some of the biases of history which tilt the playing field even more in favor of the classics on the other lists.

It's the same as taking Tradition points off the Golf Digest list and re-sorting -- it doesn't fit the magazine's definition, but it does lead to something.  Still, you can't take it too seriously; not even Pete Dye believes the Pete Dye Golf Club is one of the top 20 golf courses in America.

Tom Doak/John Chilver-Stainer;

I agree...I think that the focus should be on PRESERVATION of classic courses, not "restoration" which while sometimes is used in a valid way that befits the definitition of the word, has also become a term which has been bastardized to mean virtually anything these days, down to wholesale redesign.

Not coincidentally, the Golfweek standards for Classic Course evaluation contains the following measure;

Integrity of Design - The extent to which the existing holes conform to the original design intent, or for those courses that have been renovated, extent to which the holes embody a character that is cohesive rather than fragmentary.

I think the intent here is to PRESERVE what hasn't been changed already, and to create a standard for classic courses that have already been touched by a number of different folks through the years.

For instance, I'd imagine that courses like Oak Hill and Inverness lose points on the latter while a course like Prairie Dunes which was actually done by two separate architects 15 years apart still gains points for presenting a cohesive theme throughout.

Huck,

You're correct in the distinction you're drawing for Tom Doak.  (I'm listening to myself say that and chuckling a bit )

Simply put, if the single numerical rating that is given to each course on either list was the "average" of the scores in the 10 categories (presuming those categories were nearly identical, as they are), then it would be possible to mix and match the lists.

However, that's not what happens.  The single rating value really reflects something of a positioning based on like comparisons.  So, if I play a modern course and I'm blown away, and believe it's one of the top 20 modern courses in the country but trending towards the lower side, I'm going to give it a score that reflects that belief, which might be something like an "8".  

If I knew that all of the classic courses were also part of the equation, that same course might be in say, the top 70 in my thinking, so the number I'd assign it would hypothetically refelct that, and I'd probably come in around 6.75 or so as my final number.

I hope this isn't more confusing, but the bottom line is simply that we're asked to compare modern courses against each other and classic courses against each other without mixing and matching and this is really the only way to accomplish that goal.  

Tom H.:  Thanks for the clarification and I concede the point.  But we both know that Sand Hills belongs in the top ten and Pacific Dunes not far from it on a combined list, and the biggest combined list (GOLF DIGEST's) is still nowhere close to that result.

Mike C.:  There may be an intent to reward preservation in the GOLFWEEK system for rating classic courses, but by publishing the list every year, John is more correct, the fact is they are encouraging clubs to mess around with their courses to improve upon their position.  It's not the only factor behind renovation/restoration -- way too many clubs are motivated from watching the pros on TV and wanting to preserve the aura of toughness for their guests -- but the rankings DO push clubs toward making changes.

Mike C.:  There may be an intent to reward preservation in the GOLFWEEK system for rating classic courses, but by publishing the list every year, John is more correct, the fact is they are encouraging clubs to mess around with their courses to improve upon their position.  It's not the only factor behind renovation/restoration -- way too many clubs are motivated from watching the pros on TV and wanting to preserve the aura of toughness for their guests -- but the rankings DO push clubs toward making changes.

Tom,

I'm not exactly sure that I agree with a "frequency of ratings quotient" having much to do with a classic club's decision to "upgrade", however they might define it.

I'm more inclined to believe that it's exactly the mixing of the lists between classic and modern that puts pressure on some clubs to "modernize" their course to keep up with the new kids on the block and to deal with the rampant changes in technology.  I don't think the fact the other magazines only publish their mixed lists every two years really negates this factor.  

And yes, both Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are in my "mixed" Top 10.  I know as an architect it is important to you to measure your work against the greatest courses of history and others you admire so I understand that value of a mixed list for someone like you.