Huffman suggests that an "Eastern bias" keeps more Arizona courses out of the rankings, but I suspect that a bias against housing developments has more to do with it.  A couple of other courses in the desert have been ranked in the top 100 not long after they opened, only to slip back once the houses started crowding in.

There are a lot of good desert courses, but unfortunately they all look very much alike, so it's hard to support one above the rest.

I think TomD is very much on the right track concerning desert courses....if I have the chance to build one [soon], it surely will not have hard contrasting edges.

I do believe many panelists are biased, mostly at least on GD towards Fazio & Nicklaus courses.  

As for Arizona, I have to believe they get alot of panelists there so there is no shortage of votes. As Tom Doak has said, there is only enough room for 100 courses.  New Mexico has none, Nevada has 1 in Shadow Creek which isn't a desert course and Palm Springs has 1 or 2 which probably properly represents the desert courses.  Palm Springs probably could make a better argument that its not represented better than Arizona?

Do you thnk Mr. Huffman will ever re-evaluate his notion of what constitutes great golf?

Red pulled it off in Carefree.

Adam, I agree with your assessment of Desert Forest where Lawrence managed to somehow pull of a links like feel with fabulous yet subtle fairway contouring and understated green complexes and simple bunkering.  It is a worthy member of many lists, but perhaps enjoys a little bit of favored nation status due to its pioneering.

Mike

Desert Golf in Arizona or Palm Springs is fun and enjoyable but is it great golf?  

Not usually, I think we could probably expand the housing development analysis to the resort course effect.  

A snowbird flies down from the northlands to get some rest and relaxation in the desert.  The resort operator doesn't want to stress our poor tired masses with too much thought, so they have a course built with lots of eye candy and not much substance; push the bunkers to the sides, provide nice broad landing areas and supply more eye candy to drive the beverage cart. Voila la a course that the warming snowbird loves that simply does not impress the well travelled if not jaded course rater.  

Create some strategy and suspense and mix in some beautiful bunkers, a nice old clubhouse and the rater goes ga-ga.  

This is all about knowing your market, if the desert folks want rankings they are going to have to take the risk of building a different kind of golf course.  I wonder whether they are really willing to take that risk?

I love golf in every state...Let's not forget that with 50 states and only 100 courses somebody is going to get shorted.

I think TomD is very much on the right track concerning desert courses....if I have the chance to build one [soon], it surely will not have hard contrasting edges.

Good point.  One of the things I like best about Talking Stick North is the seamless transition from grass to native areas.  In some places this is done by having the inside (fairway) side of bunkers more finished and the outside (desert) side melding into the native area.  

Lots of other desert courses it's unfortunately more of an emerald green to dirt and rocks.

Tom D, et al:

If one is going to use the "housing clutter" argument -- then the same situation should apply to other courses in different parts of the country -- not just AZ. In the Northeast you have courses that were previously out "in the country" and now are engulfed with housing but are still rated very high.

The reality is that sectional bias is certainly a part of at least a percentage of the people who rate courses -- this is not just narrow to AZ but to the greater area of the SW and includes the southern tier of the mountan time zone.

What is that percentage of bias? Well, that's hard to pinpoint with 100% certainty. But when votes are very close there's little doubt in my travels, and in my time as a rater for two different major publications, that such a situation does happen.

You also have a feeling by a number of raters that desert golf is somehow less than real golf because of the unnatural setting for golf in such an arid climate.

Many times you also have raters who only make one or two visits to a given area and forever TAG that area as being incomplete or lacking.

I can say this with a high degree of certainty -- unless you make periodic visits to different areas you will forever hold to an outdated perspective on what is developing.

Huffman's comments -- while not completely accurate when focused alone on AZ -- do have merit when applied more broadly from my own experiences.

P.S. Jerry K:

Blackstone is indeed a fine layout by Engh and should be looked at very carefully for possible national consideration. Or let me put it this way - Blackstone is the far better layout than Sanctuary which is consistently rated by the top pubs as one of the USA's top 100 courses.

Matt--

I sometimes wonder about whether some courses get a pass on homes being nearby and some that don't.  There are homes on Winged Foot, Merion East, and Pebble Beach among others, yet for some reason they aren't noticeable and detract from the round.  The knock is made on development courses that the golf course was built with homes in mind and for some reason homes seem to be very noticeable.  Also, years of tree growth help, but that's not going to happen in the desert.  

The one major exception to the development homes issue is Wade Hampton where William McKee did a great job of keeping homes out of site and/or blended in.  I know I'll get blamed for being a homer on this one.  

Adam:

Keep in mind this -- you have certain sections of the country -- take my area of the Northeast -- where secondary courses glom onto the bright light of the more noted neighbors and get rated because they happen to be "in the neighborhood."

No doubt the Northeast is the home of the best overall private golf in the country -- however, there are a number of courses that simply would not be rated if placed in another section and not immediately near to those that are rightly among the country's best.

For what it's worth Adam -- I am not a big time fan of WH and I believe there are a about a dozen other TF courses that get short shrift for national consideration -- see the likes of Glenwild, Karsten Creek, Dallas National, etc, etc. I also think it helps WH that some very connected people play there and have affiliations with other key clubs through the SE.

One unrelated question - is WH now more playable because of improved drainage -- in the two times I have played the course -- in the summer -- it's always exceedingly wet and the turf quite heavy.