Has anyone noticed the mediocrity that has snuck on the Golfweek Classic top 100

« **on:** October 31, 2007, 12:05:12 PM »

A link: http://www.golfweek.com/lifestyles/golfweeksbest/classic/

I counted a full 29 courses that don't strike me as must plays. Don't even ask which 29. What is your count and how can you explain the obvious mediocrity in what is supposed to be the cream of the crop.

Like I said earlier...Colonial at 48 above Newport is hilarious.

« **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2007, 04:50:33 PM »

Some are born to mediocrity, others achieve mediocrity, and a few have mediocrity thrust upon them.

« **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2007, 05:32:04 PM »

Being from the Northwest, it's hard not to see Sahalee on here. Maybe the trees are too tall!

« **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2007, 05:37:11 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on October 31, 2007, 12:05:12 PM

Don't even ask which 29.

Wuss.

« **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2007, 05:58:31 PM »

I tend to agree, but I'm trying to reconcile the ranking with a level of "must play", and all I can come up with is as follows, but I don't think it's a good measure.

Would you pay $2000 for a foursome to play a top ten? I'm sure most wouldn't pay that for 91-100. So maybe the fair measure is something less $100 less for every group of ten, asking if you'd pay $1000 for a foursome to play 91-100.

Or would you drop everything to play there tomorrow? Probably not a fair test, since the likelihoos of "yes" drops as you move down the list.

Looking at it either way, I think it fair to say 30% wouldn't pass muster.

« **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:22:20 PM »

John:

Was the list actually better five years ago, or are there just not 100 courses which would qualify in your eyes?

« **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:31:01 PM »

Quote from: Steve Okula on October 31, 2007, 04:50:33 PM

Some are born to mediocrity, others achieve mediocrity, and a few have mediocrity thrust upon them.

Examples from the list of each?

« **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:35:50 PM »

I think part of it is that there are more modern must plays than five years ago. In five more years the modern list should surpass the classic.

« **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:54:22 PM »

"I think part of it is that there are more modern must plays than five years ago. In five more years the modern list should surpass the classic."

I don't know what you mean by that remark, John. However, I will ask you this, if you had to (ignoring access or distance) confine yourself to only playing courses built before 1960 or courses built after 1960, which would you choose?

I can't imagine a modern 100 list exceeding the quality of the classic 100 list anytime in the foreseeable future even though the number of courses in each group must be reasonably similar.

« **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:23:51 PM »

I wouldn't really say mediocrity, I've played about half of the classic list and there are maybe 3 courses where my reaction was "How in the world did this course end up on a top 100 list" But even these courses are still great, just not top 100 in the country great.

I don't think the modern list will ever surpass the classic list because people continue to "discover" classic courses because of a new restoration or because the course is finally getting publicity. I can think of several examples of both on the current list.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:23:55 PM »

Meanwhile Eastward Ho and Engineers are in the low 80s, nothing but must must must plays for those two. Watch for them to both advance I suspect.

« **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:46:58 PM »

John,

I've played 36 of them and I don't think there are more than 2 I'd question ranking as high as the Top 100...

Of course, from my own personal tastes, I might shuffle a number of them around and as mentioned by others, I think there are a number of tremendous courses now sitting somewhere around 70-90 that I think should rate higher.

I also suspect that some courses in the midwest and southwest might not rank quite so highly but there is a bit of a provincial factor in any listing.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:51:04 PM »

MPCirba: So YOU are the snobby East Coast bias in the ratings.

You are just lucky that Matt Ward is not around to correct you on your disregard for all the wonderful modern courses in New Mexico and Colorado [where he can drive it 360 yards].

« **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:53:37 PM »

What happened to Matt Ward?

« **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:57:43 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on October 31, 2007, 08:51:04 PM

MPCirba: So YOU are the snobby East Coast bias in the ratings.

You are just lucky that Matt Ward is not around to correct you on your disregard for all the wonderful modern courses in New Mexico and Colorado [where he can drive it 360 yards].

Tom,

Yes, I'm the effete, northeast, intellectual, snobbish liberal who is to blame for not only the bias in the rankings, but also all of the ills of the country and world if you listen to Rush and Hannity.

Speaking of Matt Ward, I'm thinking we need to put an APB out on him. I'm picturing him broken down somewhere on a dirt road in northeast Idaho, hitching a ride in the back of a flatbed pickup, riding with the hogs in the straw, talking to the driver a mile a minute through the back window panel about doing the heavy lifting.

« **Reply #15 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:33:38 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on October 31, 2007, 07:54:22 PM

I don't know what you mean by that remark, John. However, I will ask you this, if you had to (ignoring access or distance) confine yourself to only playing courses built before 1960 or courses built after 1960, which would you choose?

I of course would choose to play only courses built after 1960. A perfect example is my upcoming trip to Madison...I see Erin Hills as a must play and could give a damn about Lawsonia. I have a bias towards living architects.

« **Reply #16 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:40:24 PM »

Quote from: JKBlasberg on October 31, 2007, 08:23:55 PM

Meanwhile Eastward Ho and Engineers are in the low 80s, nothing but must must must plays for those two. Watch for them to both advance I suspect.

I agree that Engineers is a must play...Eastward Ho, so, so..

« **Reply #17 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:43:37 PM »

Quote from: Cory Lewis on October 31, 2007, 08:23:51 PM

I don't think the modern list will ever surpass the classic list because people continue to "discover" classic courses because of a new restoration or because the course is finally getting publicity. I can think of several examples of both on the current list.

Discover...How many courses that you discover a need to play are new compared to old? I think everyone will agree that eventually courses built after 1960 will surpass those built before. It is just a matter of when, 10 years, 20, 30 or 50. I'm just a touch ahead of the curve at 5 years.

« **Reply #18 on:** October 31, 2007, 10:18:45 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on October 31, 2007, 07:35:50 PM

I think part of it is that there are more modern must plays than five years ago. In five more years the modern list should surpass the classic.

Of course the methodology would probably achieve exactly what you are highlighting. With the Modern/Classic break put at 1960 some 11-12 years ago; assuming half the courses then were before and half after the date. I'm not sure how many modern courses have been added to the pool during this 11 year period but it would probably be at least a couple of thousand. So more Modern plays in the next five years would be obvious.

And your point was?

« **Reply #19 on:** October 31, 2007, 10:23:27 PM »

John,

You would give up Shinnecock, Merion, Pine Valley, Crystal Downs, Cypress Point, Prairie Dunes, Chicago GC, Kittansett, Myopia and all the other classic greats to play Erin Hills?

It takes all kinds, and you are one of a kind, John

I think I would be hard pressed to come up with 10 modern courses that I could put into a list of my 100 favorite American courses.

« **Reply #20 on:** October 31, 2007, 10:45:36 PM »

Wayne, How many modern's have you played in the last five years?

JB- No, I had trouble noticeing that.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 31, 2007, 11:13:51 PM »

Wayne,
I have admittedly lived in parts of the country that lend themselves to playing many more modern courses than classic ones, but I think you'd be missing out if you limited yourself too heavily to either list.

From looking at all the lists and people's opinions here and otherwise it would appear the classic list is somewhat top heavy whereas the modern list has more depth. Of course at some level even that (on either end) comes down to personal preference.

My biggest question regardng the GW Classic list is whether there are really 80 classic courses better than Point O'Woods. Personally, I think not.

« **Reply #22 on:** October 31, 2007, 11:36:16 PM »

Mike Wagner,

I believe Sahalee has an opening of around 1969.

Played their many times since my cousin moved over there and became a member. Since that time has been a favourite cousin. Wish I had more like her.

Bob Jenkins

« **Reply #23 on:** October 31, 2007, 11:47:24 PM »

I'm with John Kavanaugh on this one. He and I have discussed this before, not in such specific terms.

Let's draw the line at 1980. Me and John get to play everything built after 1980 for the rest of our lives, versus the classics. That means JK and I get everything by Fazio, Nicklaus, Doak, the Jones brothers, and Coore/Crenshaw, including those they haven't even built yet. Plus we get most of Pete Dye's courses. And that's only the famous guys.

« **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2007, 12:01:31 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on October 31, 2007, 09:43:37 PM

Quote from: Cory Lewis on October 31, 2007, 08:23:51 PM

I don't think the modern list will ever surpass the classic list because people continue to "discover" classic courses because of a new restoration or because the course is finally getting publicity. I can think of several examples of both on the current list.

Discover...How many courses that you discover a need to play are new compared to old? I think everyone will agree that eventually courses built after 1960 will surpass those built before.

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. I THINK YOU SAY THESE THINGS TO GET A RISE OUT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS HERE. I FIND THIS STATEMENT AMAZING WHEN YOU HEAR SO MANY ARCHITECTS GO TO THE "WELL THEY HAD BETTER LAND AVAILABLE BACK THEN. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL RED TAPE WE HAVE TO CUT THROUGH." ETC, ETC, ETC. IF ALL THIS WAS TRUE, HOW CAN THEY EVER SURPASS THE OLD? OR IS THIS STATEMENT AN EASY EXCUSE? WE HAVE SOME AMAZING ARCH'S TODAY PRODUCING SOME VERY GOOD STUFF, BUT SURPASS? MAYBE EQUAL, BUT NOT SURPASS.

It is just a matter of when, 10 years, 20, 30 or 50. I'm just a touch ahead of the curve at 5 years.

I'D SAY TOUCHED IN THE HEAD, NOT A TOUCH AHEAD.

I THINK THE ONUS FALLS ON YOU, JK, TO EXPLAIN WHY HAVEN'T POST 1960'S DESIGNS SURPASSED PRE 1960? AND HOW DO YOU THINK MODERN ARCH'S WILL GO ABOUT SURPASSING THE GA'S?

News:

John Kavanaugh

Steve Okula

Mike Wagner

Mike Hendren

Powell Arms

Tom_Doak

K. Krahenbuhl

John Kavanaugh

wsmorrison

Cory Lewis

Jason Blasberg

Mike_Cirba

Tom_Doak

Chris Kane

Mike_Cirba

John Kavanaugh

John Kavanaugh

John Kavanaugh

W.H. Cosgrove

wsmorrison

Adam Clayman

Andy Troeger

Bob Jenkins

John Kirk

David Stamm