[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Help me to understand something -- the constant thread in many things in life is to compare and contrast -- to assess -- to even place in some sort of listing / order. What's wrong with that? Last I checked the whole premise of the 19th hole is about such things. People want to know the particulars between how good "x" is versus that of "y."

When I read between your lines I get the sense that you think that "most" raters / reviewers (I guess you are speaking about me?) are nothing more than opportunists who seek to simply gain access to clubs and hoard them like private collectors do of special paintings and other works of art. Far from it.

I love the game -- I started playing on dog tracks and have never forgotten where I cam from. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I also love the various styles of course architecture and the manner by which new designers are coming forward with their own ideas. However, here on GCA I simply share my opinions (backed up by examples & analysis) with others -- in the end reality-- they are simply my opinions. If you don't like them you can disagree and give your reasons. But lobbing potshots doesn't serve any purpose.

The issue a number of architects have is twofold: many have giant size egos that prevent anyone from assessing their work. I've gotten the drift from some in the field that only "they" really understand their work. Really?

Second, the only way I can help myself understand what's going on is by playing a wide range of courses from around the country to see what trends, developments and breakthroughs are taking place. As a media member I comment for the publication I edit and the others I contribute to. I try to do the laborious fieldwork because unless you sample what's been done it becomes a bit of a stretch to even begin to think you can form some sort of an opinion.

Kelly, I don't know what you know or don't know about the media business but in my case we at Jersey Golfer are not in the business to simply extol the virtues of all courses SIMPLY to grab ad dollars or boost their egos. We analyze courses and tell people what we think. Some don't like it --  others do -- while others decide that since we have not "played the game" the way they want it to be played -- pull their $$ and go elsewhere for the same self-congratulatory commentary you see in so many publications --especially the regional ones. So be it. I would hope that those who read Jersey Golfer appreciate what we set out to do and have done for 13 years. Though people may disagree with our findings from time to time there is a genuine desire on our part to be an "independent" voice and present a view not controlled / shaped by ad dollars or heavy contributors.

I would hope instead of tapdancing with generalities in your long narrative that you speak with some sort of clarity about "who" you are referring to?

I take my responsibilties seriously as a golf journalist -- no less than you do as a golf architect -- and I make it a point to do the fieldwork necessary for me to write on the topics that readers are interested in. I don't pontificate from the comfort of my living room or make generalized course assessments simply from photographs or aerials -- I actually go there and see firsthand what's happening. You must have missed the part I itemized where I said I try to keep an "open mind" to what is taking place.

With all due respect -- before you wax on about general disgust with "most" of "us" who rate I would urge you to sharpen your pen and be a bit more precise with your lectures on who you believe is unable to reach the standards you fail to clarify.

GCA is a chat site and when a thread is posted people respond and many will try to illuminate the reasons behind their thinking. I see that as a good thing because we can all learn from one another. I also believe a willingness to learn and critique with specificity is what helps expand the knowledge of everyone through a two-way street mechanism.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Matt,

I said some, not most, and I do not subscribe to nor make it a point to read your magazine so my comments could not be directed at you or your magazine.  I hardly know you so when I made my comments I did not have you in mind, so why did you make that assumption?

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

When you push the rock of generalities off the cliff the damage it can cause below can be considerable. Specificity really cuts to the chase. I didn't believe you were referring to me, but there are plenty of people here on GCA and elsewhere who cloak there comments around such words as "most" and really don't provide any detail. It's just a way of painting comments with a wide brush.

I'm a big boy and can take the heat -- especially when it's justified. However, when people ask me to list my personal top 50 -- I did so -- while others failed to do likewise. I also made it a point to state my reasons. Clearly, it's just my opinion. But, I take issue with people who simply comment on courses that they have NEVER played or worse yet make broad comments about the work of another architect or site but still have not played the finished product (i.e. Karsten Creek and Olde Kinderhook).

Kelly, I don't doubt that the profusion of "raters" has become an issue. I've pointed it out a few times as have others. People who rate should have some idea on what it is they are rating. I also agree that a number of magazines put forward ratings with an idea to build readership. We do that at Jersey Golfer no less than Golf Digest and the others. We just believe that the manner by which we go about such a "review / rating" is done with people who have an eye for detail and are not swayed by all the hoopla and "most favored status" that some convey to those working the field. I don't see any sacred cows and I believe that sort of pragmatism works best. Hope this helps.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Matt - very well argued and an excellent post...

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

Okay, enough said.  I wish more of the doyens here (Ran M., Shackelford, Tom P., etc.) had been willing to post their own top 50 courses so we hadn't spent so much time parsing the nuances of yours and mine.

One point, though.  You "take exception to the fact that the architect of a course can rate his own courses" above.  In fact, in the GOLF Magazine rankings, architects are not allowed to vote on their own courses ... I'm the one who made that rule.  Yet despite saying so at least ten times in the last three years on GCA, this continues to be brought up erroneously in order to disparage the GOLF Magazine rankings, and I'm sick of it.

If you didn't mean it that way, well, then I don't see ANY reason why I should defer from ranking my own courses on my own personal list in this forum.  Those opinions weren't hidden behind a pseudonym or behind a bunch of numbers, and everyone here is perfectly able to consider the source.

Just wondering about your baseball analogy:  since I've never seen it, is Olde Kinderhook more like Barry Bonds, or like Frank Thomas or Nomar Garciaparra?

[Warren_Henderson]

If nothing else the last few responses are a great indication of just how passionate people can get when it comes to this topic. If you will indulge me I want to go back to a request I made earlier in this thread.

Tom:

You are some what ambiguous in your writing in one response you wrote:

I HAVE been to the Pete Dye Golf Club, The Kingsley Club, Arcadia Bluffs, Milwaukee CC and Skokie and while all of them have some good points (except for Arcadia) I would never give any of them a look at the top fifty ..

In a subsequent response your wrote:

I've already said I would never put Arcadia Bluffs or The Kingsley Club in the top fifty courses in the US.  I'm not going to do their architects a disservice by discussing why in this forum.

So which is it, do you not want to do a disservice to other architects by discussing specifics or will you continue to make back handed comments. I think it rather unprofessional to make such a back handed remark initially and then refuse to substantiate it. I do not take offense in the comment that you do not believe Arcadia is worthy of Top 50 consideration, I fully understand that this is a subjective opinion discussion and I respect everyone's opinion. I stand by my earlier submission that I welcome constructive criticism, so unless your comments are intended to be damaging versus constructive I would appreciate some elaboration as to why Arcadia has, in your words, no good points. If you recall I contacted you in the past as to your impressions of the course and your only remark was that you feared that you could not finish playing the course. Is this is a reference to your playing ability or just another back handed comment? You may, if you prefer, respond privately via e-mail.

Additionally, you appear to be justifying nominating your own work by suggesting that because other architects have done so than so should you. Should we accept this rationale or should we work to correct the system to make sure that architects can not promote their own work through the rankings systems? After all not all architects are members of rankings panels or have had the opportunity to compile and edit one either. I belive architects should be a part of these rankings but they should not be allowed to submit their own work. Like myself, I would assume that you are emotionally attached to all of your work. Should we not leave it to others to decide how our work stacks up against other courses? When it comes down to it ranking your own work can only be viewed as self promotion. How can anyone be expected to remove their emotional attachment to their own work and conduct an objective comparison?

Matt:

I agree with your position that new courses should be given consideration when compiling these lists. Is it blasphemous to suggest that a newer course could challenge the position of an old classic? We are to look at the merits of all courses as of today and decide which are most appealing and complete. Many on this site have taken up the discussion of using historical significance or tradition points as a factor in the rankings such as Golf Digest does. In fact if I recall Tom Doak submitted a points comparison of how the rankings would be effected should you eliminate this aspect. The purpose of this discussion, originally, was to submit one's personal Top 50. If we are to rank courses why cannot a course opening last year subplant one that opened 75 years ago? Tom appears to be concerned with longevity. At what point do you say that a course is no longer considered new and can be directly compared to the classics? If over time the newer course does not hold up, for what ever reason, than it will move out accordingly. You have to believe that some of the work being done today will be highly regarded not only today but 75 or 100 years from now.  

[CH_Alison]

Dear Mr Doak

I don't understand the Doak scale.  

My beloved Milwaukee is given an affectionate review in your book and an "excellent" score-7.  And yet you have no time for it in the Top 50.  So why are you happy to include other "7s" like Bethpage and Kiawah and even a "6" with Winged Foot East?

Is this inconsistency, or something to do with variety within the Top 50?

Yours sincerely

Hugh

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

I see Olde Kinderhook as a Roger Clemens type comparison. Roger is most certainly a Hall of Famer -- he's not at the same level as a Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton but he still has plenty to be included in that grouping although just a step behind. Olde Kinderhook is not a "Frank Thomas" course because there's more depth and variety than many will find at a number of other Rees Jones courses (no flash in pan course) including the one that just finished as "GD's best new private" last year -- The GC at Briar's Creek. I've seen plenty of Rees Jones courses and I've said this before his style of course design has certainly evolved IMHO from the days of Arcadia Shores and Sandpines, to name just two layouts certain GCAers love to punch and rightfully so I might add.

The issue for Olde Kinderhook is location and a bias that all "great" NY golf has to be in only two places -- Westchester and the Island with the exception of Oak Hill which I believe is a tad overrated. There's also this idea that if you have played one Rees Jones course then you've played them all is also a bit over the top IMHO.

I've yet to hear from anyone who has PLAYED Olde Kinderhook that doesn't think it's a first rate course. Yes, there are some (Redanman) who think I'm a bit out of mind for placing it as high as I do but I still believe it deserves it no less than what I posted previously om Karsten Creek. People who venture to OK sometimes only stop at Southern Hills and Oak Tree and pass on this TF layout. I guess the anti-TF people feel if you've seen one TF design then you've seen them all. That's laughable in the case of Karsten Creek.

Tom, I'm well versed in the "conflict of interest" laws that exist in my home state since I previously served as a president of my local school board and local planning board. People who have direct tie to something they have created are clearly in "conflict" in providing some sort of detached and independent review. That's just plain fact. If Golf Magazine permits such a thing then clearly it's going to cause a strong reaction regarding the overall fairness of the project as some architects who sit on the panel will be permitted to vote while other architects will have to sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.

I'll say this again -- I don't doubt there are great courses from years ago that still resonate with me and others. However, if people take the time to travel this great country you will find a number of outstanding gems that have been created by architects that exist today. I'm not even suggesting that a number of these courses should be "put on a pedestal" but when people hunker down and say classic course "X" must always be rated I think that's a bit much --particularly when there are stronger candidates to replace them.

I don't doubt the very mention of the word "greatness" is often tied to some ill-defined concept of time. I also clearly understand there is a tendency for people in today's world
to use the word "great" too loosely and liberally and to sometimes forget what has transpired. It's balancing the healthy respect for the past with an eye for greatness
when it appears that is challenging for any rater / reviewer.
It can be done provided people don't succumb to "sacred cow-itis."

But, I also believe that too many people are quick to always genuflect when certain courses are named and think they have the same standing as their more deserving neighbors (see Shinnecock / Maidstone as just one example!).

I would just say to those who don't travel quite frequently that there have been some truly superb new courses that have come forward in the last 15 years or so are not the private domain of just a few "most favored architects" that some in GCA wish to convey. People need to "get out in the field" and see what the hell is going on before bitching and sniping about this and that.

Mr. Alison:

I thoroughly enjoyed Milwaukee and believe it sometimes gets lost in the shuffle with all the fanfare that other courses in the state receive (i.e. Whistling Straits / Blackwolf Run).

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  I just wrote above that GOLF Magazine DOES NOT let architects (or course owners) vote on their own courses, so why do you continue to talk about "conflict of interest?"  Can you not read??

I also don't understand why anyone would think that my own criteria for greatness includes tradition or longevity.  I've argued against them for years; I had Sand Hills among my favorites before it opened.  It should not be surprising that my own list is closer to the consensus, because after all, I helped to build the consensus over the last twenty years ... a lot of the far-out courses which I voted for back then are on today's lists.  As for new courses, I am simply reluctant to anoint them until I've gotten to know them well; and I am turned off by the feeling that a course is overdone, which is where many otherwise interesting new courses go wrong.

Warren:  I was intending to write you a personal e-mail on this when I had a bit more time.  I really did not intend this thread to provide my complete comments on every course I put in the top fifty and every course I didn't, but it seems that people (even Hugh Alison!) will not let it go.

However, since you asked for it here (and sort of accused me of being disingenuous), I have been to Arcadia Bluffs twice now.  I went over with one of my interns to play this spring, but it was 45 degrees and pouring rain, and anyone who was on the course was quitting after a few holes, so we just walked it.  I didn't play because I didn't want to make my impression of the holes under those conditions ... although that does have some impact on my view of the course.

The course has several things going for it -- a great view of the lake, a great view from the clubhouse across the golf course, great conditioning, and some very interesting shaping.  (The shaping was better than Whistling Straits to me because you didn't stop with a bunch of catch basins at the margin of the fairways; you let contours continue beyond that.)

At the same time, I thought the shaping was overdone.  The "dunesland" is so steep and yet many of the fairways are relatively flat in the bottom; it's clearly different than the landforms in the woods to either side of the course.  The pot bunkers are big and deep, and really out of scale for that kind of hazard.  Was it really necessary to reshape so much of the property, or was that just your choice?

The real turn-off for me, though, were the green complexes.  Several of them (#13, #9, #6) had very deep sod-wall bunkers in front, and then the front of the green was raised so that most of the surface pitched away from the line of play.  How does anyone play #9 from 240 yards?  If the wind is following it doesn't look like anyone would hold the green; into the wind no one would get there.  Also, don't you think a 60-yard-long Biarritz green across a wasteland of bunkers at the end of a 600-yard par-5 seems a bit much?

There were also some awkward transitions in walking the course.  I understand that they changed your original sequence, and that they are looking to change it again; I hope they go back to what you wanted it to be.

That's my own taste.  A lot of people love the golf course; I think it's full every day this summer, wind and rain or not.  I'd rather play a course which has more subtlety, and hazards at the human scale.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Matt wrote:
"The issue a number of architects have is twofold: many have giant size egos that prevent anyone from assessing their work. I've gotten the drift from some in the field that only "they" really understand their work. Really? "

Matt wrote:

"I would hope instead of tapdancing with generalities in your long narrative that you speak with some sort of clarity about "who" you are referring to?"

I look forward to your specific list of whom you speak.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Mea culpa for my error in stating a position that you correctly stated at the outset -- senility must not be too far off for me. Nonetheless, we still have a different take on conmtemporary golf because I do believe there's too much divine status conveyed to a number of courses that have simply failed to stay up with the times we play golf TODAY. I rate golf courses that I play today -- not museum relics.

Tom, from reading your books and your posts I believe you fall into the camp of the neo-traditionalist. You espouse those elements in your courses and I enjoy a good many of them -- most notably -- Pacific Dunes which is a sheer joy to behold and most of all play. You certainly have a clear idea on what golf should be about and that's refreshing no doubt.

However, where you and I part company to some degree is the take on a number of new courses -- beyond the Bandon and Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills examples, that have come along in the last 10-15 years and IMHO merit serious study. I mentioned a few of them in my listing. If you get the opportunity and time to ever play them I'd be more than interested in your take.

Comment on the 9th at AB -- if you set the hole up correctly to deal with the wind issue the hole can be played with fairness in mind.

Kelly:

If you'd like you can contact me offline and I'd be happy to discuss more fully. Every architect I've ever met has an ego --some don't blow their horn too much and others think they have the perfect vision on what golf is all about and heaven help anyone who says otherwise. And nearly every architect has a definite opinion on the work of othe others in the field.

What happens in golf course architecture certainly strikes a chord with a great many people but I think it pays to have people who are not that connected to the profession provide their assessment as well.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Matt wrote:

"With all due respect -- before you wax on about general disgust with "most" (again I said some -KBM)of "us" who rate I would urge you to sharpen your pen and be a bit more precise with your lectures on who you believe is unable to reach the standards you fail to clarify.

GCA is a chat site and when a thread is posted people respond and many will try to illuminate the reasons behind their thinking. I see that as a good thing because we can all learn from one another. I also believe a willingness to learn and critique with specificity is what helps expand the knowledge of everyone through a two-way street mechanism. "

I believe you wanted to do this under the scrutiny of the GCA family.  Will it be a top 50 list of egomaniacs?  Will it be in a classical vs. modern format?  

[Matt_Ward]

Kelly:

Let's be clear -- for the pot to call the kettle black is a major league bit of a stretch -- isn't it? If memory serves you made a blanket assertion about raters (OK, you used the word "some" but clearly the disdain you feel came through loud and clear to me) and how they simply are in the business to milk free rounds at golf courses. I corrected that by stating to you there are issues with raters and those ideas have been discussed here on GCA and elsewhere and you most certainly don't throw the baby out with the bath oil.

I also said that having architects serve on ratings panels would not be so smart since many of the more "known" architects have a vested interest to promote their own projects. What's the big deal in admitting that architects have egos? Hello -- anybody home?

When I posted my listing at the behest of the person who started this thread I did so honestly and I made it a point to back up my personal conclusions. I don't see too many other people posting their listing - last I checked I don't see the listing of Mr. Kelly Blake Moran. I also believe my listing reflects a fair assessment of the best from courses that have been around quite some time and STILL have the wherewithal to be current with how golf is played TODAY. I have also sprinkled in a number of newer courses that I believe have added to the quality of architecture and should receive their rightful place as being among the best in the USA IMHO.

The botton line I said is that "new" courses deserve their fair share of consideration. There are "some" (using your word) on GCA who I have read love to pontificate about "this and that" about course architecture and simply fall back upon the "usual suspect" courses as being the "end all" for consideration when ratings come up for discussion.

All I said was that if people really took the time to travel the country and venture outside the s-a-m-e orbit of courses they always play they would be surprised to see what's happening -- especially among the new architects who are getting their opportunity to work with grand sites like Baxter Spann had with Black Mesa, to name justone example. Warren Henderson spoke about Arcadia Bluffs and I personally believe it's one of the 50 best I've played in the States. Others (Tom Doak) see it differently and he posted his reasons why. That's the nature of these discussions and I credit those who post their reasoning as I try to do.

I hope this helps you understand what I am saying. If
not -- send me an offline e-mail and I'll be happy to discuss further. Adios partner ...

[Warren_Henderson]

Tom:

Thanks for the reply. In response to some of your comments/questions I offer the following.

The shaping concept and final look of the golf course evolved over the course of construction. A number of factors led me to implementing the final concept. Some of them included the requirement of clearing along the western most edge so that the bluff line could be regraded to prevent water from going over at various locations thereby assisting in reducing the erosion effect. The incorporation of two large storm water detention basins into the course as required by the engineering and managment of runoff and to construct the 14th hole the valley lying between two large land forms had to be filled some 15 feet to create sufficient play space, the original area was barely wide enough to accomodate a two track trail. Once these areas had all been worked and the slopes of 14 graded down into the hole to provide the fill needed, it was agreed that the surrounding topo was bland at best and too far removed from the holes. Adding to the decision was the owners recent trip to Ireland and his desire to incorporate some of the images he had in his mind. We set out to create the appearance of a more rugged terrain, the effect of one impacted by long exposure to wind and to bring the land forms into the holes for framing and strategic elements. I would not agree that the fairways are any where near flat, in fact in dry weather it is hard to get the ball to stop rolling. The size of the property did allow me to provide for width. I think this is important because in my experience in playing courses with a fair amount of grade change and claiming the "minimalist" label, the ball tends to always be funneled to the same 1 or at most 2 spots in the fairway. This limits the players options and overtime creates a far too predictable round.

The scale of the bunkering is directly related to the impression the overall site had on me from the outset. With the exception of perhaps 2 holes you can view as much 50% of the course from most any location on the property. The width of the fairways and the size of the greens gave me a comfort level to incorporate such large scale features/hazards. As far as your comment that the bunkers are out of scale for that kind of hazard than I would say that I succeeded. It was not my intention to copy any particular set of standards for these bunkers. I would go so far as to say that there are few if any courses that have used sod wall bunkers in the form and scale that I implemented at Arcadia.

While the greens complexes refferred to all have fronting bunkers only number 9 is sod walled, 13 and 6 being of the native style also found on the course. Your assertion that most of the playing surface is pitched away from the line of play is incorrect. The greens on the course average over 8,000 square feet and the bunkers fronting the above mentioned greens have a portion of the green that ties into the back side of the bunkers which do in fact break away from play, but not the entire surface. I personally do not have a problem with this concept when applied to large scale greens, particularly when there is enough green area to use this slope to aid play as much as it may act to penalize. In the case of 13 and 6 the back slope of these bunkers can be used to assist in feeding a sand shot to the pin location more often than working to run a shot beyond the hole.

At 240 yards from the tips, hole 9 is a fun and exciting tee shot but not in a north wind. Because of this you may have noted that there are 7 individual teeing grounds on this hole so that the wind, pace of play and presence of rain can be accounted for. From the rear tee it is only the fronting wind out of the north that becomes prohibitive. With a trailing wind I have seen a 6 iron land safely on the green. The elevation change and large size of the green allows for this.

No, I do not think that a Biarritz style green is a bit much on the par five 5th. While the hole is listed at 583 yards (not the 600 you suggest), it plays much shorter than this. A well struck tee shot up the left side of the fairway leaves the player with an exciting decision to go for the green. The angle of the green and the left side approach make this a very real opportunity. If succesfully navigated than the challenge for eagle or birdie must over come the nuances of the green. For those electing to lay up the wedge required into this green is very fair and provides the excitement that the first two shots lack.

The golf course at Arcadia Bluffs actually has four different routing alternatives. Two with returning nines and two as continual 18 hole loops. The one currently in use was chosen by the owner to place an emphasis on the lake in the closing holes of 15 through 17, 18 playing away from the lake back up to the clubhouse. Next year the course will utilize one of the returning nine options which has far better connections form one hole to the next.

Finally, I certainly hope you get to play the course in the near future. I think it will impact your initial impressions particularly in light of your closing comment. The scale and grandeur of Arcadia masks what the key of the course is and that is subtleties. For all of its boldness only by playing the course can you begin to appreciate the fine lines of distinction between a great shot or mis hit along with the options and decisions that abound. Sounds like a marketing brochure but its my opinion and I believe it to be true.

Let me know if you have time to return, perhaps I can meet you up there for a round.

[George Pazin]

Sometimes it's a little tough getting there, but I think the last exchange between Tom Doak & Warren Henderson highlights many of the best elements of this site.

Thanks for sharing with the rest of us what you're thinking. The site's better for it.

[golfguy5610]

Tom Doak:

I see Olde Kinderhook as a Roger Clemens type comparison. Roger is most certainly a Hall of Famer -- he's not at the same level as a Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton but he still has plenty to be included in that grouping although just a step behind. Olde Kinderhook is not a "Frank Thomas" course because there's more depth and variety than many will find at a number of other Rees Jones courses (no flash in pan course) including the one that just finished as "GD's best new private" last year -- The GC at Briar's Creek. I've seen plenty of Rees Jones courses and I've said this before his style of course design has certainly evolved IMHO from the days of Arcadia Shores and Sandpines, to name just two layouts certain GCAers love to punch and rightfully so I might add.

The issue for Olde Kinderhook is location and a bias that all "great" NY golf has to be in only two places -- Westchester and the Island with the exception of Oak Hill which I believe is a tad overrated. There's also this idea that if you have played one Rees Jones course then you've played them all is also a bit over the top IMHO.

I've yet to hear from anyone who has PLAYED Olde Kinderhook that doesn't think it's a first rate course. Yes, there are some (Redanman) who think I'm a bit out of mind for placing it as high as I do but I still believe it deserves it no less than what I posted previously om Karsten Creek. People who venture to OK sometimes only stop at Southern Hills and Oak Tree and pass on this TF layout. I guess the anti-TF people feel if you've seen one TF design then you've seen them all. That's laughable in the case of Karsten Creek.

Tom, I'm well versed in the "conflict of interest" laws that exist in my home state since I previously served as a president of my local school board and local planning board. People who have direct tie to something they have created are clearly in "conflict" in providing some sort of detached and independent review. That's just plain fact. If Golf Magazine permits such a thing then clearly it's going to cause a strong reaction regarding the overall fairness of the project as some architects who sit on the panel will be permitted to vote while other architects will have to sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.

I'll say this again -- I don't doubt there are great courses from years ago that still resonate with me and others. However, if people take the time to travel this great country you will find a number of outstanding gems that have been created by architects that exist today. I'm not even suggesting that a number of these courses should be "put on a pedestal" but when people hunker down and say classic course "X" must always be rated I think that's a bit much --particularly when there are stronger candidates to replace them.

I don't doubt the very mention of the word "greatness" is often tied to some ill-defined concept of time. I also clearly understand there is a tendency for people in today's world
to use the word "great" too loosely and liberally and to sometimes forget what has transpired. It's balancing the healthy respect for the past with an eye for greatness
when it appears that is challenging for any rater / reviewer.
It can be done provided people don't succumb to "sacred cow-itis."

But, I also believe that too many people are quick to always genuflect when certain courses are named and think they have the same standing as their more deserving neighbors (see Shinnecock / Maidstone as just one example!).

I would just say to those who don't travel quite frequently that there have been some truly superb new courses that have come forward in the last 15 years or so are not the private domain of just a few "most favored architects" that some in GCA wish to convey. People need to "get out in the field" and see what the hell is going on before bitching and sniping about this and that.

Mr. Alison:

I thoroughly enjoyed Milwaukee and believe it sometimes gets lost in the shuffle with all the fanfare that other courses in the state receive (i.e. Whistling Straits / Blackwolf Run).

[golfguy5610]

Matt:
Who, as you claim, has included Maidstone in a Top 50 list only because of its proximity to Shinnecock?? That's a really absurd observation. No one's genuflecting to Maidstone because  it's down the road from Shinnecock. People are genuflecting to Maidstone  because it's lofty ranking  is deserving. Anyone who has played there yet this year can certainly attest to how great the course is. Shinnecock is in a class by itself, so is Maidstone. It doesn't ride on anyone's coattails.

[Matt_Ward]

golfguy5610:

Glad to see you have the "guts" to post your thoughts. I disagree with your take on Maindstone -- in my mind -- the course is really about the dunes holes -- the 9th and 14th are truly supreme examples of this type. The rest is just vanilla and if anyone truly believes that having a "Hampton" address doesn't help the status of Maidstone then I've got land to sell you in the Jersey Meadowlands! This same "in the neighborhood" effect is certainly an influencer in my opinion with a few other courses as well. If you think there's no coattails -- so be it -- but as "absurd" as you may think my take is on this I would urge you to post your own listing so I and others can see what you believe are the 50 best you've played.

I've lived in the NY / NJ metro area all my life and am proud to say that we DO have a number of outstanding courses and there are a few among the best in the country -- in my own listing I put SH, NGLA and WF / West among my personal top ten. However, there are a few IMHO that glom off the legitimate greatness of others and although Maidstone is still a fine course I don't see how you can equate the total 18 holes pacakage against the likes of others that I have mentioned. To give you just one example -- for too long Plainfield CC in Jersey has been vastly underrated as a supreme layout and for whatever the reason has been consistently rated behind Maidstone until most recently, but the difference between the two is greater than what is usually listed.

[mark chalfant]

Tom welcome back.


My changes are............

Philadephia in               Baltusrol out
Milwaukee  in               Cascades out
Firethorn    in               Spyglass out

Brookside (Ross) in        Medinah out
Metacomet in               Oak Hill  out
Wakonda   in                Olympic  out
Lawsonia   in                Inverness out

[cary lichtenstein]

bump

[Jay Flemma]

I'd vote off Scioto and Spyglass and Cascades and add Black Mesa and Tobacco Road.

Good call on Sawgrass Tom.

[bstark]

  Winged Foot East and Baltustrol Lwr. out.....

  Yale GC and Mayacama in.........

[Jason Blasberg]

The 50 best (as I can now recall) I've played (or walked substantially) in order from Northeast to Way out West:

Cape Arundel
Boston Golf Club
Old Sandwich
Yale
Winged Foot West
Quaker Ridge
Fenway
Wykagyl
Montauk Downs
Shinnecock
Laurel Links
Westhampton
LI National
Fox Hill
Tall Grass
St. George's
Bethpage Black
Piping Rock
The Creek
Garden City Golf Club
Engineers
Seawane
Rockaway Hunt
Mountain Ridge
Trump National, NJ
Baltustrol, Lower
Huntingdon Valley
Hidden Creek
Galloway National
Bulle Rock
Royal New Kent
Golden Horseshoe
Heathland
Caledonia
Tobacco Road
The Ocean Course
Cuscowilla
TPC Sawgrass
Doral/Blue
Prairie Dunes
Whistling Straights
The River Course
Stone Canyon
Pebble Beach
Spanish Bay
Pacific Dunes
Bandon Dunes
Plantation Course

I've got lots more travelling to do!!
 

[Andrew Cunningham]

Jim Lewis,

How can you rank Pine Needles ahead of Forest Creek North?  I loved the restoration but come on....

Andrew

[Mark Arata]

Wow this is a long thread to read through.....


Out- Bandon Dunes
In - Blackwolf Run
Out- Spyglass
In-Pasatiempo
Out-World Woods
In - Plainfield


My other comment reading through this is that anyone who has seen Fishers Island and doesnt think it is a top 50 course is insane.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()