Robert,

I take the point of your post as being about the # of Canadian raters affecting the number of Canadian courses on the GD list.

It's interesting that you end up mentioning 8 possible top 100's - still a fair number.  I just don't agree that the other courses mentioned are bland.  They may be not top 100 in the world, but even Angus Glen I find interesting.  Now, courses in Florida, that could be considered bland (and, no, I have not played Seminole).

As to comparing them to Scottish courses, I can't comment on Gleneagles, but of the ones I have played I wouldn't put Turnberry near the top.  The first few holes are ordinary, as are some of the ones after 11, if I recall correctly.  The ones along the ocean are magnificent, no doubt.  A lot of the Scottish courses struck me that way - many wonderful holes, with some ordinary holes thrown in.  The 7th at Dornoch comes to mind, although I loved the rest of the course.

Ian,

I'm not sure what you found "average" about Greywolf. It has to be one of the most outstanding properties I've ever had the pleasure of taking in. I guess our ideals on golf architecture just differ.

RE:Predator Ridge.

I played it about 10 years ago and plan to play it again this summer. It has to have the most brutal greens this side of Augusta National, and easily the toughest in B.C. Not quite as fast (what course does have faster greens than AN?) but mostly multi-tiered and sloped. Easy to 3 putt if you hit the wrong section, and I had a few roll back towards me as well as roll right off the green.

The original 18 was mostly open "linksland" with heavy fescue surrounding each hole. You'd find other balls in there before you'd find yours. They've jumbled all the holes around since adding the 9 new holes, but the layout used to be:

Hole 1:Osprey 1
Hole 2:Red Tail 3
Hole 3:Red Tail 4
Hole 4:Red Tail 5
Hole 5:Red Tail 8
Hole 6:Osprey 2
Hole 7:Osprey 3
Hole 8:Osprey 4
Hole 9:Osprey 9
Hole 10:Peregrine 1
Hole 11:Peregrene 2 This is where the timber started
Hole 12:Peregrine 6
Hole 13:Peregrine 7
Hole 14:Peregrine 8
Hole 15:Peregrine 9 Back into the open here
Hole 16:Red Tail 1
Hole 17:Red Tail 2
Hole 18:Red Tail 9

So really there is no "new" nine, they built new holes all around the property in different places and mixed them all in to make 3 nines. I'm sure I heard they want to add 9 more to make 2 courses there eventually. Unfortunately, Google doesn't have high res of the area, but if you look at what they DO have, there is some clear cut that is probably residential, but some of it could be new holes.

The Peregrine 9 is essentially considered the "new nine" since it is comprised mostly of treelined holes (2 to 8,), and the topography is a little more severe compared to the open ones.

The difference is Capilano finishes really, really strong. Hamilton doesn't. 17 and 18 are good holes, but I'm not a big fan of the preceeding three.

That string of bunkers down the right side of 15 at Ancaster is terribly unattactive in my view. And, although I don't know the details, it seems to me that 16 was goofed up with the introduction of Robinson's course during the mid 1970s. There's something strange about the angle of the shot from the tee.

I think 14 thru 18 at Capilano competes with any finishing stretch in the world.

Ed, when you consider the population base and suitable land available in Canada is about 1/10th of the USA, I'd say our tally of "great" golf courses is about right.

Thompson was really on his own up here and he could only do so much.

I do believe, like elsewhere, Canada has turned the corner architecturaly and will produce many worthy designs in the near future.  I think in some cases it just takes a while for a course to assume greatness.

First of all, I think Highlands, St. Georges and Banff are all deserving of top 100 status. Hamilton would be if the bunkers were restored and Jasper and Capilano are right on the cusp.

A shorter season and less usable coastline are what held back greatness and the lack of truly great architects working.

Great is a pretty vague term though and I would reckon that Toronto has 10-15 courses that would kill Chicago or Detroit's top 15, yet they are celebrated less because the majority of American's do not play them. So when we are talking about truly great, I think it is clear that lots of what is on the top 100 in the world is probably not great either. I think Canada's top five would blow away:
Ocean Forest
Congressional (Blue)
Cherry Hills
Homestead (Cascades)
East Lake
Colonial

and all of those courses make the bottom of the World top 100.

To Bryan's original question, my problem is not that Golf Digest had as many courses, but that they had the wrong ones. I think to some extent that comes from raters coming to see the new flashy courses, but not staying for the rest.

In our top 25 in Canada, 16 are within three hours of Toronto and I do not know many Americans that have returned often enough to see more than the top five or so.

I think it might be more interesting to consider how many courses would make the Top 100 in the U.S., I think quite a few. Because they cannot make the world top 100, does not mean there is lots of "great' golf in Canada.

Ben, which ones IYO would make that top 100 US list?

Ed,

The land definitely exists here in Canada to build some truly phenomenal golf courses. A public or private version of the Sand Hills/Sutton Bay model has not been tried here, and I do not know if we have the market place to sustain such a venture. I think it would need to tap the large marketplace to the south, but I think Americans are more interested in our ski slopes than our golf courses.

TK

Mick,

You're right. I knew about the Sagebrush project, but was not aware of the membership structure. It does differ in that homesites are slatted within the golf course routing - perhaps 2nd homes for the members.

TK

I need to get finished school and get a job so I can get out there to play, or YOU need to come out here and build a golf course or two! Christ, would someone PLEASE give us a good seaside links-style course out here? It's "NEW SCOTLAND", for God's sake!!!!

This is one of my frustrations too. With all of the coastline in Nova Scotia there are very few seaside courses of the type  that would also belong in Scotland. Certainly the 4 or 5 holes at Chester qualify but the rest of the course is not at that level. I think of what Hartlen Point could be if someone took over the property and reconfigured the road and the holes by the ocean.

The golf course proposed for the Inverness site in Cape Breton could be spectacular if they ever get it off the ground. It is on the site of a former strip mine and overlooks the ocean. There was talk of hiring Nicklaus to design it which I thought was a pipe dream. I have no idea if the project is even still alive or if so, who they have as a designer. Money seemed to be an issue so I think they were hoping to attract investors by using the Nicklaus name.

I have seen the routing plan for the proposed new 27 holes at the new site of Brightwood as done by Les Furber and it looks interesting, but since it is not on the coast it will not be a links. There is a large lake that the course wraps around and that offers potential. But of course it is hard to tell much from a plan view so time will tell. The plan shows an island green (an existing natural island apparently) so that will either be great or gimmicky.

Robert,
   What makes Les and Graham mediocre in your opinion? Formulaic routings, boring greens, or what?
   Do you think either has had a spectacular piece of land that they underperformed with?
   What would you say are their respective design strengths and weaknesses in general?
   Thanks in advance.

Ed: Let's start with Les. Take a course like Silver Tip in Canmore. Les lives there, so there should have been some attention to detail. Maybe he even thinks he did a good job. Anyway, it is a bad, bad mountain course, with one cart ride between holes of 5 minutes. The routing consistently gives a player a downhill tee shot and then has them ride up the hill to try it all again. Ugh. Predator was much better -- but the other course I played in Kelowna that was done by Les was so tight and so close to housing as to be almost unplayable.

As for Graham, let's take Fox Harb'r, probably his best known project. It is a seaside course with a big budget, the personal playground of a well-known businessman. Half of the routing is in the forest, a pretty standard course. Nothing bad, nothing too interesting. The second half is pure linksland -- right on the ocean looking across at PEI. With such a site, you just have to get out of the way -- the course is there. Instead, you get a routing that runs alongside, but never at, the ocean, with only two holes taking advantage of its location. It is full of over-shaped bumps and poor green locations. And the worst part is the finishing hole -- which runs away from the sea and towards the clubhouse -- marginal at best, but what a waste! Standing on the 18th tee, all one has to do is look down towards the ocean and the green site is so obvious. This could have been one of the best finishing holes in golf -- instead there is a par three course at the location of what should be the final hole. That was the owner's idea -- but Graham should have fought hard for it.
The truth is that Graham has also taken a lot of credit for work at Highlands Links that is pretty bad, and then lobbied to get his name alongside Stanley Thompson on Golf's list of the Top 100. That is enough to put me off -- but if you've seen Highlands' cart paths, you'd question Graham's ability as an architect.

This is starting to sound like a Tommy N. rant against Rees, so I'll stop now.

Ed: They are both Canadian and that goes a long way. Cooke is a great player, so he must be a good architect, right? The reality is that, until recently, Canadian owners typically used Canadian architects. Now Fazio and Hurdzan, Norman and Nicklaus are building more up here. That's not a comment on quality -- just a fact.
I think Les gets a lot of credit for having worked for RTJ. But I know at least one person who hired him because he lived in Alberta and the site was in Alberta.
All of this doesn't explain why more don't use Rod Whitman, who worked with Dye, other than the fact Rod isn't a very good salesman.

The committee had a particular site in mind, the choice of sites by the architects may have had an influence. The answer of "we can make it work" as opposed to "I don't think that is the best site" often makes a decision.