Golfweek Rankings Finally on the Web

« **Reply #25 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:08:32 PM »

Craig,

Thanks for the breakout. I found two things very interesting from that:

1. Even though Fazio has it rough on GCA, it is not just the golfing public that love his work. Golfweek once more reaffirmed that if budget is not an issue and top 100 status is, Fazio is the "Go to" architect.

2. Really a pretty severe indictment of the Palmer and Art Hills design shops. Considering how many choice properties and projects they have gotten and continue to get, it is shocking that more of their courses did not get in the top 100. I would bet that Hills gets 5 projects for every one Engh gets and Palmer probably 2 or 3. There is no way Engh should have more top 100's than both Palmer and Hills combined.

« **Reply #26 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:20:44 PM »

Quote from: David Wigler on March 09, 2006, 02:08:32 PM

Craig,

Thanks for the breakout. I found two things very interesting from that:

1. Even though Fazio has it rough on GCA, it is not just the golfing public that love his work. Golfweek once more reaffirmed that if budget is not an issue and top 100 status is, Fazio is the "Go to" architect.

2. Really a pretty severe indictment of the Palmer and Art Hills design shops. Considering how many choice properties and projects they have gotten and continue to get, it is shocking that more of their courses did not get in the top 100. I would bet that Hills gets 5 projects for every one Engh gets and Palmer probably 2 or 3. There is no way Engh should have more top 100's than both Palmer and Hills combined.

Adding to number 2 above, I think you could say the same thing about RTJ Jr.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:25:16 PM »

Sean,

I was surprised about how few courses Junior had.

David,

I agree. Heck, Bruce Devlin got credit on 2 courses.

« **Reply #28 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:53:30 PM »

Craig,

A really interesting project would be to break down the percentage of courses each architect has that ended up in the top 100 (With an minimum of two courses in the top 100 or five courses built to be eligible). I wonder if the leader would be Fazio/Banfield (Meaning Fazio on courses where Banfield ran the show), Coore/Crenshaw, Weiskopf/Morrish, or if someone like Devries would win. Conversely, I would imagine that Hills is a runaway winner for most courses without a top 100 but who would be second; Joe Lee, William Byrd, Robert Muir Graves, The Maples's?

Just curious - although I doubt it means anything.

« **Reply #29 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:17:06 PM »

Quote from: Craig Edgmand on March 09, 2006, 02:01:15 PM

Fazio 17
Pete Dye 12
Nicklaus 8
C&C 7

Basically 5 guys make up 50% of the courses in the Top 100?

How can a guy like Art Hills who has built over 200 courses not get one course in the top 100 modern?

Craig, I agree with you on several things. Hills has several works that stand out more than a lot of Weiskopf's and H & F's for example but are not high profile locations. (Some of his work is beyond the "so-so" on the negative side, too)

But first off, I don't think that enough architects have enough works on there including a few on the bottom third of that list that have just a few.

For Fazio to have 17 works just boggles my mind. I have played a pile of his work and only 3-4 really stand out as better than a whole host of "LESSER" lesser-known, lesser-budgeted, lesser nationally exposed, lesser P.R-machined ARCHITECTS.

Then on the other hand - Coore and Crenshaw on the other hand are darlings of the rater (everyone's!) set these days and everyone of course loves the one in their own back yard, (look at HIdden Creek) - sort of a "Me too" mentality. We're great because we have a C & C nearby.

Hell, I think there are all kinds of raters that have all C & C course at Top 40 or better no matter what list (except poor old ignored Easthampton which I think has a truly great last 8 of 9 holes to go with a repetitive, claustrophobiclly grandfathered routing for the first 9. Sort of like Hanse's French Creek - some of the best modern work you'll see and some not-too-wonderful stuff again land-dictated).

Honestly I was really surprized at the response to Old Sandwich. Great piece of land, I think they could have done quite a bit more with it, they didn't need to build the same sort of random green so many times and the bunkering while socially and politically gca.com approved and correct wasn't really in play very much. Tom Paul tells me that Bill Coore has told him that he's (Coore) gone beyond strategy to "random" and cdertainly at OS, there is just a bit too much randomness and they did not take very many chances; ergo they didn't excel. Great experience with the club set-up and the ethereal property, so roast me if you like, but it's an honest take, I'm willing to stand on it; I got plenty of time to really look and have reviewed countless photos, etc.

There is also a sort of "California Coastal Efffect" to the Rocky mountain and high plains states because these are the wide open spaces. "High Plains Drifter" effect, maybe.

I guess this is a lot like looking at "Current Trends" and "Market Effects" on the economy affecting which stocks are the current darlings of the traders.

In the end, I'm not knocking the rankings, they are reasonable but I am "Having a Take and trying NOT to suck".

*

OUT

* for you Romies out there

« **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:30:06 PM »

I'm trying my best to stay out of this as much as possible, as the relative lack of interest in these rankings is giving me great chuckles.

BUT... can one of you Kleinians tell me how the best public access courses in the state lists are compiled? I mean I have to give you the benefit of the doubt re Callippe Preserve, as if that is #6 in CA, then I am Aretha Franklin. From what I can tell, there is no minimum number of raters needed to see a course, outside of those that make the Top 100 modern or classical? That is, this #6 ranking could have been achieved by ONE GUY who tends to like greens that are all the same and is blown away by parallel golf holes?

Make no mistake - I liked the course - Doak 4/5 seems right to me. But man #6 in our state is VERY high praise and this seems wacky to me. There has to be a logical explanation other than difference of opinion. Because I believe I have a good idea how the many GW rater friends I have think, and there is absolutely no way any of you would rate this course that highly.

TH

« **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:34:04 PM »

Bill,

We will need to continue this talk over a beer very soon. I actually felt that Fazio should have at least one more in the rankings, as I cannot believe that Shadow Glen did not make it over several that did (I know, small number, etc.).

Strantz had 2 make the list as well with an extremely limited portfolio.

I'll admit to being on the low side when it come to C&C. I have played great efforts - Cuscowilla, Kapalua; Good effots - Talking Stick North; and OK efforts - Talking Stick South, Warren Course.

« **Reply #32 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:45:24 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on March 09, 2006, 03:30:06 PM

I'm trying my best to stay out of this as much as possible, as the relative lack of interest in these rankings is giving me great chuckles.

BUT... can one of you Kleinians tell me how the best public access courses in the state lists are compiled? I mean I have to give you the benefit of the doubt re Callippe Preserve, as if that is #6 in CA, then I am Aretha Franklin. From what I can tell, there is no minimum number of raters needed to see a course, outside of those that make the Top 100 modern or classical? That is, this #6 ranking could have been achieved by ONE GUY who tends to like greens that are all the same and is blown away by parallel golf holes?

Make no mistake - I liked the course - Doak 4/5 seems right to me. But man #6 in our state is VERY high praise and this seems wacky to me. There has to be a logical explanation other than difference of opinion. Because I believe I have a good idea how the many GW rater friends I have think, and there is absolutely no way any of you would rate this course that highly.

TH

Huckster,

1,000 page reads means a lot of interest. I would attribute the low controversy to the premise that GW got it right. Wait until GD comes out with the 2007 rankings and once more rates two forgettable Art Hills classics like Bay Harbor and Shepards Hollow ahead of Kingsley and Franklin Hills. That is what causes controversy. BTW (True story - check it out) I noticed that every time I go on GD's website and try to pull up the rankings, I am first confronted with an ad for Cialis. Is that a statement about GD's panel?

PS - I have no idea about the answer to your question and this post clearly serves no purpose.

« **Reply #33 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:48:08 PM »

David:

Standard answer as to lack of interest here. Keep believing it.

But mine was a very serious question - that #6 for Callippe is so wildly out of whack, there has to be a logical explanation.

TH

« **Reply #34 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:50:02 PM »

Thomas of Huckaby,

I too have some questions about the state rankings. In the Washington list there is no way Port Ludlow is better than Desert Canyon, or a handful of other courses for that matter.

As for Oklahoma, Forest Ridge is a much better course than Univ. of Oklahomas course. Actually the rankings for Oklahoma public courses should be 1. Karsten Creek , then a really huge gap, 2. Chickasaw Pointe, 3. Forest Ridge and then a small gap, everything else. No reason to rank anything after 3rd place.

« **Reply #35 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:54:21 PM »

Craig:

Seems the CO list is wacky as well.

Which of course makes explanation all the more necessary.

I really believe I have it right. But I am not a GW rating panelist, nor do I play one on TV, nor do I converse regularly with Brad Klein.

Because in the end I do kinda agree with David - their Top 100 lists leave little with which to quibble. Of course when one wussily refuses to actually rate courses against courses and chooses this Modern v.Classic cop out, how hard is it really?

So since those are so "correct", it's just very weird the State public access lists are so wildly off.

It has to be the smaller number of views, one or two guys being able to skew things.

TH

« **Reply #36 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:59:46 PM »

I doubt if too many of the GW raters come to Oklahoma, much less play any of the public venues outside of Karsten Creek. I'm sure everyone wants to play the private courses like Oak Tree, Southern Hills, Cedar Ridge, Tulsa CC, Twins Hills, Dornick etc.

It does seem obvious that amoung this group that the GW lists seem to reasonate more, whereas the GD list always generates some healthy discussions.

P.S. I don't want to appear down on the state of public golf here in Oklahoma, it has improved over the years and we do have a large number of nice affordable golf courses. My home course is always in excellent shape and will only set you back 800.00 annually or 1200.00 with a cart.

« **Reply #37 on:** March 09, 2006, 04:02:23 PM »

Quote from: Craig Edgmand on March 09, 2006, 03:59:46 PM

It does seem obvious that amoung this group that the GW lists seem to reasonate more, whereas the GD list always generates some healthy discussions.

Of course.
But damn near every regular participant in here IS a member of that panel, or used to be, or wants to be, or is in line to be. So what do you expect?

Ask which panel's rankings resonate more with the general public, developers, architects, other movers and shakers...

Or maybe for the good of peace here, don't ask.

I'm already way too far into this than I wanted to be this time. Dammit!

« **Reply #38 on:** March 09, 2006, 04:07:06 PM »

I did notice on the David Esler thread that Blacksheep golf course sported the Golf Week logo prominately on their website.

Huck, we both know this website and the general public have very little in common.

« **Reply #39 on:** March 09, 2006, 04:09:39 PM »

Quote from: Craig Edgmand on March 09, 2006, 04:07:06 PM

I did notice on the David Esler thread that Blacksheep golf course sported the Golf Week logo prominately on their website.

Huck, we both know this website and the general public have very little in common.

Those courses who get rankings from any magazine are very wise to promote and advertise such. In fact this gets WAY overdone.

But yes, your last statement is absolutely right on. Funny how few do understand that, though.

« **Reply #40 on:** March 09, 2006, 05:57:00 PM »

Just another comment

Most state lists (from Digest as well as GolfWeek) are subject to more debate and particularily are subject to what is newest, who has been where and how many raters that particular state has.

Honestly raters really need to be very well-travelled but they also need to play everything, not jsut the "cream" they can in their own driving area whether it is one, two, three or 8 states, ergo, they can really vote their own state and region well.

Dave W

Always love talking to ya.

I'll have that beer or "other adult beverage" any time you want, just let me know. I have been known to consume alcohol at times and sadly, the dreaded "Drink and Type" as well. .

« **Reply #41 on:** March 09, 2006, 07:31:16 PM »

RE: State Best's lists... The 3 States that I am most familiar with are WA, OR, and MT... MT and WA lists are total jokes...Port Ludlow must be rated by Stevie Wonder, I can't believe that a rater has been there in the last decade. Trophy Lake is a nice course, but top five! No wonder everybody thinks that golf sucks in the NW!

The Montana list bypasses Missoula in favor of the flathead valley, but misses the best classic course in the area, Buffalo Hill. I can think of a half dozen courses more deserving in oregon than The Reserve GC.

If you can't get raters to play enough then ask state golf associations to put up a web poll or something, but this is just crazy.

BTW, rankings are meaningless to me

MH

« **Reply #42 on:** March 09, 2006, 08:41:07 PM »

Michael,

At least they got the #1 course right in the Washington list and Desert Canyon would be in the top 5.

« **Reply #43 on:** March 10, 2006, 12:50:41 AM »

Even before GCA I would see state rankings and wonder how the heck they could get it so wrong. I never look at state rankings anymore. I would be more likely to find an accurate ranking with a bindfold and darts.

« **Reply #44 on:** March 12, 2006, 10:31:40 AM »

I continue to be mystified by a few things.

How does a composite golf course, that is rarely, if ever played, get so highly ranked ?

Where would TCC be ranked if evaluated as it was designed, constructed and played ?

Why are there no voices of dissent on GCA.com regarding this issue ?

« **Reply #45 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:33:10 AM »

The Composite course at TCC gets played fairly frequently and not just in tournament mode although there are many tournaments of all kinds played on it yearly.

Hamilton in Ontario gets several routings played frequently.

Engineer's in Roslyn also has about 4 different cards that get played regularly.

A much as I know from the OZ gentlemen, the composite course at RM gets played as well, so which don't get played?

« **Reply #46 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:44:14 AM »

Quote from: redanman® aka BillV on March 12, 2006, 11:33:10 AM

The Composite course at TCC gets played[size=4x] fairly frequently[/size] and not just in tournament mode although there are many tournaments of all kinds played on it yearly.

Could you quantify that ?

« **Reply #47 on:** March 12, 2006, 11:55:53 AM »

probably 30+ a season, many are for tournaments, if small.

check your confidential I.M. (I see that you did). I'll stop this discussion now.

« **Reply #48 on:** March 12, 2006, 01:54:08 PM »

David W said, "There is no way Engh should have more top 100's than both Palmer and Hills combined."

Please be kind enough to list for me the top AP and AH courses you have played that you believe would sniff a top 100? Frankly, I have played more than my share and Jim Emgh has done better work than both of those assembly-line productions.

With all due respect to The King -- his team simply cranks out courses but nearly all of them follow the same formula -- it's akin to fast food -- always reliable but never nourishing. Ditto the works of Art Hills.

« **Reply #49 on:** March 12, 2006, 02:11:26 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on March 12, 2006, 10:31:40 AM

I continue to be mystified by a few things.

How does a composite golf course, that is rarely, if ever played, get so highly ranked ?

Where would TCC be ranked if evaluated as it was designed, constructed and played ?

Why are there no voices of dissent on GCA.com regarding this issue ?

I've always blindly gone along with this as well .

Why are these two courses (TCC and RM) always given a free pass when in effect they really don't exist?

Why not then consider a composite course of NGLA and Shinnecock?

Is Royal Melbourne West the best course in Australia or is it the composite course only which is considered to be among the best in the world?

Where would RMW fit in the world rankings as a stand alone course?

News:

David Wigler

Sean Leary

Craig Van Egmond

David Wigler

redanman

Tom Huckaby

David Wigler

David Wigler

Tom Huckaby

Craig Van Egmond

Tom Huckaby

Craig Van Egmond

Tom Huckaby

Craig Van Egmond

Tom Huckaby

redanman

Michael Hayes

Craig Van Egmond

ed_getka

Patrick_Mucci

redanman

Patrick_Mucci

redanman

Matt_Ward

Gene Greco