Mark,

Good point, there is more debate about lists than about the courses themselves, which I guess isnt' too terribly suprising since it seems most participants here really haven 't played the top 100, but I guess they do read magazines.

John (an appropriate name for you, huh?)  

I guess your rankings for any top 100 course would depend not only on the, uh, facility itself, but on whether you were "on your game" that day.  BTW, who do you blame for "slow play?" Who makes up your top 100 list - The Prune Juice Association of America?

BTW, if you can stand more bathroom humor, I once played Muirfield with Pete Dye. I putted terribly, looking up and missing left all day.  After the round, we both used the urinals, and he made a point of being to my right, reasoning that "I would probably miss that left the way I was going today."

And, last week at ASGCA, I happened to visit the restroom with one Mr. Jack Nicklaus.  As we were standing there, I told him that it was nice to be able to say that "I held my own with Nicklaus at Pinehurst......"

John

Can you poop on demand or do you just hold it in for a day or two?

John

Do you take a full dump or sometimes small rabbit-like pellets?

This thread has not only been hijacked by John, it has turned into one big shit

It's the asphalt

Bill,

I am a member at Stone Eagle.  I'm curious whether you thought it had a chance to be considered a top 100 course by either publication.

I agree that Stone Eagle's par threes are less interesting than the fours and fives, but after playing it a number of times, the subtle difficulty of hole #3 grows on you.  The whole thing has grown on me.  It tests your driving ability, your judgment of uphill and downhill shots, and your putting expertise.  And it's drop dead gorgeous.

The early buzz is that Golf Digest raters are very happy with it.  I would think Golf Digest's rating criteria suits Stone Eagle well, since the course is a very difficult course to walk.  I also think it is difficult enough from the back tees to suit the raters.

We just finished having the member-guest tournament there last year.  Most members and guests were long time Coachella Valley residents, and among the few people I surveyed the reviews were mixed.  It is so different than the typical high-end course in the area.

Anyway, curious to hear your opinion.  You and Bryan must have played 18 from the 10th tee.

The bathrooms at Stone Eagle is superb.  Baeutifully appointed, with sturdy commodes in individual rooms.  The good JK would love the place.  

My future goals are to finish up playing all of Bill Coore's courses (will play Austin Golf Club and Barton Creek in early May)....

.....I have not traveled abroad (my US trips are usually walking 4 different courses in two days)

Bill,

After, playing AGC and BC, you'll still have 1 more C&C to play, Klub Rimba Irian (1996) in Indonesia.  

JK:

Thanks for that explanation - it makes perfect sense.

You make a very good point btw that while GD is the only one that sets out "resistance to scoring" as a specific criterion, it's impossible to believe it doesn't matter to some extent to the other magazines.  As you say, no challenge, no fun.

I have a feeling that Stone Eagle will do very well with all the magazines - how you feel it will go sounds just right to me also.

Can't wait to see it, come June!

TH

Before I read Shackleford and Doak and then came here I used to keep a tally of the G. Digest courses I'd played. Trainspotting, I suppose. But I was often disappointed by the advice in their 'Places to Play'. So I stopped. I prefered the Rolling Oaks course at World Woods, for example.. go figure. And the most fun I've had on a golf course over the last few years was a 5000 yarder in the Massachusetts hills. So I'm almost surprised that I'm up to 26 on the Golf world list.

Someday i would love to play one. But untill then all i can do is look at pictures and read about them.

I really love reading the replies to this question!  Anyone on this site who responds with an answer that they really don't care about what the lists say is being unrealistic and partly hypocritical.  We all care about those lists ( love em or hate em), and there is a certain sense of excitement for anyone playing any of these courses.  You can't tell me that all the critics on this forum of ANGC  or any of the other "ranked" courses wouldn't jump at the opportunity to play it rather than their "favorite" local course. The lists are what they are, and I think anyone, myself included, who embarks to try to play as many as possible is richly rewarded on many fronts.  I mean, let's get real, how many threads on this forum revolve around rankings in some form or another.  Pick a list, yours or someone else's and go play!

This reply could not be further from the truth. I pay no attention whatsoever to any lists. I rarely read any magazines that publish lists.

For the record, I have no idea how many listed courses I have played, and I am not going to undertake to do the research to find out. I'm just not that curious.

I've toured or played nearly 30, I think.

Like Mr. Andrew, I find value in using the lists as a barometer, nothing more.

Jim:

That's an error by "Golflink" in their transcription of the Golf Magazine list.  #30 is LACC-North.

http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/travel/ranked/article/0,17742,1097568,00.html

That is a pretty funny error though... I indeed have played LA Royal Vista and it's a quirky little 9-holer, good fun to some extent... but wow if it's a Top 100 in the US course, than I',m Tiger Woods.