It's a wonderful layout and I wish it got more attention and more higher votes, too, Matt.

brother Brad Klein

what an absolute total waste of time and energy

[by the way the name of classic number 94 is spelled wrong - but i'm sure you were much more careful with most other details used in compiling this data]

i see it does attract attention - but like brother matt ward likes to say - so does MacDonalds - it's still JUNK FOOD

however - i would like to congratulate the gumbas JOE and ROBERT ALONZI and STEVE RENZETTI - may your tomatoes grow like your grass

also i suppose i should be greatful that SIWANOY doesn't show up on any list - it's hard enough to get t-times in westchester as it is - however it is where all the real competition started

in one way i wish bethpage didn't hold an open - although it does seem to attract all the visiting gawkers - leaving the RED available (HA!) - most have no idea - i tease them by asking where i can find mitchell field airport

i wonder how disappointed the DONALD is ?


[it has been brought to my attention that the word GUMBA is posting "mindless street slurs about people in adolescent, discriminatory language" but my google definition finds it as a medival latin sicilian derivation from COMPARE - the same connotation used by my ancestors and the one i intended - i cannot believe tony bennett would title a song (HEY GOOM BAH !) with a word he found as demeaning - no ?
in closing the notification continued "has no place and merits banishment from GCA" well don't throw stones yet - what about the golf courses on a certain list that openly discriminate in their membership policies ? shouldn't they be banished from that list ?]

More importantly, your message is disgusting.

from you i'll take that as a COMPLIMENT !

Had to mention this -- it's so amusing that on one thread you get a few folks who argue (incorrectly I might add) that comparisons and contrasts between different courses is not needed / re: Hidden Creek.

In their narrow view it means just simply looking at a course and doing nothing more than that.

How limited indeed but clearly their prerogative.

I enjoyed the free wheeling banter that this thread provided --getting a sense of what some people prefer -- better when reasons are provided.

Knowing how courses stack up against one another is for me the essential examination in how to gauge whether a course in question truly has all the elements of greatness.

George --

Stop the whining -- I have a pair of dogs that don't yelp as much as you do.

George -- help me out -- what is "the real purpose." Frankly, I find that very elitist that certain few believe they have cornered the market to determine "the real purpose." Please forgive me for even thinking for a moment that anything I can add or others would deflect from that grandiose "real purpose."

I don't see how a course can be assessed solely on its own. I believe comparisons and contrasts (see the many posts on this thread alone) allow for people to gauge the elements a given course provides and see how it ultimately stacks up against serious competition. I don't doubt people can look at a sole course and make comments. If that's what floats your boat by all means enjoy yourself.

Frankly, those who play a greater number and varied lot of courses will likely be exposed to more elements of design and from that there will be a number of people who possess the wherewithal to compare / contrats the merits of the top courses and see how they shake out.

George:

I finally stopped laughing from your silly non-answers.

You're the guy who raises the point "real purpose" in assessing a golf course and instead of addressing the question you march out the same blather about me. George --how bout you address the question posed to you instead of simply backpedaling as per usual?

Talk about whining -- You're the guy who bitched and moaned about all the talk on Black Mesa when I mentioned it's overall qualities along the lines with Pacific Dunes. I then asked you to compare the nature of Black Mesa (natural site) against the likes of The Rawls Course (man created site). Guess what? I'm still waiting.

My opinions come from a healthy sample of courses played. In simple terms -- my opinions only count to me. I don't "lambast" you or others but I do mention to people that playing a wide variety / types of courses does allow that person a deeper portfolio of courses in which to compare and contrast. From that process of comparing / contrasting you are then able to better assess the overall qualities of a particular layout.

George -- excuse me -- when I offered a different take on Hidden Creek it was I who was LAMBASTED. It's too bad because those who are C&C groupies don't take kindly to having someone say the least bit that's contrary to their set position.

I don't see how people can assess a course simply by itself. That's my position -- and if you read THIS thread you will see various people doing what I have just mentioned. The reason people opt not to follow a comparison / contrast position is usually tied to the limited number of varied courses they have played.

George -- be sure to repeat again the same tired trite evasive and condescending answers you are known to give. Just give me some time before I fall off the chair and start laughing again.

George --

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You're the guy who threw forward the term "real purpose" on this thread, but then instead of defining it versus what I posted here on the merits of course comparisons / contrasts you sink to the crude level of whining about me. How predictable.

Botton line George -- course visits mean something to me. Combine that with solid course analysis and I believe you can then get some handle on the total merits of a particular course.

Adios amigo ...

George:

You can certainly discuss HC all you want. Please allow me to put my OWN words in my mouth.

What I said to the C&C fan club gushing all over the place about Hidden Creek is try to understand and have some perspective of what exists on the Jersey golf scene. It amazes me that a new course of quality -- which Hdiden Creek is -- catapaults to national status while other equal or better Jersey courses get lost in the sauce. Maybe the so-called experts / raters need to do a better job in their homework? Even you said so yourself in itemizing other locations in the USA (e.g. the Pittsburgh area) which have solid layouts that fly well below the national radar screen.

I can't label any course "great" without some sort of comparisons / contrasts with other courses. Maybe you have the gift -- I certainly don't. Tagging a course with the label "great" is easy -- explaining why and how it overcomes other courses of stature is the hard part.

You stated on this thread about some undefined "real purpose" on assessing courses. I simply asked you to further explain yourself with that term. You then proceeded to go down the tired but predictable path in bashing Ward.

George -- I could frankly care less what you and other think of my posting style. Some of you folks have the idea that others need to walk in lock step with what you believe. The simple fact is that when others disagree with you -- you bitch and whine like the 4-year-old whose told that there's another side to the equation. If you want some respect for what you believe show the same to others who might have a different slant than what you and others believe. You constantly ridicule the number of courses I have played. That portfolio allows me the range to assess the character of a great many and different courses. It doesn't make me right or special but it's a fact of research and legwork that should not be dismissed as some sort of non-factor.

Have a grand Memorial Day weekend partner and don't pout OK -- you're too good for that!

I was surprised by the Minnesota list as a whole.  I would have ranked the Classic first and Giant's Ridge Quarry second.  Both are fantastic courses.  Nothing else on the list comes close.

While I enjoy Deacon's Lodge, that would have been near the bottom of the top ten (rather than first) and I doubt I would put Rush Creek in the top ten (althought the new holes improve the course).

To each his own, but I don't think Madden's Classic is close to The Quarry. There's a world of difference in the degrees of difficulty, shot options, variety of possible pin locations and memorability of the holes from the back tees IMHO. BTW, I understand that The Quarry's course rating of 75.6 and slope of 146 may be a little soft as the MPGA rated it very early in the grow-out phase of development, before the deep grasses grew in on hills and green surrounds. With the pins set in difficult positions, I think the Quarry is about 5 shots more difficult than Madden's.

I agree that Deacon's is pretty but not that difficult--nasty looking hazards but very rarely even in play.

Quote from: Mike_Cirba on March 04, 2005, 12:17:51 PM

Minimally, over the course of a course, it's at least a full point deduction in several categories, not the least of which is "intergrity of original design".

"Cat Litter Boxes"

Mike,

Did Golfweek get copyright protection on Cat Litter Boxes.   You guys are brainwashed ! (See Patrick's post)

Mike, this is a rater bashing thread, not a Yale bashing thread ! We are all pretty much in agreement that individual features at Yale could/should have been done better. Instead of looking at The Child's File and picking out specific problems, let's look at the bigger picture.

If you do a hole by hole Ran Morrisett-like comparison of Yale versus Mountain Lake #69, Yale comes up +4 on my scale. I recognize that you probably have not seen Mountain Lake, but I am still waiting for a Golfweek Rater to take The Sweeney Challege of Yale versus Mountain Lake and keep a straight face. Brad Klein where are you ?

If you do the Tom Doak trick where you can only only replace a course that you have played on the Golfweek list with a course that you have also played. I would replace Mountain Lake with Yale. There are some others that I would also replace, but I rather keep it in my own family.

Now let's say that Yale was redone by a GCA favorite architect, Dr Childs and myself are right and it is a Top 25 Classic sitting at 25(a) between Southern Hills 7.82 and Camargo at 7.74. Now let's put in the Rulewich factor since it gets a full Cirba across the board 1.0 deduction. It would still fall around 80 on the Golfweek Classic list. You can go to a 1.25 deduction and it ties with Beverly !

Mike Cirba,

It appears that Brad was listening to his readers and not his raters this year as Yale popped back on the list at #60.

http://www.supernewsmag.com/news/golfweek/supernews/20060301/p25.asp

Nice work Klein. Chewy approves. Your responses here are appreciated. I wish we heard from others charged with rating panels and lists. It is good fun.

Brad,

When combining both lists, the top 20 courses based solely on the scores given is as follows:

1. Cypress Point Club(p) 9.67  
2. Pine Valley Golf Club(p) 9.46
3. Sand Hills Golf Club (p) 9.41
4. Augusta National(p) 9.24
5. Pacific Dunes (r) 9.23
6. Shinnecock Hills(p) 9.23
7. Pebble Beach Golf Links(r) 9.18
8. Oakmont Country Club(p)9.04
9. Merion Golf Club (East Course)(p)8.94
10. National Golf Links of America (p)8.92
11. Crystal Downs (p) 8.77
12. Prairie Dunes Country Club (p) 8.75
13. Friar’s Head (p) 8.72
15. Chicago Golf Club (p) 8.67
16. Fishers Island Golf Club (p) 8.61
17. Pinehurst No. 2 (r) 8.54
18. San Francisco Golf Club (p) 8.52
19. Whistling Straits (Straits Course) (r) 8.49
20. Seminole Golf Club (p) 8.29

Do you feel that this rfelects the top 20 courses, or should the comparison in this manner not be made?