Golf Magazine's Top 100

« **Reply #75 on:** August 07, 2003, 10:26:09 PM »

How about Lawsonia? Did I miss it, on the list?

Ranked in 1939 @ #72
and holds similar spots on other lists of this and last year, I believe.

« **Reply #76 on:** August 08, 2003, 06:59:16 AM »

Darren,

It isnt hard in my book... E Club is weaved through giant sand hills that are natural while Kingsbarns is a manufactured aesthetic that I found wanting. As I stated though Rye, RCP, Saunton etc should be higher than all of them.. I just relooked at my pix I took at Kingsbarns the other night and was not moved again. I'm not the only one who thinks the course is overrated.

« **Reply #77 on:** August 08, 2003, 07:18:12 AM »

Kauri Cliffs at #49 in the world? That should create some discussion.

« **Reply #78 on:** August 08, 2003, 08:03:04 AM »

NAF,

Do not be surprised about Commonwealth. It (quite rightly) struggles to maintain a position in Australia's top 20-25. And there isn't a soul on this continent making upset noises about that.

National Moonah has a few more Australians to surpass before it can tap world top 100 on the shoulder. Australian discussion is on whether it can maintain it's lofty position at #9 in Australia. Perhaps, but no gimme.

IMHO, Royal Canberra and possibly Victoria are among those which should feel most staggered about being ranked behind the lower top 100 courses.

« **Reply #79 on:** August 08, 2003, 08:11:05 AM »

Tony,

Loved Victoria, just had it though a notch below Commonwealth.. I found the par 3s at Victoria superior as a set although #9 at Commonwealth is my favorite. Still I found Commonwealth's par 4s to be a bit more inspiring and #16 is the best hole at both courses in my opinion.. Also loved #11 at Commonwealth more than most of the par 4s at Victoria. That being said, it was pretty close in my book. I cannot figure out why C-wealth has fallen, perhaps people are unhappy with Tony Cashmore's work (is he doing it?).

I didnt make it to Royal Canberra. I heard many good things about Woodlands while in Melbourne and would have loved to see it.

« **Reply #80 on:** August 08, 2003, 08:12:03 AM »

Tony,
How long is it since you played Commonwealth?

« **Reply #81 on:** August 08, 2003, 08:44:12 AM »

You know the answer to that Chris. It wasn't a top 10 course when I last saw her. Which adjustments / evolution have taken place at Commonwealth in the past 15 years to make it charge up the Australian rankings? If there are any, I've not heard of them. Your feedback (which is as up to date and as recent as it gets) raises constructive concerns, rather than heaps gleaming praise on it.

Tell me I'm wrong, and I'll withdraw my judgement.

I pointed out that it's ranking doesn't raise any fervent debate, and that is correct. If it were a world top 100 contender, there would be so much indignation about it's being robbed on the Aussie rankings, I wouldn't have to go near the place to get the idea.

« **Reply #82 on:** August 08, 2003, 08:56:14 AM »

NAF,

My love of Royal Canberra is shared over here, but isn't universal. Depending on whom you speak to, Metropolitan, Royal Sydney, Kooyonga, Lake Karrinyup, The Australian and The Lakes are more often than not preferred to Commonwealth.

Yes, there has been some heated discussion over Commonwealth's alterations (which I personally have never seen). I think it would be fair to say that a large number of knowledgeable people have made negative comments about them, and nobody has ever suggested to me that they are an improvement.

« **Reply #83 on:** August 08, 2003, 08:57:28 AM »

Tony,
I have never rated Commonwealth behind Portsea. Never.

Commonwealth was no.88 in the world in 1993 (the plaque from Golf Magazine hangs proudly in the clubhouse). A Doak 8 rating doesn't come out of thin air, and I'd assume that the course Tom Doak accessed was not dissimilar to the course you saw fifteen years ago.

I have been told, by a number of independant judges, that Commonwealth, in its prime, was as good as Kingston Heath. Hopefully steps will be taken in time to ensure that it returns to its rightful place as a significant golf course in Australia and the world.

"if it were a top 100 contender"
Don't forget Tony that Commonwealth has received an Honourable Mention in each of the past three rankings, which means that it just missed out on world top 100 selection, but scored enough points to have been eligible for the American list. If thats not "in contention", can you tell me what is?

I don't know if it maintained the HM rating this time around, though I suspect it might drop off at some point, that being the nature of the Golf Magazine list.

« **Reply #84 on:** August 08, 2003, 09:07:10 AM »

Tony, Chris,

I found the membership and the clubhouse to be lovely at the Australian but the architecture to be quite dull. I don't know obviously what Dr. Mac's design was and how Jack changed it but I could have been on one of his average courses here in the states if I didnt know it.

« **Reply #85 on:** August 08, 2003, 09:16:55 AM »

Fair call Chris. I do remember it making the list.

But on Australian Golf Digest's list, it went from 14th (1998), to 17th (2000) to 19th (last year). If say, Victoria or Metro dropped outside the top 15, there would be mobs running through the streets with lead pipes. I haven't heard a whimper from anyone fond of Commonwealth that feels aggrieved it is CURRENTLY outside the Aussie top 15.

I don't think lowly of Commonwealth. If I stumbled upon it tomorrow, I'd ring the bell and let everyone know of this gem. But in this forum, we are discussing a top 100 world ranking that would place it in Australia's top 5-8 courses right now (ie. prior to any "steps being taken").

I bow to your judgement if you can provide your rating of Australia's best courses, as far as Commonwealth. Then I will see who you rate behind her.

« **Reply #86 on:** August 08, 2003, 09:19:17 AM »

So, where are Foulpointe and Painswick? Does Golf Magazine have no shame!?

« **Reply #87 on:** August 08, 2003, 09:20:32 AM »

NAF, You said it well in your response to me. I agree to a point. There are so many great courses in the world and a top 100 is such a small number to pick from them. Why not pick one to be repesentative of the links courses not included that really does deserve it. I agree with Ruddy's promotional skills and that is part of my problem with what to me is a very average design in a great setting and/or on a great piece of land. Yes there are some very good holes but the routing is average and there are some really bad holes too. I do not really feel the course flows well either. It was so hyped that i did expect something special and I did not find anything special other than a great setting for a golf course. These are not the comments that get a course in the top 500 much less the top 100.

« **Reply #88 on:** August 08, 2003, 09:29:58 AM »

NAF, You got that right.

I am NOT among those who praise the modern Australian. A very pleasant and challenging resort course. It has gone from 5th to 6th to 7th in the last three biennial rankings, which at that rate, mean that in approximately 20 years from now, it will settle in it's correct niche.

I praise the Australian though for one thing. The re-design and consequent investment into The Australian Open Championship did rescue this almost 100 year old event from an horrific slide.

« **Reply #89 on:** August 08, 2003, 01:25:59 PM »

where's Caves

« **Reply #90 on:** August 08, 2003, 01:44:42 PM »

Quote from: dcarroll on August 08, 2003, 01:25:59 PM

where's Caves

Spelunking down the rankings....

« **Reply #91 on:** August 08, 2003, 01:52:37 PM »

Quote from: redanman on August 08, 2003, 09:01:04 AM

If they were not venues for "famous" TV tone-a-mints would we really consider them to be that deserving?

redanman,

Your quote applies to Shoal Creek as well. I'm surprised it is hanging in there. Perhaps the only ranked course that has disappointed me. Surprisingly plain. Among moderns, Victoria National is far superior to SC, not to say that VN belongs on the list.

I'm also a little surprised that Lower Cascades continues to be ranked in the top fifty. While it's the only Flynn I've played, it has to be pretty far down his list of bests based upon what I've read on GCA and elsewhere. Tremendous setting and tradition, but some surprisingly plain holes and very pedestrian bunkering. The 5-5-3 finish is highly overrated, with the meat of the course being holes 1-5 and 9-13.

Regards,

Mike Hendren

« **Reply #92 on:** August 08, 2003, 01:57:50 PM »

Eck--Caves Valley--perenially overated even when it's not

Mike H-I disagree re: Upper Cascades...see the old best mtn. course thread. The bunkering is not needed what with the amazing tilt and lay of the land. I'm not sure I see the plainness of any holes other than #1 and #18.

« **Reply #93 on:** August 08, 2003, 02:15:58 PM »

DC,

You graciously understood that I was not referring to RTJ's "Lower" Cascades.

Cascades has two of my favorite golf holes in the world that nobody every touts - the par 5 5th (visually intimidating 2nd shot not unlike Pebble Beach's 6th) and the par 3 11th.

IMHO, no. 6 was ruined by piping the creek under the fairway. I don't understand why they did that at 10 as well, but it remains a cool hole, nonetheless. It is impossible to drive the ball in the fairway at 7, yet a long uphill second is called for. I really like no. 8 (heads up to all: you will be amazed by the slope of that green viewed from 20 yards behind!). No. 9 enjoys the same quirk as 10 created by the hill and 12 is a tremendous 4.5 par. I like 13 as well, but nothing tickles my fancy thereafter. Nos. 14 and 15 could be placed on any course and not stick out. I guess if I was a bigger hitter I'd be a fan of the 16th and perhaps 17th, but the lay-up, particularly on 16 is a bunt.

When I was there a few years ago, they had just installed fairway sprinklers. As a result, the rough was U. S. Open length and you could miss a green by six inches and struggle to find the ball. Hopefully, that is no longer the case.

While I believe Cascades deserves a spot in the top 100, I just don't see it as a top fifty.

Regards,

Mike

« **Reply #94 on:** August 08, 2003, 02:21:08 PM »

Mike--but the risk/reward of 16 and 17 coming down the stretch is tremendous and 15 is such a tough par 3...I agree with you re: 14--it's just a straight away that could go anywhere and man are you ever right about number 5...that second shot is amazing. I hosted a couple of guys who go down there every year and we must have talked for an hour about what one fellow dubbed "the mighty #2"!!

« **Reply #95 on:** August 08, 2003, 03:09:20 PM »

Good to see Myopia Hunt move up in the ratings......I really wish they would put some real time and money into shaping up the course.....the architecture is brilliant, but the members just don't want to keep it in tip-top condition from day to day.

WFW and WFE....both in the top 35......who wouldn't want to be a member there?? great tradition and great golfing.....my vote as hands down the best golfing club in america

Medinah over Garden City, LACC, Camargo, WFE??? excuse me??? I just don't get the infatuation about Medinah??

I know southern golf and I agree......Briar's Creek....I have never even heard of this place......that is a payoff to someone

Desert Forest and Milwaukee need to be higher

Well I have fired off my hot sports opinions....now back to the Shockey debate on WFAN.

Ocean Forest is now way a top 50 course......

« **Reply #96 on:** August 08, 2003, 03:15:43 PM »

Having spent the last 6 days at Philadelphia Country Club, I'm amazed that it is not in the top 100 US courses. It is better than quite a few of the ones that are.

« **Reply #97 on:** August 08, 2003, 03:41:20 PM »

Harbour Town at 40? I just don't get it ... I would have expected it to go DOWN in the rankings, not up ...

and do they mention the Top Indian Reservation Courses? Barona and Talking Stick would both be battling for the top spot ...

« **Reply #98 on:** August 08, 2003, 04:50:34 PM »

I just have to say this regarding ratings -- there is this belief with a few reviewers that securing a top 100 spot is the be-all end-all. The reality is that many courses may in fact be good, or even very good, but to say you are top 100 is a major league stretch. When you're talking about one-tenth of one percent at best the probability of getting selected is incredibly hard and demanding as it should be.

There is also little true investigation of the sleeper courses that get very little ink. Too many people focus ont he same laundry list of nominees and from ym experience there are a number of outstanding modern courses that get little attention either because of their location, the lack of "star" power status connected to the architect or just simple ignorance on the part of raters / reviewers who should be keeping an open mind to such possibilities.

Use baseball as an example -- yes, there are a number of players today who are very good -- are they really Hall of Fame players comparable to the likes of the Babe, Joe D and Willie? Doubt it.

Ditto the golf course debate about the top 100. The reality is that new courses should have to wait (posibly two or three years) to be possibly considered because this "quick leap" to prominence is often based upon the newness of the facility and all the accompanying "pre-buzz" that comes with such an opening. Just like potential Hall of Famers must wait five years before being considered I don't believe such a situation would be detrimental to course ratings of the type the major magazines are involved with. Clearly, GD used to have such a stipulation but the "rush to judgement" often distorts the reality because after the dust settles it is these types of courses that either fall back or leave the grouping in its entirety.

« **Reply #99 on:** August 08, 2003, 05:15:33 PM »

Here are a few of the big movers in the U.S. Rankings (8 places or more):

Bethpage Black (+8)
Shoreacres (+8)
Camargo (–8)
Kiawah Ocean (+21)
Valley Club of Montecito (+8)
Shadow Creek (-12)
Yeamans (+12)
Honors Course (-9)
Olympia Fields North (+15)
Briar's Creek (Debut at 61th)
Piping Rock (+31)
Hazeltine National (+16)
Torrey Pines South (Debut at 67th)
Yale (+18)
Myopia Hunt (+13)
Hidden Creek (Debut at 72nd)
Canterbury (-12)
Wannamoisett (-11)
Black Diamond Quarry (-16)
Newport CC (+16)
Interlachen (-20)
Lehigh (Debut at 83rd)
Pasatiempo (-15)
Blackwolf Run River (-11)
Nantucket (-32)
Shoal Creek (-24)
Mauna Kea (Debut at 90th)
Firestone South (-9)
Salem (-29)

News:

A_Clay_Man

NAF

Chris Kane

tonyt

NAF

Chris Kane

tonyt

tonyt

Chris Kane

NAF

tonyt

ForkaB

Tiger_Bernhardt

tonyt

david h. carroll

Scott_Burroughs

Mike Hendren

david h. carroll

Mike Hendren

david h. carroll

rpurd

JohnV

Mike Benham

Matt_Ward

Mike Vegis @ Kiawah