[Tim_Weiman]

Scott & Pat:

As a former property owner and someone who played the course many times since it first opened, I have to agree with Ron Whitten's point about Wild Dunes.

Wild Dunes was a wonderful place to play back when it first opened. When there was just a trailer as a club house and there weren't countless condos, the experience of playing the course was far more enjoyable than it is today.

One of the major reasons I joined Sand Ridge was the long term commitment not to build homes or condos on the property.  Believe me, when you are out for an afternoon walk in the park, the tranquility of a pristine environment really goes a long way.

 

[aclayman]

I am always amazed at how the electromagnetic radiation that exsists between those humans in the group make for different golf experiences, no matter what the environs.

[THuckaby2]

This may add little value to this discussion, but I can't resist.

Tommy, you remain the Sir Galahad of Golf, chasing the holy grail of architectural perfection.  Just as in his day there could be only one Grail Knight, today you are the one pure soul for whom this passion transcends all other pursuits.

It's tough to expect others to have this purity.  The Knights of the Round Table understood this.

Thus if someone says they want to actually play a course in the context of rating it, please rise above and understand the human frailty.

Beyond this horribly stretched allegory, I will say this:  if one has access to the great private clubs already, then getting in is obviously no thrill, playing them becomes less important, rating them can be done either way.

If one doesn't, just getting inside the gates becomes the thrill... but once inside, NOT playing would be indeed like going to  Charlie Trotter's and not eating.  Sure there are lots of things to see, but did you really experience it?

I guess I'll never be a rater.  I'd love to see Pine Valley, but it would absolutely kill me to be inside those gates and not play.  The same could be said for about 900 other courses.

TH

[T_MacWood]

Ouch
Good to see you reintroduce the rating discusion, it is nice to drag the subject out now and again, kind of like beating a dead horse -- plus we were starting to lose our edge. Now that we are sharp again, we can look foward to the Golf ranking which must be coming out soon. I predict the new Golf ranking will result in total carnage, a real blood-bath--it will pale in comparison to anything before.  

All the rankings have their strengths and weaknesses, and everyone here has their own strong tastes and opinions -- the combination naturally results in spirited criticism and discussion---of all the rankings, no ranking is immune. I have always looked at the rankings as an educational tool, something to help educate and guide the golfer as to what constitutes great golf architecture. At least that's what it has meant to me over the years.

Which brings up the question, what are the most important attributes for an effective panelist? Are they the same attributes that you find in the great golf architects -- familarity with the history of the art and the great models of the past, an understanding and appreciation of what is natural and lastly a creative spirit and eye? And might there be a mysterious quality that is not easily identified? Playing the game reasonably well can be an attribute, but way down the list and not essential.

Gib
It is amazing how you are able to reach the perfect amount of condescension.

[David Wigler]

Tommy,

I now understand your question and will try to answer again.  I love golf.  Everything about the game in its purest sense.  Would I accept an invitation to walk Pine Valley, Augusta, or Cypress if the invitation did not include playing -- Hell Yes!! (By the way, do you know how I could weasel such an invitation since I have never been to any of those three).  I would spend as much time as possible walking the grounds and soaking in the tradition but (Rare disagreement with Gib) I would not feel qualified to rate the course.  That written, the world can probably live without my rating of any of those three courses.  

Where I perceive a rater to bring value is in helping split the hair between The Heather Course, The Legend, and The Smith Course at Treetops for someone going to Northern Michigan.  Would I accept an invitation to walk these courses and not play them – No.  They are three very nice courses but not hallowed ground that merely setting foot on raises the soul another level.  I still remember my heart beat the first time I was given the opportunity to play Oakland Hills after spending the first 25 years of my life living within 50 miles of the course and never setting foot inside the gates.  Last week, I almost missed my tee time at Inverness because I was lost in my own world staring at all of the pictures in the locker room of tournaments played before I was born.  The thread that binds most of us on this site is our passion for the game and I do not see how using our status as a rater to allow access to places where we might not otherwise get in, in any way cheapens or lessons the experience.  

One final note.  I drink my own Kool-aid.  I have a trip upcoming to Vancouver and have never been there.  The first thing I did was call up Score Magazine (Canada's version of Gold Digest -- I hope that is a fair characterization Ron) to see what their latest ranking of the top 100 in Canada was to help me plan where I want to play.

[Ron_Whitten]

To Patrick Mucci -- Yeah, I think tastes in golf design change rapidly. The 100 Greatest doesn't do a complete overhaul every two years, with a new 100 courses, but plenty of courses do drop off and come on. (Our Top 10, by the way, hasn't changed for 3 surveys now. Most of the action is in the Second 50.) And while I agree there are certain ironclad standards of golf design that survive, we still all thunder to the next great discovery, leaving the latest great course in the dust. Yesterday it was Bandon Dunes, today it's Pacific Dunes, who knows what it'll be tomorrow? Then there are those works by classic old architects that were hidden by forests of green committees suddenly emerging thanks to a chain saw wielded by somebody like Ron Prichard. We get excited about this long-forgotten Ross gem, then that one, then the next one. Or Seth Raynor becomes the hot old architect for a time. Bill Langford won't be long behind.  
 This very website proves the proof of my postulate. There isn't one long single thread, there's hundreds of them. And what we we're talking about last February has been supplanted by what's the hot course (topic) today.
 Gib -- I'm friends with Brad Klein and I admire what he's done with Golfweek, but I've never understood this Classic versus Modern thing. How can Sand Hills be termed a "modern" course (other than its birthdate?) And with so many modern architects claiming (rightly or wrongly) that they're designing in the "classic" style, why can't you compare old against new? If for no other reason than to support or refute their contentions? You use the same set of criteria for judging both classic and modern, don't you?  Bottom line for me: You can't have two Number Ones. Is it Pine Valley (Classic No. 1) or Sand Hills (Modern No. 1)? I know which it is in my mind.

 For those who gasp at the idea of judging a course without playing it, remember that Tom Doak based some of his Confidential Guide ratings on courses he viewed but didn't play, and most of us feel he nailed most of them accurately. (Tom's updated book also supports my biggest complaint about all course rankings, Golf Digest, Golf's, Golfweek's and probably everybody else's: They're based on single rounds over the course, so it's all about First Impressions, not serious study. (Tom gave Lancaster CC in Pa. an below average rating, but after playing it several times, put it in his 31 flavors.) I preach to GD panelists to view the course a second time (ideally, with clubs not in hand)   because we can never observe every feature, every subtle nuance, every surprise, every strategy during a single round. In fact, if you're keeping score, you're often more concerned about your game than the course, so I urge panelists to not keep a scorecard during evaluation rounds. Which is why I agree with those who feel some high-handicappers often make better judges of architecture than scratch players. (Being a high handicapper myself, I'm naturally prejudiced in that regard.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

DIYdo
DIYdon't,  aka Tom

I guess, if you closed Pine Valley or NGLA for a year for a regrassing and a bit of fine tuning you would Pull them off the ranking list as well.

Your example of condo's replacing and lining both sides of the fairway is ridiculous.
A perfect example of going to unrealistic extremes.  Tell me all of the courses ranked in the top 100 that have dense forest (as you described it) lining both sides of the fairway.  There are homes lining Winged Foot, High rise condo's at Seminole, and Pebble Beach has a combination of three story hotel buildings and homes all over the golf course.

If buildings and condos ruin the golfing experience, how do you explain the 17th at
St. Andrews where you hit over a building, yet the hole is revered as one of the great holes in golf.

As far as aiming at satellite dishes, is that much different then hitting at church steeples or buildings at St. Andrews and other great courses ??

If there were homes on the Border property of Pacific Dunes, would that ruin the architectual quality of the golf holes, and the golf course ??  Would it ruin your experience of playing on the ocean, in the wind, on a sunny day on a great golf course ?

My objection to the rankings has been their inconsistency, their lack of stability.  
Ron indicated that architectual tastes change rapidly over a two year period, and I disagreed with that.  I think good architecture endures, while fads come and go, and if so many new courses get high rankings, only to disappear shortly thereafter, it indicates to me that the raters got it wrong in the first place.

Hence, perhaps there should be a re-examination of the process and the raters.

It is amazing to me, that some individuals who are the most critical of other individuals and golf courses, can't tolerate or accept criticism themselves, even when it's constructive criticism.

[Mike @ Kiawah]

Ron--

That's exactly why I question the policy of a 5 handicap or lower for GD panelists.  I'm sure that there are a number of regular posters on this board who have an excellent grasp of great golf course design but would be hard pressed to break 90.  

And, as for those who beat up on GD's rankings, GD was the first magazine to bring "architecture" into the mix (vs. simply playability and conditioning).  Without GD's rankings, web site such as GCA would have never come into being and many who post here wouldn't know why Pine Valley or Merion or (gotta get a plug in here...) The Ocean Course is a better course than the local dog-track muni down the street...

[HR]

Ron, I love the top 100 list. It's always my favorite issue. Although, I wish we could get a Dallas course listed.

I couldn't agree with you more separating modern and "classic" is silly. Once you get past the top 20, the list becomes very subjective, but that's the beauty of golf.

Thanks, for the article on Dallas golf. Things have really picked up here the past few years. I played Cowboys last week. Jeff B. did a great job.

Have you visited Brookhollow since the C&C restoration. They did a great job! What a practice facility. I understand Justin L. has made it his new home.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

Your comments about buildings at St Andrews are interesting.  I've always found those buildings add to the aesthetic appeal of TOC.  Somehow they seem legitimately part of the place.

But, still I would argue this isn't true for every venue, even some of those most highly rated.  I doubt anyone has a greater love for Ballybunion than I do, but, in truth, the trailer park does somewhat detract from the experience (at least on the 1st and 3rd tees).

I'm very sympathetic to arguments about the real experience of playing a course from a purely architectural point of view.  However, I meet very few people who share that perspective.  The visuals seem to matter a great deal to most people.  Thus, certain venues (e.g., Wild Dunes) have suffered in many people's eyes due to the explosion in condos surrounding the place.  Hell. I don't even like the practice range so much any more!

Would you not agree that venues like Pine Valley (with surrounding homes well hidden in most cases) or Shinnecock (with nothing in sight) are appeailing both because of the quality of the architecture AND because of the absence of intruding real estate development?

[Joel_Stewart]

I've watched this post for the last several days and decided not to participate as a lone ranger for the GD panelists.  I am glad that Ron has participated because we (GD panelists) have received very little clarification on the bonus categories and are often asked about the process.

Since things are calming down, I'll mention a few items that bother me about Geoffs article.

First, the main premise for his article is the notion of panelists falling in love with the newest hottest club doesn't wash with me.  What was unfairly missing in the article is that Golf Digest is the only publication which requires a waiting period before it is considiered a candidate for Top 100 status.  Sure you can write a hole story on Shadow Creek and the reasons why this happened but Geoff seems to make it a crime that the whole world is beating a path to the new courses?  It seems that we are damned if we do or damned if we don't go to Pacific Dunes right now, or Sand Hills previously.  Furthermore, this years list had 9 new additions of which 4 are modern courses (Bandon Dunes, Victoria National, Sand Ridge, Whistling Straits) which is a very small percentile breaking into the Top 100.  

The example of Bethpage being dropped is absurd and misleading.  I would think anyone that is impartial would agree that if the course is closed, undergoing a complete remodel is not going to receive the required number of ballots for consideration. Not a hard concept to understand.

Pebble Beach vs. Pine Valley -  I've talked to 25 panelists since the rankings came out and not once did this change ever come up in discussion. The main discussion is courses 30 through 100.

Lastly the comment of GD editors fudging the numbers boarders on irresponsible journalism.  Not one other publication publishes the results by specific category (Page 134 in the May issue)other than Golf Digest.  It is pure speculation on his part.

[Simon Cooke]

Does Norman know that such trash is being posted on his site???

Or is he doing this since Golf Digest seems to ignore his work?  If so, that's pretty childish.

[spooon]

Patrick,

To say that housing and condos do not take away from the architecture of a course is like saying ambience does not play a part in a romantic encounter.  Even Gods greatest designs in womenkind can be enhanced by proper lighting and the right music.  Glistening dew on a green carpet or a bead of sweat near the valley of sin is only made all the more sweet when you are not distracted by outside agencies.  How many times have we all been ready to cut the dogleg short when a phone rings or children enter the room and we come up short.  This is not due to a poor design feature or misplaced water hazard on our mate but still plays a major role in scoring.  Thankfully, unlike golf courses, Gods greatest designs were given the gift of mobility to change locations as our needs and moods change.  Now if we could get them to stop talking back.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron Whitten,

I can see a wonderful course that has lost its way, being restored and entering the top 100.  There is nothing inconsistent about that.  But, all to often, new rave courses are given high marks only to disappear shortly thereafter, and I think the rater either:
1.  got it wrong
2.  was impressed by the wrong things.
3.  was caught up in the latest fad

A few years ago, I wrote a letter to a rating magazine on which I was a panelist, stating that I shouldn't submit my rating after playing any particular course, but, at the end of the golf season, after I had played a bunch of courses, such that enough time had gone by for the "WOW" factor to wear off, and an intelligent analysis and comparison could be performed.  
I was dismissed by that magazine as a panelist.

The critics of houses and condos refuse to acknowledge that the current # 1 course in the nation, Pebble Beach, is loaded with them, as is Winged Foot and many other courses.  So, unless the houses or condos are extremely intrusive, it shouldn't detract from the inherent architectual values.

Do I prefer a course with no houses or condos, absolutely, but most great, older courses, built in or near cities years ago, suffer from this situation.  

Ron Whitten,

I also wonder how much regional bias exists, and if there shouldn't be a degree of editorial review to soften this effect.

[T_MacWood]

I think the newcomers to the latest GD list are their most solid in years. I'm not sure if it is indication of a change in direction or extraordinary group of new courses. It was also encouraging to see the inclusion of Fishers Island and Shoreacres--although Matt Ward may not agree.

Up until that point a newcomer was lucky to last 3 ranking before being dropped - with the manditory waiting period. Here are the newcomers from the 3 rankings prior to 2001:

Course (Initial ranking/current ranking)
Valley C. (79/59)
Shadow Glen (82/gone)
Pine Tree (86/gone)
Old Waverly (88/gone)
Wilmington (92/99)
Old Warson (93/gone)
Atlanta (96/gone)
Ocean (41/67)
Atlantic (65/100)
Double Eagle (71/90)
Ghost Creek (81/gone)
RTJ (92/gone)
East Lake (94/66)
Spanish Bay (99/gone)
Bethpage (100/gone/46)
Sand Hills (31/36)
Sanctuary (48/89)
Estancia (65/81)
Quarry (73/91)
WW-PBarrens (75/97)
Crosswater (80/96)
Royal New Kent (84/gone)
Whitch Hollow (86/gone)
Ocean forest (91/gone)
Pete Dye (97/gone)
Edgewood Tahoe (99/gone)
Naples National (100/gone)

The Valley Club, Ocean, East Lake, Bethpage and Sand Hills appear to be safe, the others are living on borrowed time.

[Birdieboy]

The problem with this article and all of the posts is they are plagiarisim from the hundreds of posts on GCA back in April and May.  Has anything changed?

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

I've never thought much about condos when playing the heart of Pebble Beach (#6 thru #10).

Moreover, the 18th hole at Pebble has this big distraction on the left, so while I know there are houses on the right, they've certainly never been the focus of my attention.

All in all, I think the folks from Del Monte did a pretty good job avoiding housing/buildings taking away from the experience at Pebble.  #1 has been the only exception that ever bothered me.

As for Winged Foot, it seems to me that the GD rating of this course has been very stable over the years - just like Merion, for instance.  Both have housing around the course, but it is tastefully done, far better than a modern design like Muirfield Village.

In sum, I continue to believe that the influence of housing or buildings surrounding a course, has to be judged on a case by case basis.  It has been done well in some case, but poorly in others.

Most people I meet (normal golfers, not architecture nuts like ourselves!) care a great deal about things other than "architectual values"....such as an environment unspoiled by real estate development.

P.S. By the way, my views on this subject are a bit extremist.  Ask me what's wrong with Crystal Downs and my reply will be "I don't like the view standing on the 17th green lacking back and to the left.  The club should plant a few bushes to better obscure that modern looking white house".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It's interesting that Pine Tree, which was in the top 30 when the ratings started, has slowly moved down, until it went off the top 100 list recently.

Dan King,

In certain ways the ratings are a good thing.
I say that because a club is scrutinized from outside its membership, often having the effect of having the club look to make improvements.  When members try to effect positive change they are often met with a difference of opinion and resistance.  But, when a national publication makes a numeric evaluation, that sometimes acts as the catalyst to promote improvement.  

Hollywood is a great example.  
A project was completed and Hollywood came into the top 100.  Other courses and memberships see this, and now want to improve their clubs.
So, I think the ratings have a beneficial effect in that they bring about a heightened awareness not possible, save for the ratings and the magazines.

Tim,

My point was that houses/condos don't necessarily spell the end to the architectual values of a golf course, and Pebble Beach was my prime example.  If the housing isn't intrusive, then the course shouldn't take the hit.  Most would enjoy no surrounding housing, but most of the clubs in the Metropolitan area don't enjoy this luxury.  What is really sad is how many clubs let border property slip through their hands, or worse yet, how many clubs sold off their border property and now housing and commercial buildings line their perimeter.

[Paul Turner]

The rankings have a miniscule impact back in the UK and somehow these courses have managed to survive  

[Matt_Ward]

Enjoyed all the comments.

In response:

Tom MacWood: I still continue to love both Nantucket and Bulle Rock. Both courses espouse different ends of the architectural spectrum. Nantucket is clearly different than other Rees Jones designs and Pete Dye's work at Bulle Rock is in my mind a winner.

Second, I love Fisher's Island and would keep it solidly in my 100 Greatest listing. Not so for Shoreacres. I thoroughly recommend anyone who has not played Skokie since the renovation by Ron Pritchard. A tremendous restoration effort that has magnified the initial efforts of Langford / Ross at the course. Skokie in my mind is a course that needs to be "rediscovered" by those who love golf course architecture at its finest.

Aclayman: Yes, I have expectations when I visit a site, but my confirmation comes only from when I play the course. You mentioned about Lawsonia and I have played the course and truly was impressed. My only issue -- generally the speed of the greens are quite slow and usually require a shoulder turn to get the ball to the hole. Has that changed? I played the course about for the first time 10 years ago and returned about five years later.

Tommy Naccarato: Before you harp on my belief that (Sky Course) Lost Canyons is not worthy of a U.S. Open I urge you to play the ENTIRE course. Viewing pictures, although somewhat helpful, is not the same thing as an actual tour. The land, routing and shot values are solid. However, I believe the inability to get sizeable galleries onto the course may prove difficult because of the terrain. In the LA area I believe the Sky Course could prove a worthy venue for such a prestigious event and a location that might interest the USGA.

Pete Dye in my mind should have one of his sites as host to the Open. Smartly, the PGA recognized this with previous championships (Oak Tree / 1988, Crooked Stick / 1991 and the forthcoming 2004 event at Whistling Straits).

Play Lost Canyons from the tips and you will notice how Dye consistently befuddles, intimidates today's top players.

Bottom line Tommy -- I wonder do you personally like Pete Dye designs? If so, I'd like to hear those you are especially fond of and those you detest.

For those who have written on this thread I agree with Ron Whitten on returning to sites and walking them. I generally do this for a great number of courses I rate. But playing the course is truly at the heart of any rating process. AND FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE PANELISTS ARE JUST FREELOADERS ... IF I COULD NOT PLAY A C0URSE BUT COULD ONLY JUST WALK IT THEN THAT WOULD BE OK AS WELL!

I also make it a point to get the viewpoints of different people / handicap levels of people who have also played a particular course. I like to analyze their comments and see how they stack up to my impressions. Most important of all -- I keep an OPEN mind given the evolving nature of courses. As time proceeds things do change and as a result it is important to see courses again and again. Look at the improvement at Bethpage Black as a clear example. At the same time I do not give a free pass to those courses in the Top 30 simply because they have always been there. Greatness is not isolated to a snap shot in time -- it is continuous and ever changing.

[Ran Morrissett]

Matt,

Specifically, which holes don't you like at Shoreacres? Do you consider them to be bad or merely indifferent holes?

Does Skokie (which I am dying to see) have a stretch to rival 10-15 at Shoreacres?

Cheers,

[Matt_Ward]

Ran: I agree with you about the stretch of holes on Shoreacreas (#'s 10 thru 15). They are good but let me offer the following:

The land on Shoreacreas is dreadfully dull minus a few spots where the ravine comes into play. The closing holes on each side are also a yawn. I wonder if people value Shoreacreas simply because Seth Raynor designed it and it happens to be located in a hotbed of golf in the Chicago area.

In my mind Shoreacreas has TOO many short holes. I don't mind a course having three or four but we're talking about seven or eight of them here.  

Among the holes I found to be boring include:

1st
2nd
3rd
8th
9th
16th
17th
18th

Enjoyed the following holes:

4th
5th
10 thru 15

Before anyone looks to take my head off I want to add that a big fan of Raynor's work at Camargo and Fisher's Island to name just two. Shoreacreas doesn't cut the mustard to be in the Top 100 when such classic venues as Skokie sit on the sidelines.

I had the pleasure in playing both courses on the same day (July 3) and after being hugely disappointed by Shoreacreas I was absolutely thrilled by Skokie.

Kudos to the club in hiring Ron Pritchard and for updating such a classic course. Unnecessary trees have been chopped and all the bunkers restored. The putting surfaces are a real treat and it takes superior iron play to get the ball close. The land is also vintage with wonderful rolls.

I recommend two stretches of holes at Skokie. The first four are dynamite. You had better be ready when you tee off at the 1st. I also believe the entire back nine is stellar. The 8th is also a superb par-4 with a green that defies anything but total perfection.

You must constantly position tee shots at Skokie.  The course swings gracefully with holes moving both left and right. Fortunately, for me I played the finishing hole (464 yards / par-4) with a following westerly wind. Uusually the wind is blowing off the Lake and I can just imagine how demanding it must be.

Also, one interesting note -- with the exception of the 14th and 15th holes and the closing two the par for each hole at Skokie changes. The course is also expertly layed out so that as you finish one hole the tee for the next is just a few steps from where you putted out. The routing is also complex since you never establish a set pattern with wind.

I don't possess the depth of knowledge of courses in the Chicago areas as others do but  after playing both courses in the same day I am shocked to see Skokie taking a back seat to Shoreacreas.

Shoreacres is a pleasant member's course and Raynor did a fine job, however, Skokie is everything and so much more. In my mind and the minds of those I know who live in the area Skokie is the best golf alternative on the North Shore. Like Sammy Sossa -- Skokie is a home run hitter!!!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
I'm a great believe in Pete Dye and consider him one of the great designers of our age.  However, as I have said before, Lost Canyons Sky and Shadow are not Pete Dye courses. They are Pete Dye Signature's designed by Perry Dye's Dye Designs and have seen plans to prove it.

I have also talked to someone from Perry's offices that has urged me to help get them leads for future projects, using Lost Canyons, Ocean Trails, and Cypress GC on their resume.

As far as Pete's original work here in California is concerned, PGA West and La Quinta-Mountain are about the only ones where Pete was actually here working. Maybe part of the Dunes course, but I could be wrong on two or maybe all three. (Not counting photo opportunities for Dye Designs) Tom Doak could more then answer, and also credit Lee Schmidt who had a lot to do with Pete's designs in California also.

Maybe I haven't even seen a total "Pure Pete" course yet?

I can only think of the reprecussions of holding a US Open at Lost Canyons. I would surmize that a major tent city hospital would have to be constructed for spectators who have been bitten by rattlesnakes which dominate the area. Do you actually think environmentalists are going to allow people to trapise all over their beloved eco-areas which dominate course? Where are they going to put all of those tents? I could see all of those USGA officials walking Lost Canyons in their white pants, blue blazers and PJ Boatright hats in 90 degree+ heat, being "choppered" out of back of that canyon from heat prostration.

It's just my take on things.

I think the only chance the US Open coming to Southern California is going to be when Rees finishes Torrey Pines, and even that is a long shot.

I will end this by saying that Lost Canyons looks to be a good golf course(s), but not GREAT to the point it could hold a US Open. If it did, the selection committe must be made-up of Golf Digest Panelists.

(Another horrible joke made in poor taste. I just can't help myself. Damn me!)

[Scott_Burroughs]

There is absolutely no room for spectators at Lost Canyons.  There are too many hitting across ravine holes where thousands of spectators AND the players/officials would be restricted to walking together on 10-foot wide cart paths, not to mention no room off many fairways (sensitive areas).

The same thing can be said for Bandon Dunes.  Where are the spectators and grandstands going to be on #5 and #6?  How about along the fairway for #4 before 100 yards from the green? #14 green is off-limits as well.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Either or, is that a good way to evaluate a golf course? You do not believe there is room for both Skokie and Shoreacres in the top 100? Should your understandable admiration for one course effect your opinion of the other?

I assume you would place Nantucket, Bulle Rock and Lost Canyons in your personal top 100? Nantucket is a terrific spot and no doubt the club provides a wonderous experience, but in your opinion what is it about the design that differentiates it from other Rees Jones courses?

Rees Jones was given a unique opportunity at Nantucket. He was given a site featuring gentle undulations and a habitat of distintive vegetation, including heather, scrub oak and native grasses -- infact it is the only place in the US where heather is naturalized. Throw in the wonderful atmosphere of old Nantucket, including its maratine climate and you have the makings of a timeless classic.

Instead he chose to move small mountains of dirt (a reported 230,000+ yards) to create the typical framing. It would have been a perfect opportunity to give the world a low profile heathland/seaside design by simply leveling off tees, identify natural green sites and allowing the natural features to dominate and dictate play, instead he chose to create a golf course that might have been built anywhere in the USA.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()