News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #25 on: March 08, 2007, 10:08:11 PM »
That ranking is an abomination.

Medinah goes from 40 to 57 and Olympia Fields goes from 54 to 41.

I'm going to wipe my @%% with that ranking right now.

FWIW, those are last year's rankings.  The new 2007 list has Medinah dropping to 64 from 57 and Olympia Fields moving up to 39 from 41.

Thank you.  My point is solidified.

Olympia Fields....39.....too funny.

All due to the influence of GCA's own Jeff Goldman!  ;D

Jason Blasberg

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #26 on: March 08, 2007, 10:09:19 PM »
who wants to post the classic and modern lists for those who get their mail late . . .  
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 10:09:42 PM by JKBlasberg »

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2007, 11:05:43 PM »
"All due to the influence of GCA's own Jeff Goldman!  ;D"


Thanks Bill.  Next time we are both supposed to be at the same outing, I'm actually going to show up, even if I have to be dropped off by an ambulance (which, oddly, nearly happened)   ;D

As to the architecture of the 2 courses, I'm running interference on our South Course project, and don't know beans about the North.   :D  For a more educated view, take a look at Brad Klein's write-ups of both, which are on the web (Ryan's going to be a huge fan of Brad when he reads them).

Medinah:

http://www.golfweek.com/pro/pro_pga/351903142275289.php

Olympia Fields is easily found by searching on golfweek's website, but it won't copy.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 11:12:52 PM by Jeff Goldman »
That was one hellacious beaver.

Glenn Spencer

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2007, 12:13:16 AM »
That ranking is an abomination.

Medinah goes from 40 to 57 and Olympia Fields goes from 54 to 41.

I'm going to wipe my @%% with that ranking right now.

As a former "Second City" MSA citizen myself, why get your nose in a snit?? Let's call them both even at 50th! Neither one produce much in the way of architectural excitement, do they?


PS...be happy the Big Ten ranks higher than the ACC (for now!)  ;D

I would agree with the assessment on the architecture.  But the large jumps and falls of these two courses are quite telling about the reliability of these rankings.  I like Olympia Fields...but Olympia Fields couldn't hold Medinah's jock.

And is the Golfweek ranking all about the architecture?


PS - Got to go watch the Illini play the Nittney Cats.  If we lose this game we should be excommunicated from the Big Ten (Eleven)

Are your eyes okay? Really taking a risk of your golf game by attending that tournament. Were Michigan and Minnesota trying to build a new wing on the United Center? Hopefully you just went to the one game to see the Illini. The Big Ten basketball tournament is absolutely BRUTAL to watch on television.

p.s.- Illinois should be in now, but I wouldn't make sweet 16 plans.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 12:14:08 AM by Glenn Spencer »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2007, 07:14:57 AM »
That ranking is an abomination.

Medinah goes from 40 to 57 and Olympia Fields goes from 54 to 41.

I'm going to wipe my @%% with that ranking right now.

Ryan,
I do not know anyone who shares your opinion. Perhaps you could drop the slander give us your opinion on why you believe Medinah is superior?

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2007, 07:30:13 AM »
Ben:

Slander?

That's a stong word to be throwing around incorrectly.  I'd be interested to see what slanderous comments I made.  [BTW - slander is spoken, libel is written].

Nonetheless, I will get to my comparison when I have the time.  But please know, there are plenty of Olympia Fields members that agree with me and given the amount of IMs I've gotten since I posted what I did above, I'd say a whole lot more agree with me too.  
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 07:31:13 AM by Ryan Potts »

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2007, 07:56:29 AM »
Ryan,

While I may not be the expert to explain the differences between Medinah and Olympia, I believe you are giving Medinah too far of a head start. It has a big reputation, and deserves it, however just by going through the holes on each course in my head...I would have to give Olympia the edge on having more interesting holes.

However I am looking forward to hearing your reasons otherwise.

Pat
H.P.S.

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2007, 08:12:44 AM »
I guess there are a bunch of Golf Digest guys that agree with Ryan. (Medinah #15 and Olympia Fields #36). I have not played Medinah but hope to this summer when I visit Chicago in August. I have played Olympia Fields and thoroughly enjoyed it. I look forward to comparing the two. Maybe I can get to Olympia Fields again too.
Mr Hurricane

Jason Blasberg

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2007, 08:19:47 AM »
Although I've still not seen the list I got some info from someone who has their issue in hand:

Classic Newcomers:

Eastward Ho(82)
Engineers (83)

Based upon the 1939 Top 100 World list these courses should properly be in anyone's top 100 US (and likely top 100 World list too).

I'm also told that Yale has moved up to 45 from 60 which makes sense to me as it gets better everytime I play it with the continued improvements being made there.

I'm not sure if Eastward Ho has gone through major restoration work but Yale and Engineers are perfect  examples of great classic courses that had all, if not mostly all, of their bones in tact that needed some major TLC (mostly in the form of tree removal and bunker work).  

Everyone speaks about a second modern renaissance in course design but not much is spoken about the the restoration projects as representing a corresponding renaissance in resurrecting (save a recent Brad Klein article) old classics.  

Seems to me they're both a welcomed development and I hope more classic courses are returned to their original glory and playing conditions through thoughtful and well informed projects such as the ones at Yale and Engineers.

Keep 'em coming boys!

Joe Fairey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2007, 08:38:20 AM »
got my issue yesterday...Augusta National dropping from 3 to 10...come on Golfweek...what are your raters thinking??...apparently, many have not had the priviledge to play...ANGC is in a class by itself...it's beauty, history, the quietness...and all the 'green and white'...as far as changes, I've seen none that have make any difference to the members and their guests who are the ones that play 99% of the rounds every year...think about it..

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2007, 08:49:36 AM »
I'm not sure if Eastward Ho has gone through major restoration work

JK -

Though I am loathe to post on a rankings thread, I will tell you that Eastward Ho! (you gotta include the punctuation, it's the best part!) has undergone massive bunker and tree work. While you wait and wait for my yardage book and Noel Freeman's upcoming article, here is a great article on the work, link courtesy of the now-defunct Mike Sweeney.

Eastward Ho! renovation

I have mixed feelings about removing that many trees, but I can tell you that the bunker work is jaw-droppingly impeccable. My understanding is that Ran is going to detail this work in an updated course profile this year.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2007, 08:50:42 AM »
I have played Eastward Ho twice, and they have been undergoing a bit of a restoration in the last couple years.  Mainly the work involved tree removal around the back nine, with a good number of bunkers refurbished as well.  

EH is certainly a favorite, though I don't know how much of a challenge it is now with modern technology, at only about 6250 yds.  The ground movement there is quite fun.  They should mandate it should only be played with hickories!  ;)

Michael and my posts seem to have crossed in space....
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 08:55:42 AM by Brad Tufts »
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #37 on: March 09, 2007, 08:57:38 AM »
I'm shocked by Trump National's (Bedminster) ranking.

I'd be interested in seeing the rating given to each component in the formula

There must be something in the bottled Trump water. ;D

Noel Freeman

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #38 on: March 09, 2007, 09:01:54 AM »
The Ho! is a magical place, so magical I feel somewhat sad helping to expose it... Of all the places I've seen only Royal Hague and bits of Southerndown compare to the terrain.  I am fortunate to be contributing an article on the course to Neil Crafter's magazine that will be out in May/June.

I can confirm that there will be a big WOLF match against Ran at the Ho! later this year.. No one wants to partner with him and he maintains he can whip us all...  

A great interview would be talking to Keith Foster who gets litle press here and is more deserving and Frank Hancock the super there who has done tremendous work.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 10:39:14 AM by NA Freeman »

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #39 on: March 09, 2007, 09:02:08 AM »
...it's beauty, history, the quietness...and all the 'green and white'.....

Joe if you look at the criteria none of these qualities are included.  Using them might get Yosemite, or Arlington National on the list but alas the Golfweek list is ranking golf courses.  

I would assume that the drop is in part due to the perception that the changes to the golf course has taken away from the History and the addition of trees and length has detracted from the strategic opportunities at Augusta National.  

Now if only I could get on so I could test my theory to test my theory.

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2007, 09:41:05 AM »

Tom Huckaby

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #41 on: March 09, 2007, 09:50:54 AM »
On the classic side, I believe we can thank Mr. Huntley for CPC's ascendancy.  I'm just happy the balance of power moved west again.   Neener neener neener to all you Philadephians.  ;D

On the modern side, Ballyneal #43.  No comment other than those who were outraged about GD's placement of this course better do some screaming.  I haven't been there, the place sounds great to me.

In the state by state, all I looked at is CA and  Dr. V's point yesterday about whatever being seen rating highly sure has proven true... Callippe Preserve, which was #6, is now out of the top 20 completely.  The brand new, supposed to be decent but really no great shakes Monarch Dunes checks in at #14.  Oh well.  That's the way of these things.  But those at Callippe must be pretty bummed at how their course now sucks.  ;D

No way this makes 14 pages - I give it 5 max.  And most regulars here know why the comments will be few.

 ;D

« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 09:54:18 AM by Tom Huckaby »

John Kavanaugh

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #42 on: March 09, 2007, 09:53:59 AM »
Thank God Rustic held on by a thread.  Jack Bauer is too busy in the Russian Embassy to drive out and do damage control.  Bye bye Barona..It was nice to know ya.

Tom Huckaby

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #43 on: March 09, 2007, 09:55:27 AM »
Thank God Rustic held on by a thread.  Jack Bauer is too busy in the Russian Embassy to drive out and do damage control.  Bye bye Barona..It was nice to know ya.

That got audible yuks.  ;D  BTW, the first nuke went off not all that far from Rustic... here's hoping the wind was blowing the other direction.  The high school my Dad taught at for 40 years is toast.


JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2007, 10:05:44 AM »
Two things that pop out for me in the Classic list:

1. Congressional's plummet

2. Travis not listed as an architect on Hollywood.

Also, why is Sea Island Seaside on the Modern list?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 10:13:01 AM by James Morgan »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #45 on: March 09, 2007, 10:09:06 AM »
got my issue yesterday...Augusta National dropping from 3 to 10...come on Golfweek...what are your raters thinking??...apparently, many have not had the priviledge to play...ANGC is in a class by itself...it's beauty, history, the quietness...and all the 'green and white'...as far as changes, I've seen none that have make any difference to the members and their guests who are the ones that play 99% of the rounds every year...think about it..


Joe, there are some who have wondered what took so long. As Brad Klein pointed out, AGNC is the only top course that is employing a tree planting system when everyone else is removing them. It will be interesting if the powers that be will do an about face after seeing where their course is ranked now.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #46 on: March 09, 2007, 10:20:18 AM »
First of all, a big thanks to Brad Klein for the all the work he does to put together the lists.  I think the Golfweek ratings are the best representation of great courses among the major publications.  Great job, Brad.

Regarding Ballyneal's debut at #43:  The turf was barely mature enough for golf last year.  There were some bare spots in the fairways.  In addition, the greens were unusually slow for much of the year, which had to detract from the playing experience.  We expect the course conditions to be much better this year, with second year grass and a few adjustments to the irrigation system.  So, many of Golfweek's "early adopters" saw the course before optimal playing conditions were possible.  Conditioning matters.

I think Ballyneal is ranked too low.  The course compares favorably with the top 25 courses.  It is a unusually consistent layout, with 18 good holes, and a few special holes, like the 12th.

My first thought about Augusta is the quality of the courses now ahead of it.  They all look pretty good to me.  Perhaps a change in tastes is happening.

Engineers clearly deserved the recognition.  Great place.

Some may have noticed Stone Eagle didn't make the modern list.  I can't help believing the raters who participated in the King's Putter, who saw the course for the first time on a 110 degree afternoon, after already playing 18 holes, rated the course lower than they would have if they played it during high season.  I love the place; it is strikingly beautiful, especially in the afternoons.  Fun to play, too!

Tom Huckaby

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #47 on: March 09, 2007, 10:24:29 AM »
Dr. V:  Oh I know I'm right about the 5 pages max - however, the reason for this has as much about this being "the truth" as I have in common with Borat.  But I won't rabble-rouse or get you guys in any further trouble, I promise.   ;D

John Kirk:  I think you're right about Ballyneal and Stone Eagle.  These raters are human after all.  But I was hoping for a bit more vigor... Golf Digest sure did take it in the teeth.  Just remember also as much as we discussed the course after that outing and as vilified as I was for my take, well...I gave it pretty damn high ratings for GD.  ;D  So the aim truly must be at these Golfweek boys.

WHOOPS!  Strike that.  I promised not to rabble-rouse.

 ;D ;D
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 10:32:23 AM by Tom Huckaby »

Jason Blasberg

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #48 on: March 09, 2007, 10:29:57 AM »
Re: Stone Eagle, from my perspective having last week played multiple rounds in very different conditions if it's not a top 100 modern course I don't know what is . . . it may not be everyone's cup of tea but its variety in shot requirements, visual feast and engineering accomplishments alone warrant more recognition.    

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #49 on: March 09, 2007, 10:34:16 AM »
I find it interesting that Augusta National is #10 on the list.  I mean I know the trees are a problem there but aren't the panelists taking things a little TOO far.  How many of these panelists are actually PLAYING augusta for it to drop.  


I wonder how many have played it in the last year since the most recent changes.  I would guess that there are raters who are downgrading  their score based on the changes without having played the "updated" golf course.  3 to 10 is a pretty big drop for 1 year on the hardest course in the world to get access to. Also, is it possible that some raters rate it without actually playing it and just walk it during April?

« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 10:35:31 AM by Sean Leary »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back