News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #50 on: March 09, 2007, 10:41:52 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.    

In my personal opinion i would rate Stone Eagle no higher than 8th in the desert area.I would take either of the bighorn tracks over it any day.

pls explain why
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #51 on: March 09, 2007, 11:04:38 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!

Conditioning?  I thought it was all about the architecture.  

First, let me preface my comments by saying that I enjoy Olympia Fields and find it to be a wonderful place.  My critique on the ratings has nothing to do with my respect for the course and numerous members who I know and enjoy.

However, that being said, over the last two years Olympia has jumped 20 spots.  Each time I have played there, the greens were almost unputtable due to the conditioning.  In fact, they were the worst greens I have putted on since my days playing the orange/blue in Champaign, Illinois.  Somehow, during that time, raters went out to Olympia and determined that it was the 39th best Classic course in the US.

Moreover, although it is a wonderful shell, the clubhouse is antiquated and dingy.  The locker room shares the same characteristics.  Those all count in the ratings right?

I'm going to stop now because I really do like the place and I feel bad that I have be critical of such a nice place.  But again, it can't be compared to Medinah.  And for sure, it's no better.  [I know, I know, I will post my reasons on the golf course in more detail later.  I have to go now.]
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 11:05:25 AM by Ryan Potts »

John Kavanaugh

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #52 on: March 09, 2007, 11:04:41 AM »
I was a little dissapointed to not see Erin Hills on the list...It is on the best in state but lower than some Nicklaus monstrosity.  I think it is pretty clear that when a course is on TV it hurts the Golfweek ranking.  Perhaps if Brent Geiberger didn't dress like such a slob at Stone Eagle in the Playing Lesson with the Pro's segment the course would have done better.

Please note...If you want your course to do well never invite a large number of raters at any one time.  It is hard to one up someone in a conversation by describing a positive.  Negativity rules the intellectual world.

Jason Mandel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #53 on: March 09, 2007, 11:08:01 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?



Sean,

That was my point exactly.  It makes completely no sense at all.  I know Mike Cirba walked the course in the last year or two.

Mike,
Did you rate Augusta by walking it?

I'm not a rater so I don't know if thas allowed or not.  Is it?

Jason
You learn more about a man on a golf course than anywhere else

contact info: jasonymandel@gmail.com

Jim Nugent

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2007, 11:09:17 AM »
A really big jump from #1 CPC, which got 9.64 points, and #2 PV, which got 9.19 points.   Can anyone explain exactly how the points are awarded?  A 10 means the course is rated among the top five in the U.S., or something like that.  A 9, in the top 25.  I don't have the numbers right, though it was explained to me once.  

Will Golfweek ever do a combined list?  
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 11:10:53 AM by Jim Nugent »

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2007, 11:12:14 AM »
Hey Paul
I really enjoyed the course and i love golf in the desert but the couple of things which i picked out were the similarities of  the par 3's (all downhill and similar distances,i think the longest was about 170 yards).I didnt think it was a very challenging driving course.By this i mean you could get up and be aggresive and not really get punished unless you hit a big hook or slice.you also seem to be never hitting off a flat lie.
As i said i do like the course and can only imagine how challenging it was with that piece of land.I am a big fan of the Bighorn mountain  (hills) course next door and  i guess i was expecting something similar.Just my 2 cents.

thanks Donal...I haven't been there just yet
199 played, only Augusta National left to play!

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #56 on: March 09, 2007, 11:15:54 AM »

In my personal opinion i would rate Stone Eagle no higher than 8th in the desert area.I would take either of the bighorn tracks over it any day.

I have never played Bighorn, but have heard one of the courses was significantly better than the other.

I place a very high premium on playing in an otherwise pristine natural environment.  Stone Eagle has no houses (and never will), does not feature non-native plantings (except for a couple palm trees next to the on course bathroom), and the architect preserved most of the existing land's character, including the beautiful rock outcroppings.

So that's important to me.  Flower beds and houses just don't do it for me.

8 pages worth, that's my guess.  But there really aren't many changes to the list.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 11:19:59 AM by John Kirk »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #57 on: March 09, 2007, 11:22:17 AM »
I was a little dissapointed to not see Erin Hills on the list...It is on the best in state but lower than some Nicklaus monstrosity.

Did you see the snippet by Brad in the new issue on EH, titled "Errant Hills Award"?  It wasn't kind.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2007, 11:25:28 AM »
I was a little dissapointed to not see Erin Hills on the list...It is on the best in state but lower than some Nicklaus monstrosity.

Did you see the snippet by Brad in the new issue on EH, titled "Errant Hills Award"?  It wasn't kind.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the magazine as protest for forcing raters to pay for seminars.  Maybe you could post a link as I do miss Brad's write ups.

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2007, 11:42:19 AM »
I was a little dissapointed to not see Erin Hills on the list...It is on the best in state but lower than some Nicklaus monstrosity.

Did you see the snippet by Brad in the new issue on EH, titled "Errant Hills Award"?  It wasn't kind.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the magazine as protest for forcing raters to pay for seminars.  Maybe you could post a link as I do miss Brad's write ups.
I haven't found it on GW's web site yet, but Geoff Shackelford had the text on his site:

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/

Quote
"Errant Hills Award: Erin Hills, Hartford, Wisc. A much-ballyhooed new co-design of Golf Digest architecture editor Ron Whitten and professional designers Michael Hurdzan and Dana Fry. Too bad it opened a season early in late 2006, though inadequate fescue turf cover is the least of this sprawling daily fee’s problems. The U.S. Golf Association heralds it as a likely future U.S. Open site, but the routing is a mess, in large part because Whitten insisted on moving no dirt at all – thereby taking trendy “minimalism” to its absurd extreme. The raw site is great, but half a dozen holes are inexcusably awkward and much of the bunkering is overexcavated and unmaintainable. The 593-yard par-5 10th hole offers a blind, fall away Biarritz green; the short par-4 second putting surface ends before it begins; and the completely blind par-3 seventh “Dell Hole” plays up and over to the bottom of a vast taco shell. They should have thought “inside the bun” on this one.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 11:50:06 AM by Scott_Burroughs »

HamiltonBHearst

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #60 on: March 09, 2007, 11:49:00 AM »


I have not played trump national beminster but I agree with Pat Mucci ;D  It would be most instructive if a rater could post their individual category ratings for a specific course.  

Maybe non-raters would then be able to develop the skills to discern the good from the bad.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #61 on: March 09, 2007, 12:04:37 PM »

Sean,

That was my point exactly.  It makes completely no sense at all.  I know Mike Cirba walked the course in the last year or two.

Mike,
Did you rate Augusta by walking it?

I'm not a rater so I don't know if thas allowed or not.  Is it?

Jason

Jason,

Unfortunately, I have never played ANGC and would therefore never rate it, even if I'd walked the property 500 times.

On the other hand, I am pretty comfortable telling you all that had I rated it, I would have certainly found fault with the new trees on several holes, including the ones on 11 which are so bad as to be muni-worthy.

ANGC is a great course that is being covered up.   Let the old lady breathe, man!  

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #62 on: March 09, 2007, 12:05:46 PM »
As far as Stone Eagle being easy, I thought it was fair and extremely fun. I thought that if you did not drive the ball in the right part of the fairway, you had no shot at getting your approach close. There is ample room to drive it for sure, but you need to be in the right part of the fairway. Again, I have played it once, but hope to get a chance again.
Mr Hurricane

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #63 on: March 09, 2007, 12:14:21 PM »
I don't think GD or Golf Magazine would have the gall to rank Augusta so low, regardless of the merits.  

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2007, 12:18:04 PM »
Well, I think all is pretty OK with the world -- Lawsonia is moving up in the classic rankings, to 55 from 61, and third in my state for public access, behind the two big ones (Whistling Straits and Blackwolf Run-River).

A few thoughts and questions:

-- Kinloch, no. 9 modern, is designed by Lester George, who I don't think has another design in the top 100. Who is he? I've probably missed it, but I don't recall seeing his name mentioned in GCA postings. What else has he done of note?

-- Anyone know anything about Linville GC in North Carolina? No. 3 public-access in a state with some good public access courses, ahead of better-known places like Mid-Pines and T. Road. Listed as a classic; another southern Ross?

-- For my Green Bay friend: Wild Horse is now AHEAD of Blackwolf Run-River (22 vs. 23). Have you played both? Concur?


John Kavanaugh

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2007, 12:22:39 PM »
I know that if I was in charge of Augusta I would pull all the Golfweek badges for The Masters.  I'm betting Golfweek would cover the tournament from their tv's just like nothing happened.  The subscribers would demand it.


Andy Troeger

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2007, 12:24:57 PM »
I'm glad to see that the state-by-state rankings for some states were expanded as well to recognize more courses. With all of the good public golf in some states I think this was due.

The Indiana list seems to keep getting worse though. Rock Hollow IMO was the best on last year's list and dropped off. Sultan's Run is still MIA as is Blackthorn, and The Fort dropped from 1 to 3. Warren is top five worthy. I like all of those courses over Bear Slide or Otter Creek. I haven't seen most of the rest, any other thoughts?

The New Mexico list matches up much better. I prefer UNM South to Twin Warriors personally though.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 12:26:06 PM by Andy Troeger »

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2007, 12:29:02 PM »
I don't think GD or Golf Magazine would have the gall to rank Augusta so low, regardless of the merits.  

I hope thats not true, I applaud Golfweek for rating it lower and hope when Golf Digests ranking comes out in a few months ANGC should drop 5 to 10 spots.

What I don't understand is why Golfweek doesn't post the specific catagories like GolfDigest?  You can then see why courses drop or rise.  Furthermore, it would be nice for some type of explanation why courses such as WhisperRock or Rustic Canyon take huge leaps down.  Any type of rise or drop of 20 to 30 places should have an explanation.

wsmorrison

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #68 on: March 09, 2007, 12:33:17 PM »
I won't comment on the actual numbers themselves, but I would like to state for the record that Howard Toomey should not get any design credit on any course associated with William Flynn simply because he did not do any design work.  

Flynn should get design credit for Kittansett Club, it is his design.  Though it wouldn't surprise me if Hood had some minor design contribution.  Flynn should be given co-design credit at Merion.  I didn't check the other Flynn courses very carefully, but I did notice the date of Flynn's work at TCC, Brookline should be 1927 and not 1931.

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2007, 12:50:39 PM »
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!

John:

 I wholeheartedly agree with you about the glaring exclusion of Stone Eagle and actually agree that Ballyneal might well have suffered from some measure of conditioning deficit.

 What really surprises me is the audacity and gall of Golfweek raters to not have declared it #1 in it's first year. After all, so many were so throughly convinced it is, and was, better than Sand Hills :o :o

  "Senor Rick...I am shocked to hear that gambling is occurring here!""
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 12:55:25 PM by Steve Lapper »
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #70 on: March 09, 2007, 12:54:11 PM »
Nice to see Donald J. Ross credited on 25 of the top 100 classic courses.  Not bad for a guy who employed a "bunch of farmers" and whose work had to continually be tidied up by William Flynn. ;)

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mike_Cirba

Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #71 on: March 09, 2007, 01:01:02 PM »
Flynn should be given co-design credit at Merion.  

Hey Wayne...what about Macdonald and Whigham???   :P ;)
« Last Edit: March 09, 2007, 01:02:18 PM by MPCirba »

Adam_Messix

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #72 on: March 09, 2007, 01:22:43 PM »
Mike C--

You're now bringing up those controversial threads again, where's Dr. Katz when we need him!?!?!?!?!

Eric Morrison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #73 on: March 09, 2007, 01:35:32 PM »
MPCirba -
Muni worthy???
Another muni generalization...can someone explian to me all of the muni rules so I run my course properly?
Thanks.
It is what it is.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golfweek Top 100
« Reply #74 on: March 09, 2007, 01:38:05 PM »
Wayne,

You are infinitely more knowledgeable than I with regards to the individual contributions of Toomey and Flynn, but a couple comments...1) The company was owned by both, correct? (think of some of the mega GCA's today) and 2) The engineering (Toomey's role) would be just as important as the designing (Flynn's role) when hoping to preserve the course long-term.