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.


John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2008, 02:51:48 PM »
Thanks Wyatt.  I do not subscribe to Golf Magazine and will admit that I enjoyed my peek at the list before I requested its removal.

Wyatt Halliday

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2008, 03:03:52 PM »
You are very welcome John.

My confession is that I did not remove the post out of fear or intimidation, but rather the recessed need to "feed the pig".

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2008, 03:21:51 PM »
Wyatt,
Thanks for posting (briefly) the complete list.  It was great to see the information in a format that could be easily read.  Not sure if they have added it to their website or not, but looking at the Golf rankings online is generally a chore.  Seeing how they present info on the web sure wouldn't inspire me to subscribe.  Fortunately for them, they're already getting my $9 annual contribution.

The revised list is very concise.

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2008, 03:23:27 PM »
You are very welcome John.

My confession is that I did not remove the post out of fear or intimidation, but rather the recessed need to "feed the pig".

Given the poor state of the golf economy it is important to at least not steal from the paper media while it still exists.  God knows the world is less harmed by poor golf writing than poor lawyering or dentistry.  I can't imagine the harm that would be done to our economy if all the golf architects, writers, pros and supers entered the work force and attempted to produce basic goods.  We need to keep them employed for our own good.

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2008, 03:26:46 PM »
Wasn't that what caused communism to fail...They made the artists work and the engineers paint.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2008, 03:32:47 PM »
I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath over my reaction.

Overall the list is one of the better ones.

What I have played:

1.Pacific Dunes
2. Pebble Beach
4. The Ocean Course
6. Bandon Dunes
9. Spyglass
10. Sawgrass
11.  Pasatiempo
13. Shadow Creek
14.  Harbour Town
15.  Bandon Trails
18.  World Woods – Pine Barrens
21.  Trood North – Pinncacle
28 – Paa Ko Ridge
35 – We Ko Pa – Cholla
37.  PGA West – Stadium
42.  Reynolds Plantation – Great Waters
44.  We Ko Pa – Saguaro
45.  Troon North – Monument
49.  Harvester
50.  Giants Ridge – Quarry
51.  Wolf Creek
60.  Wild Horse
81.  Deacon’s Lodge
82.  General at Eagle Ridge
83.  Rustic Canyon


Too Low:

Bandon Trails (15) – should be 6th instead of Bandon Dunes
Harvester (49)– 15-25
Giants Ridge Quarry (50)– should be about 15-30
Wilderness at Fortune Bay (not on list)  15-30
Rustic Canyon (83)– 30-40
Wildhorse (60) - 10-20 - I believe it is close to the best of the public minimalist courses.

Too High:

Pasatiempo (10)- cramped front nine makes it about 20th place for me.
Bandon Dunes (6) – should be 15th instead of bandon Trails
World Woods – Pine Barrens (18)–I would put in the 50 range.  I would rank it below Tobacco Road.
Troon North (45) – both courses – 50-75 range
Wolf Creek (51)– off the list
Deacon’s Lodge (81) – Off List – replace with the Classic
The General (82)– waaay off the list

Not there but should be:

The Classic - features that are irritating to a purist (cart paths, eye candy bunkers, forced carries) but a fantastic, exciting, beautiful course with great variety and a terrific combination of birdie holes, brutally difficult holes and heroic decision-making.

Tobacco Road - Par threes may be a weakness but shortness is welcome when playing.  Par fives as good as it gets and uniqueness is worthy of bonus points.

Big Fish - Hayward, WI - I would rate it vastly superior to World Woods Pine Barrens for example.

Vista Verde - I would rank it equal or better than the Troon North Courses and the equal of the We-Ko-Pa courses

Cog Hill - 15th in Illinois?????????



What about Southern Pines - great 6300 yard course.  For me, it is as good as many on the list.  It is not even on the top 20 in NC.  I doubt it deserves to be in the top 100 but only because it is not long enough.

Wyatt Halliday

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2008, 04:01:51 PM »
Is Lawsonia really not one of the Top 100 public access courses in the country?

I find its absence a bit puzzling, and I've played a decent amount of the courses listed.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2008, 04:03:56 PM »
Given the poor state of the golf economy it is important to at least not steal from the paper media while it still exists.

A noble idea, but GM had a circulation of (or at least they did a couple of years ago) of 1,421,014 copies, placing them at 59th for magazines.

That's .001% of subscriptions that could be lost, if every registered user on this site was a  subscriber and they all decided that the Top 100 list was all they wanted from GM and gave up their subscription.

Heck, the potential to get new subscribers because the mag is being talked about at least evens out the equation.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 04:07:48 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2008, 04:19:11 PM »
Jim,

On one hand you are eloquent about how the spirit of the game can be found inside the rules and on the other you say that ignoring copyright laws is alright because it benefits the greater good.  That is like saying downloading movies for free on the internet is good for society because it limits obesity caused by movie snacks.  I have already been stung by project delays caused by fights over internet profits in the entertainment business.  The issue if far too complicated to understand beyond the common decency of not stealing what you do not own or have permission to take. 



Matt_Ward

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2008, 07:03:43 PM »
It's time that any "you can play" ratings start to focus more on printing a listing that recognizes the limitations of people to pay such exorbitant fees to play so many of the listed courses.

How bout a $99 and under listing.

That would certainly prove to have more interest and likely feedback.

Richard Hetzel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2008, 07:15:52 PM »
It's time that any "you can play" ratings start to focus more on printing a listing that recognizes the limitations of people to pay such exorbitant fees to play so many of the listed courses.

How bout a $99 and under listing.

That would certainly prove to have more interest and likely feedback.

I completely agree. When I make my Northern Cali trip, I'll SKIP Pebble Beach (not worth the price they command IMO) and play these instead (maybe as I am fickle):

Bayonet
Blackhorse
Presidio
Del Monte

there are a few others but you get the idea....there a TON of GREAT golf courses for less than $99!
Best Played So Far This Season:
Crystal Downs CC (MI), The Bridge (NY), Canterbury GC (OH), Lakota Links (CO), Montauk Downs (NY), Sedge Valley (WI)

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2008, 07:47:03 PM »
They do have listings for under $50 and they do "under $75" list for best new courses.

They just don't list 100 of them...

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2008, 08:16:29 PM »
What about Southern Pines - great 6300 yard course.  For me, it is as good as many on the list.  It is not even on the top 20 in NC.  I doubt it deserves to be in the top 100 but only because it is not long enough.

Without seeing the list, I would say there are any number of courses better than Southern Pines. I would likely agree that its not top 20 in NC, I could probably think of 20 better in NC that I have played, though I really like it and would probably say its one of the top 10 in Pinehurst/Sandhills.

Wayne_Freedman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2008, 08:47:40 PM »
The complete release:

(New York, Aug. 12, 2008) – Golf Magazine (www.GOLF.com) celebrates public golf courses in its September issue with the release of the 2008 Top-100 Courses You Can Play – a biennial ranking of the top courses across the country where membership is not a requirement to play. Pacific Dunes, Tom Doak’s Links-style masterpiece in Bandon, Ore., edged out Pebble Beach Golf Links for the top spot on the list, which hits newsstands Aug. 15. (See attached list, which is for reference only, not for publication.)

 

“What Pacific Dunes has going for it is that it’s totally back to nature,” says Joe Passov, Golf Magazine’s Course Rankings and Architecture Editor. “There are no homes; there are no roads; there are some truly gigantic dunes that occupy holes; various routing quirks that are a lot of fun that you don’t see elsewhere – back-to-back par 3s, four par 3s on the back nine alone – and you’ve got more ocean views there than you do at Pebble Beach.”

 

The 2008 edition of Top 100 Courses You Can Play has hosted 11 PGA TOUR major championships; 13 courses were designed by Tom Fazio and nine by Pete Dye; 23 of the courses you can play for greens fees less than $50, and if you’re a traveling golfer, California has to be on your list as 10 courses land on the list from The Golden State. Eleven courses were first-time selections to the list, including Chambers Bay, debuting at No. 8. “Chambers Bay is a true collaboration of the RTJII team,” Passov writes of the Robert Trent Jones II design that opened in 2007 and has already been awarded the 2015 U.S. Open. “The course is a strategic masterpiece with wild elevation changes, split fairways, enormous dunes, tattered-edge bunkers and stunning scenery. We can’t wait for the 2015 Open.”

 

The Top-100 Courses You Can Play was compiled through input from Golf Magazine’s World Course Ranking Panel (which can be found at Golf.com), the Golf Magazine editorial staff, industry insiders and the magazine’s network of “course spies” in the field.

 

Notes on Top 100 Courses You Can Play:

 

11 Courses make their debut! In addition to Chambers Bay, the following courses have earned first-time recognition on the Golf Magazine list:
#27       Erin Hills Golf Course, host of the 2011 U.S. Amateur Championship

#29       Fallen Oak at Beau Rivage Resort, Tom Fazio’s Gulf Coast design that routes through rolling hills and picturesque tree-lined fairways in the De Soto National Forest

#44       We-Ko-Pa Golf Club, Bill Coore/Ben Crenshaw’s 2006 desert design in Fort McDowell, Ariz.

#62       The Highland Course at Primland Resort, Meadows of Dan, Va.

#79       Osprey Meadows at Tamarack Resort, Tamarack, Idaho

#88       Sunday River, Newry, Maine

#93       Circling Raven Golf Club, Worley, Idaho

#96       The Golf Club at Redlands Mesa, Grand Junction, Colo.

#99       Atlantic City Country Club, Northfield, N.J.

#100     Tidewater Golf Club & Plantation, North Myrtle Beach, S.C.

 

By championship:
·         Has hosted 11 Total PGA TOUR Major Championships,

·         8 U.S. Opens,

·         3 PGA Championships,

·         11 U.S. Women’s Opens,

·         11 U.S. Amateurs,

·         3 U.S. Senior Opens,

·         3 Ryder Cups

Note: The top-five courses alone have hosted six U.S. Opens, six U.S. Amateurs, three PGA Championships, two U.S. Senior Opens and two Ryder Cups. The events span well more than 100 years, from the 1901 U.S. Amateur to the 2008 U.S. Senior Open two weeks ago.

 

Affordable: 62 of the top 100 courses can be played for $100 or less.
 

Totals by state:
·         10, California

·         7, South Carolina

·         6, Florida and Arizona

·         5, Nevada and Oregon, including Nos. 1 and 6

 

By population: Hawaii has the most courses represented on the list per capita, followed by Idaho, Nevada, South Carolina and North Dakota.
 

By designer:
·         Hendersonville, N.C.-based architect Tom Fazio has 13 designs on the list.

·         Carmel, Indiana’s Pete Dye, has nine, five of which are inside the top 15 (Nos. 3, 4, 9, 12 and 14).

·         18-time major championship-winner Jack Nicklaus’ prolific hand is represented seven times.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2008, 09:17:07 PM »

Without seeing the list, I would say there are any number of courses better than Southern Pines. I would likely agree that its not top 20 in NC, I could probably think of 20 better in NC that I have played, though I really like it and would probably say its one of the top 10 in Pinehurst/Sandhills.

You could be right.  However, it is vastly superior to some on the list.

As to NC, keep in mind it is a public list.  Do you think Tot Hill Farm is better?  I enjoyed the course but for my taste Southern Pines kills it by miles.  It is 11 on the NC list.

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2008, 09:43:55 PM »
Jason--I have not played Tot Hill. I have played Tobacco Road. I have said on here before that I think Southern Pines is better than TR, but I am not sure. Can you PM me the NC list?

--Off hand, I would say that Pinehurst 2, 4, and 8 are better, Tobacco Road (possibly/probably), Pine Needles, Bryan Park (Champions), Tanglewood (Championship), Linville, Grove Park (So I hear, never played) Currituck Club I would say is better (was at one time top 20 in state GD) Duke is better. Those are just places I have played or walked. I hear there are some very good clubs down south of Wilmington in the 'greater Myrtle Beach area.'
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 09:50:30 PM by J. Kenneth Moore »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2008, 09:49:33 PM »
John,
I'm not in favor of ignoring copyright law at all. I do think that posting a link to the article is the proper way to go about disseminating the information, but I don't think it's wrong, or a theft, if someone reads the list then takes it upon themselves to make that information, or parts of that information, available to others. After all, the list is formulated to sell magazines, but
it also serves to get people talking, arguing, comparing,  etc.,  the various placements, and the authors stupity or brilliance.

Instances like this, on a website that is devoted to GCA, only spark more interest. How many times has GM, or GD, or GW been mentioned on this site. How many raters from these magazines populate these pages? How many of their editors have looked in or contributed to these pages? Do you honestly believe that these editors have no idea how much free word of mouth 'press' is generated by the mention of their publications here?

I think it more than serves their purposes, and is no loss to them or their advertisers. In fact, I think it may be a positive for these magazines.

By the way, I think I have included the link to any article I have ever discussed here. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure.  
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2008, 09:56:25 PM »
Jason--I have not played Tot Hill. I have played Tobacco Road. I have said on here before that I think Southern Pines is better than TR, but I am not sure. Can you PM me the NC list?

--Off hand, I would say that Pinehurst 2, 4, and 8 are better, Tobacco Road (possibly/probably), Pine Needles, Bryan Park (Champions), Tanglewood (Championship), Linville, Grove Park (So I hear, never played) Currituck Club I would say is better (was at one time top 20 in state GD) Duke is better. Those are just places I have played or walked. I hear there are some very good clubs down south of Wilmington in the 'greater Myrtle Beach area.'

Hold on there, Red. I prefer SPCC to Pinehurst 4 & 8, Pine Needles, and Grove Park.  In other words, I prefer it to every course on your list I've played, save #2.

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2008, 10:00:55 PM »
Jason--I have not played Tot Hill. I have played Tobacco Road. I have said on here before that I think Southern Pines is better than TR, but I am not sure. Can you PM me the NC list?

--Off hand, I would say that Pinehurst 2, 4, and 8 are better, Tobacco Road (possibly/probably), Pine Needles, Bryan Park (Champions), Tanglewood (Championship), Linville, Grove Park (So I hear, never played) Currituck Club I would say is better (was at one time top 20 in state GD) Duke is better. Those are just places I have played or walked. I hear there are some very good clubs down south of Wilmington in the 'greater Myrtle Beach area.'

Hold on there, Red. I prefer SPCC to Pinehurst 4 & 8, Pine Needles, and Grove Park.  In other words, I prefer it to every course on your list I've played, save #2.

And that is what's bogus about any of these lists. They pretty much come down to personal preference as to what course is better.

John Kavanaugh

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2008, 10:06:18 PM »
John,
I'm not in favor of ignoring copyright law at all. I do think that posting a link to the article is the proper way to go about disseminating the information, but I don't think it's wrong, or a theft, if someone reads the list then takes it upon themselves to make that information, or parts of that information, available to others. After all, the list is formulated to sell magazines, but
it also serves to get people talking, arguing, comparing,  etc.,  the various placements, and the authors stupity or brilliance.

Instances like this, on a website that is devoted to GCA, only spark more interest. How many times has GM, or GD, or GW been mentioned on this site. How many raters from these magazines populate these pages? How many of their editors have looked in or contributed to these pages? Do you honestly believe that these editors have no idea how much free word of mouth 'press' is generated by the mention of their publications here?

I think it more than serves their purposes, and is no loss to them or their advertisers. In fact, I think it may be a positive for these magazines.

By the way, I think I have included the link to any article I have ever discussed here. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure.  

Jim,

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of being a copyright hoodlum.  I don't even understand where these people get information not yet posted on the magazine websites.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2008, 10:15:00 PM »
"And that is what's bogus about any of these lists. They pretty much come down to personal preference as to what course is better."

J Kenneth - you know, I hardly ever post on the ranking threads. I don't understand the process no matter how many times it's explained to me, and I haven't played any of the courses on the list. So this is a genuine question, i.e. Do you really believe that, what I quoted above? What I mean is, I don't doubt that you believe it in a 'ranking' context, but do you not think that there are some fundamentals and principles of good golf course architecture that some courses manifest to a greater degree than others? In other words, do you think that course architecture (the quality of the site + the work of the architect etc) can be judged, at least by those who know and have experience? Is there something, anything 'objective' about what we discuss here day in and day out?

Peter

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2008, 10:40:49 PM »
JK,
No apology necessary, although I will be sending you the dry cleaning bill for the removal of the tread marks from my polo shirt (you know, the ones I got when you threw me under the bus).  :o
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2008, 10:48:07 PM »
"And that is what's bogus about any of these lists. They pretty much come down to personal preference as to what course is better."

J Kenneth - you know, I hardly ever post on the ranking threads. I don't understand the process no matter how many times it's explained to me, and I haven't played any of the courses on the list. So this is a genuine question, i.e. Do you really believe that, what I quoted above? What I mean is, I don't doubt that you believe it in a 'ranking' context, but do you not think that there are some fundamentals and principles of good golf course architecture that some courses manifest to a greater degree than others? In other words, do you think that course architecture (the quality of the site + the work of the architect etc) can be judged, at least by those who know and have experience? Is there something, anything 'objective' about what we discuss here day in and day out?

Peter

What I said there was meant two ways. One was the we can't discuss these rankings here because those discussions come down to what we like and don't like about certain courses. And two, I suppose that same thing can hold true for the raters as well. Some one who is really sold on the RTJ/Fazio style may not like a Ross course or CBM, etc. And I think that many times people may rate a course and judge is based on how they rated another course. Like rate Pinehurst #2 at say 9.5 (using Golf Digest scale, the only one I really know) and then Pine Needles as 9.75 when everything is added. But then they look at it and say 'no, #2 was better, let me just go back and change some numbers to make then add up right.' I am sure Andy Troeger will chime in on that last comment, but at some point, stuff like that has to come into play. I think that rankings are good, but the way Doak ranked them I think is a bit better that saying "course X is #1 and course Y is #2," and so on. But I think many times a golf course is too different to say "this one is the best in the world and this one is #2." Thats why I think they are bogus.

Andy Troeger

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2008, 11:09:54 PM »
"And that is what's bogus about any of these lists. They pretty much come down to personal preference as to what course is better."

J Kenneth - you know, I hardly ever post on the ranking threads. I don't understand the process no matter how many times it's explained to me, and I haven't played any of the courses on the list. So this is a genuine question, i.e. Do you really believe that, what I quoted above? What I mean is, I don't doubt that you believe it in a 'ranking' context, but do you not think that there are some fundamentals and principles of good golf course architecture that some courses manifest to a greater degree than others? In other words, do you think that course architecture (the quality of the site + the work of the architect etc) can be judged, at least by those who know and have experience? Is there something, anything 'objective' about what we discuss here day in and day out?

Peter

What I said there was meant two ways. One was the we can't discuss these rankings here because those discussions come down to what we like and don't like about certain courses. And two, I suppose that same thing can hold true for the raters as well. Some one who is really sold on the RTJ/Fazio style may not like a Ross course or CBM, etc. And I think that many times people may rate a course and judge is based on how they rated another course. Like rate Pinehurst #2 at say 9.5 (using Golf Digest scale, the only one I really know) and then Pine Needles as 9.75 when everything is added. But then they look at it and say 'no, #2 was better, let me just go back and change some numbers to make then add up right.' I am sure Andy Troeger will chime in on that last comment, but at some point, stuff like that has to come into play. I think that rankings are good, but the way Doak ranked them I think is a bit better that saying "course X is #1 and course Y is #2," and so on. But I think many times a golf course is too different to say "this one is the best in the world and this one is #2." Thats why I think they are bogus.

Did someone say my name?  ;D 

I actually don't have much of a comment on this one. I played a couple very good courses this weekend with a fellow GCA'er. I liked one better, he liked the other one better, and we both defended our opinions during the discussion that ensued. That's about all you can really do. I think there are qualities that make for good golf, but personal preferences by all means play a part.

John Moore II

Re: Golf Magazine: Top 100 You Can Play 2008
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2008, 11:40:41 PM »
Andy--plus, certain items are personal preference anyway. Stuff like course conditions are personal for sure. Those depend really on how much a person really knows about turf. Someone who is or used to be a superintendent will likely rate course conditions far different than a normal rater, no matter how 'educated' that person may be, the super simply knows different things to look for. Not to mention, someone may rate the conditions at ANGC not great simply because they don't like those types of conditions and much prefer the 'burnt out' style of Scotland. Just another reason rankings can be looked at kind of ho-hum.