Top 100 Nominations (Closed)

[Brian Phillips]

I agree, as a goal, it doesn't have to be the idea making a course playable for all (all nearly all).  However, can you name a better architectural goal for an archie. 

Sean,

This is my Holy Grail when designing.

Brian.

[Mark Pearce]

Jon- I think the number of 10s, or 9s or whatever given to a course will show the truth worth. A minority opinion ie a low vote gets disregarded. A golf course playable by a low standard player could not be a factor in assessing a course in the worlds top 100.

Sean replied to this more politely than I would have done.  The last sentence is rubbish IMHO.

Mark (and Sean), how would you rate Pine Valley? 

Jim,

I'd have to play it first.  You can rely on the fact that when (if?) I get to play PV I will rate it.

Mark

[Mark Pearce]

I think its becoming tougher to design courses that ALL standards will like, mainly because of the difference that people hit the ball. I know some good players that dont want to play some ofthe older courses in an around the city because they are so short and comprise too many drive and wedge holes.

Adrian,

It's hard.  But designing a great golf course isn't easy and never has been.  Still, the fact is that many courses (both old and new) manage to be a challenge for all levels of player and I think it's lazy to say "because it's hard we shouldn't try".  Like Sean, I doubt we'll ever agree on this.

I wonder, of those older courses around the city (presumably London?) you refer to that better players don't want to play, how many are great courses (or were before technology got out of control)?

[Brian Phillips]

Pine Valley is more playable for all golfers on most of it's holes than it's rumoured.

[Jon Wiggett]

II think however that my brother in law would have no chance on his best day of shooting a round with which he would be happy and so he would not have it high up on his best courses list.

Jon W,

Sorry but that's just crazy.  I've been lucky enough over 30 years to have played PVGC dozens ot times - my best friend happens to be a member.   As a teens handicapper I have been in the 80s a handful of times at PVGC, but I've also had two rounds in the mid 120s.  It was the best course for my the first round I played there (and hadn't seen many of the world's greatest) and remains so after I've seen 3/4 of the world's best and nearly 1000 other courses.   

Reducing your assessment of a course because you played poorly is like reducing your assessment of Chinese food in a gourmet Chinese restaurant because you didn't know how to use chopsticks.

JC

Jonathan,

if you read my posts properly you would know I am saying it is the ALL ROUND PLAYABILITY that a player rates a course by. If a course is too difficult above a certain handicap then it most players above that handicap would probably not chose to play the course on ragular basis.

I too have played PV right from the backs and it would be very tough on a 15 handicapper from there and over demanding on a 28 handicapper IMHO.

You are very lucky to play PV on a regular basis I am quite envious

[Adrian_Stiff]

I made a post a few back where I said we need to define a low standard player, probably if we agreed on that we would all be agreeing more on playability for ALL.

The pro's need to be tested almost to a point where the enjoyment level is virtuall hell for a low standard player...taking things to an extreme lets think about Augusta set up for the masters.

I'd say PGA west, Sawgrass are frighteningly difficult for the low standard player. Here in the UK, The Belfry is a -20 under course for pro's but many cant make the carry at the 18th and could not complete a medal scorecard. The Key thing in these courses is water. Water on GCA is ofcourse a dirty word, but water is a key like for the majority of modern golfers and newer courses, not all new courses will be on beautiful choppy sandscapes.

I like Sean's idea of minimal bunkering, but if you have courses where a low standard and a pro are going to play you might have a 150 yard range with which a pro v a low standard player are going to hit it. Yes you can factor some degree of back or forward tees, but its still hard to cater for bunkering, hence the need for multiple bunkering on fairways.

I think you could design a course playable for the pros up to 12 handicap reasonably easily, but when you start to stretch the paramaters so its pro's up to 18 or pro's up to 24 or 28 the excercise becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible. Another view is that you could create a course that ALL players between say 4 handicap and 28 could easier than say a pros- 18.

Perhaps we should not design courses for Pro's, they are the minority, the problem is when the phone rings you design for what the client wants and rarely does that client want a 6000 yarder that Auntie Mary can get round.

So, I dont think its a design flaw if you dont achieve playabilty for ALL, if you can get pretty near it its great, totally enjoyable for a low standard player and a pro maybe impossible in the strictest terms, but a parcel of land may crop up.

[Rich Goodale]

Adrian

Are you saying that a hacker can't tack right-left with two 3/5-woods to 150 or so at 18 Belfry and then hit whatever club over the water to the green?  If so, it's a craply designed hole.  If not, your argument is invalid.

As for TPC Sawgrass, I shot 70 there when living in PV and playing off 4-5, not far from what I am today.  If you are on your game and don't do anything stupid is is not that hard of a golf course, even though always challenging and very much fun.

Rich

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

Are you saying that a hacker can't tack right-left with two 3/5-woods to 150 or so at 18 Belfry and then hit whatever club over the water to the green?  If so, it's a craply designed hole.  If not, your argument is invalid.

As for TPC Sawgrass, I shot 70 there when living in PV and playing off 4-5, not far from what I am today.  If you are on your game and don't do anything stupid is is not that hard of a golf course, even though always challenging and very much fun.

Rich

The 18th at the Belfry is a great hole. It has a carry of about 100 yards over water twice. There are no real alternative routes. TPC Sawgrass, some would be at the 17th all day but because of that it is certainly not a crap hole.

[Rich Goodale]

Yo Adrian! (cue "Rocky" theme....)

17 at TPC-Sawgrass is just a 100 yard carry too, and you get to tee it up each time you try!  If you are so crap that you can't finish 18 at Sawgrass, you'll be at the Belfry until the Mad Cows come home.....

Rich

[Adrian_Stiff]

Which I think if it was accepted that you can't cater for a golfer that carry the ball 100 yards, then I agree with with wording playable by ALL...if that makes sense.

[Rich Goodale]

Agreed, Adrian.

[Brian Phillips]

Adrian,

I think the 18th at the Belfry is a crap hole. Two forced carries on the same hole both with no bail out areas either.

I also played TPC earlier this year and have to agree with Rich that if you are on your game it is very, very playable.  In fact as Rich says if you are on your game you can quite easily shoot low scores there.  It is very wide on many of the holes and the tightest drives are probably 1 (because you are shitting yourself) and 18 (because you are shitting yourself).

TPC is a genius of a course that nicks shots away from you without you actually knowing where the hell you have lost shots.  There are so many options on that course it was mind blowing for me to play for the first time this year.

To think that it was made from scratch and done so over twenty five years ago just shows how good Pete and Alice are or were.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Brian- Good holes, bad holes are all about opinions Brian. I think the 18th is the best hole on the course but it is tough. I think a course with a mixture of tough to easy holes is best, say with 9 or so real back tees for the pros that adds about 600 yards on the total length, that strengthes up the fives and makes some long fours could be the best route to a playability for nearly all.

[Mark Pearce]

Most 24 handicappers can carry a ball 100 yards.  My 12 year old son is off 26 and carries it 150.  Maybe that's my standard.  A course isn't great unless it challenges a scratch player but my son can get the ball round.

I'm not a fan of the 18th at the Belfry.  Dramatic stuff in the Ryder Cup, maybe but that doesn't make it a great hole.

[Paul Nash]

I think course difficulty can be a bit subjective. For instance, I am off 16 and went round the Hotchkin in 12 over playing off 19 at the time - that was my first time and it seemd reasonably OK, and I even went in a few bunkers. Similarly, I played well on Wentworth West and the Old Course. I find I play worse on modern course where I don't really enjoy the set up but can be rated much easier than other courses. Also, par comes into it - Swinley is par 68, sss 70, North Hants 70 and 72. These are supposedly a lot harder than most courses, but I think they are a joy to play and I would probably score better than many other courses. For instance, I used to be a member of Caversham Heath which was 7150 yards off the back (par 73, sss 74), but I found it more difficult to score than the older shorter courses like Swinley, which are rated 2 harder than par.

[Ian_L]

Final warning, nominations end tonight.

[jeffwarne]

Adrian,

If top 100 courses can only be judged from the back tees, that makes most courses in the UK ineligible for being ranked as play is almost always off the yellow tees for visitors and white tees for members except in competitions.

[Jon Wiggett]

All this talk about challenging and testing good players. Isn't it more important that a course is fun to pay for all levels of player.

Carnoustie is a difficult course, tough and grinding for all levels. My experience of it is that it is very satisfying walking off it having shot 71 from the backs but I can't say I enjoyed the round during the round. For my playing partner it was hell.

The carnoustie is a great test of the good players game but it is too onesided in its challenge for me to be considered one of the best in the country from a general golfing point of view. One big plus Carnoustie has is they could widen the playing corridors cosiderably and the course would still present a stiff test whilst appealing to the average player.

[Ari Techner]

I second Erin Hills. 

I also nominate Lookout Mountain GC for the list. 

[Cristian]

I would nominate:

De Pan
Sperone
Glasgow gailes
Eindhoven
Boat of Garten

[Adrian_Stiff]

All this talk about challenging and testing good players. Isn't it more important that a course is fun to pay for all levels of player.

Jon- I dont think think it is more important when you are talking about the top 100 in the world, that aside if you accept that ALL levels does not mean ALL levels and its say up to 24 handicap then most will enjoy even the tough courses.

[Andrew Hastie]

I would nominate:

De Pan
Sperone
Glasgow gailes
Eindhoven
Boat of Garten

Cristian,
De Pan has already been Nominated, so that would make your Nomination actually a second.

And just to confuse things I'll second your nomination of Eindhoven.

Andrew

[Jon Wiggett]

and I 2nd your 2nd of my nomination Boat of Garten 

[Patrick Boyd]

I second the nomination of Lookout Mountain Golf Club. 

[Dieter Jones]

I nominate Barnbougle Dunes.

I just played 72 holes there last weekend.