[Adam Clayman]

 BM took a steep fall on the GolfWeek list too--you guys need to work on that!

Andy, 20 spots is a lot, but when you count in the new additions, and the quality of the courses listed on the GW list, that are not on the GD list, it's not all that bad. Is it? Making the list even once seems to be all a project needs to create buzz. With the anticipated new Doak course, perhaps more GD panelist will finally take-in the greater Santa Fe area.

I'll never forget when RJ Harper gave the pro @ Spyglass marching orders to do whatever he needed to do to get the course in the top ten. It blows my mind how far GCA has come since then. That was less than 10 years ago, too. From the recent work at Pebble, I'd say they are ignoring the lessons available on the world wide web.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
The comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but certainly any course making the top 100 modern has to be very strong and its a compliment to make any of the lists. For my tastes, Black Mesa is way too low, but its too low in the Digest lists too. I'd put it top 25-30 modern, minimum, but I know that there are others that haven't liked the place very well. Hopefully the 2nd course will change all of that.

[CJ Carder]

Figured I'd toss out a bit of a VA representation -

1.  I'm very happy to see the Golden Horseshoe Gold back up at 32.  I would imagine the reasonable improvement in conditioning that we've received since the 2007 NCAAs has helped that score some.  Still, I feel lucky to be able to play there as much as I do.

2.  For any of y'all northern folk travellin' down I-95, don't sleep on Mattaponi Springs in Ruther Glen, VA - which is just north of King's Dominion.  It's a solid course.  My only problem with it resides in a mundane 16-17 stretch.  Otherwise, you best be golfin' your ball.

3.  Strantz's Royal New Kent is a notable omission on the list as it's been a mainstay for several years now.  My guess is that people don't particularly care for the residential development on the back 9, which has really detracted from the overall feel of the place.  In addition, the 13th hole, which had a devilish green complex (really narrow and angled away from the player and to his left), was made even more difficult (now bordering on silly) when they demolished all the trees behind the green.  Judging distance, particularly on a short-iron shot, has now become next to impossible.

4.  100% agree with everyone else - The Heritage has no business on that list.

[Philippe Binette]

Wild Horse not in this list... it potentially is a top 5 public course in the US.

Definitely the best value course Price vs quality in America... probably by a mile

[Mark_Rowlinson]

How many of these are golden age courses?

How much in total would it cost to play all 100 courses?

[Sean_A]

Of all the publics I have played (not many -  Pinehurst #2, TOC, Pine Needles, Tobacco Road, Harbortown, Lakewood Shores & Shepherd's Hollow) on this list I prefer Lakewood Shores and its good to know it still gets some respect.  I am not saying its better than the others, but I prefer it to the others and I have always thought of The Gailes as an innovation of design which is now often taken for granted - this type of design wasn't terribly popular back in the day.  I spoke of this before, but I don't think many courses from the early 90s have survived in tact as built on Best Of lists, especially those with such reasonable prices as The Gailes.  

One disappointment has to be the omission of Lederach.  I am not sure how Tobacco Road or Shepherd's Hollow could make it, but Lederach doesn't.  I thought it was good enough that if I ever went back to Philly I would have no qualms giving Lederach another go even if I was on a short trip - it really is a very, very good course.  

Ciao

[Mark Arata]

the one that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is Arcadia Bluffs at 10 and Pasatiempo at 29..........No way on earth.

Arcadia belongs on the list, not starting that battle again, but not 19 spots ahead of Pasa.

[John Moore II]

Well, I know this is all subjective, but Tobacco Road on the list? I just don't see it. I really love the course, but I have played a number of courses that I would personally consider better, some far better, that are not on the list. Like I said, I love to play Tobacco Road, I just don't think its quite this good.

[Matt_Ward]

I get a good laugh when I see Pebble Beach placed as a "public" course when the reality say otherwise. The high tariff is meant to discourage Joe Sixpacks from playing. PB is not the only culprit. Frankly, I would dare Digest to create a listing of top public courses for under $200.

It would not prevent these pocket plunger courses from going even higher with their fees but the magazine (along with others) would send a message that top quality golf can be had at other locations for a good bit less and at the same time really fit the tagline of being truly public.

Just my take ...

[Anthony Butler]

I get a good laugh when I see Pebble Beach placed as a "public" course when the reality say otherwise. The high tariff is meant to discourage Joe Sixpacks from playing. PB is not the only culprit. Frankly, I would dare Digest to create a listing of top public courses for under $200.

Agree with your point here.

A public course should not charge $200+ a round unless it is on the 100 Greatest Courses List. Period.

[Rick Sides]

I was down in Myrtle Beach this week and played Tidewater again; I usually play it once a year.  There is no way that course should be ranked 41st in the Golf Digest Top 100 Public.  Has anyone played it lately?  The conditions is terrible.  The rough is all burned up, the greens are in bad shape, even the practice area green is baked like a burned steak.  It is a shame that a few years ago the course was in great shape. This week greens fees were $200.00! Thank god I got a discount or I would have demanded money back.

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

Sorry to hear that -- I would urge you to send a note to Ken Tomlinson the man responsible for Tidewater -- don't know if Ken still owns the place. Tidewater, in its better days, is a solid layut -- but from the public courses I have played in the USA -- it would not sniff the top 100 public courses.

Rick, heed my advice -- head west for the better public courses -- most notably scattered throughout the mountain time zone. Very solid designs and the prices are clearly compatible for nearly all income levels.

[Rick Sides]

Matt.
I agree with you.  I don't know if Ken still owns the place either, but it has seen a lot better days.  I heard that a new superintendant was hired a year or two ago and has really had issues. Although the layout is nice, it is now nowhere near the top 100.  I played Shaftbury Glen while I was there this week and it was in 10 times as good as shape as Tidewater- at a 150 dollars cheaper!

[Philippe Binette]

I still can't believe Wild Horse is not in that list... Definitely belong in the list of top 50 in the world IMHO, not public, just top 50 overall... If you have chance to go play there, don't ever miss it.

People might say it's because it's a public version of Sand Hills, I don't think the courses are all that similar... Different type of ground... great golf...

Here's what I wrote on my website about Wild Horse:


Wild Horse Golf Club: what golf architecture is all about


In a recent trip in the Nebraska Sand Hills, I visited Wild Horse Golf Club. Outside of golf architecture fanatics and the lucky residents of Gothenburg, Nebraska, few people knows how great this golf course is. It is not designed by a big name architect, not set in a luxurious resort, doesn’t include a bag drop staff…

No, Wild Horse Golf Club is just a golf course, a small clubhouse and a steady stream of happy players.

Bunker Hill design (Dave Axland and Dan Proctor) built something unique, something that is rarely accomplished in golf architecture these days: unassuming elegance.

Long sweeping vistas among a sandy site reminiscent of Shinnecock Hills, beautiful yet simple rugged bunkering and a set of greens that challenge the mind of every player as well as any course on earth, Wild Horse Golf Club is as inspiring a golf course as it can be. Axland and Proctor could have fell into spectacularism and over-the top dramatics to attract people to this remote location, but instead they use a forgotten word in golf architecture: restraint.

Great courses are, sadly most golf courses are trying too hard to be.

In my last few on-site design construction projects, it seems that all I’ve heard is longer, deeper, steeper and more… more bunkers, more contours, more everything. All that at the expense of golfers. Golf architects should learn from Wild Horse, with its 45,00 $ green fees and its maintenance crew of 6 people who, I must say, do a phenomenal job. As the commercial says: there are some things money can’t buy… among them, elegance is one.

[Jason Hines]

Philippe,
During you trip between WH and SH, how many other courses did you see when gazing out upon the prairie?

I hope you noticed while you were in Gothenburg  is what I have learned when growing up in Nebraska, people take pride in the course and the course is part of the community.

Next month I will tour what Jim Engh is doing in my hometown of Kearney at Nebraska National, I am hoping and confident it will be another compliment to the spirit of the game as well as a name that will be a synonymous to the world of pure golf: Nebraska.  (minus the carts of course!!)

Jason

[Sean_A]

Well, I know this is all subjective, but Tobacco Road on the list? I just don't see it. I really love the course, but I have played a number of courses that I would personally consider better, some far better, that are not on the list. Like I said, I love to play Tobacco Road, I just don't think its quite this good.

John

There is a lot not to like about Tobacco Road, but I give it huge marks for being a very bold statement yet setting so easy on the land.  For this alone I think Tobacco Road merits strong consideration for top 100 public. 

Ciao

[Adam Clayman]

Phillipe. Excellent write up of ol' Wild Horse. Be very carful though with such an emphasis on understated elegance some blow hard might accuse you of having a preferred storyline or some fictious bias towards a smaller group of artisans.

[Phil_the_Author]

Anthony,

You stated, "A public course should not charge $200+ a round unless it is on the 100 Greatest Courses List. Period."

I cannot disagree with you strongly enough! What any course charges to play should never be tied into a ranking. All that would do is make the system far more screwed up than it ucrrently is by courses whose sole desire is to justify higher green fees.

Now that being said, I have a very hard time justifying costs to play certain courses because they are clearly excessive to my mind. 

[Matt_Ward]

Phil Young:

With all due respect -- costs do matter -- especially for a bonafide public play listing. Anthony's point, in the event you missed it, was that the overall top 100 would be open to ANY course.

Phil, it would not "screw up" the system anymore -- in all likelihood it would provide a level playing field so that course of comparable stature can be weighed.

Yes, I do appreciate what you said that you find such excessively priced courses to be way beyond your means. It's time for the mags to realize that places like Pebble Beach, Pinehurst #2, Whistling Straits, et al of this ilk, are nothing more than expensive dversions -- no doubt they have qualities but public ratings need to be in line with pratical realities. If such places want to charge excessive fees -- then by means they should knock themselves out but they would not be considered for such a pure top 100 public grouping. Just my two cents worth.

Phillippe B:

I certainly salute your enthusiasm for Wild Horse but it's not really a top 50 in the world selection. That's a bit much don't you think ? Although I cannot how wide a range of courses you have played in your lifetime.

Wild Horse was a clear omission -- no doubt about that.

The real issue with Digest is that too many of their raters opt for the higher-priced "public" layouts for their ratings. I've said this before but anything beyond $200 is not really open to the masses in a pratical sense. No doubt drawing such a line is an arbitraty call on my part.

But your larger point is well taken -- it's time to notice courses of quality that don't require a second mortgage to play them. In these times golf can stand to elevate such facilities because of the manner in which these places attract people to the game.


Rick S:

Ken Tomlinson deserves plenty of credit for doing what he started at Tidewater. I have not been back to the place in quite some time but even at its high water mark -- Tidewater, was for me, merely a more solid layout than what passes itself off as quality golf for much of the Grand Strand area.

Ken designed a layout that is quite straightforward -- no sharp edges or gimmicks. With that said, it's not extraordinary and worthy of top 100 status given the public layouts I have played throughout the USA.

Rick, as I mentioned before, quality public courses exist in the USA but far too often the golf market on the east cost is littered with expensive layouts that don't really stand apart beyond the hype. The mountain time zone is a great spot to start golf exploration for quality public courses. Wild Horse has been mentioned here and it clearly fits the bill. Ditto a number of exciting and fun layouts that Jim Engh has done with the likes of Lakota Canyon Ranch and more recently and even more so with the likes of Four Mile Ranch.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sorry Matt,

But it is you who missed the points; both what Anthony stated and what I did.

The top 100 IS OPEN to ANY course. What Antrhony stated was that, "A public course should not charge $200+ a round unless it is on the 100 Greatest Courses List. Period."

I simply stated that the COST of playing ANY course, specifically in this case a public one, should NOT be tied into how they are ranked. To do so would certainly open up avenues of potential corrupting practices and would render the value of rankings useless.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Here's my take ...

Courses for a top 100 OVERALL should have no limit. Just rate them -- pure and simple.

Have a public listing -- then make it really BONAFIDE PUBLIC and price does matter -- at least to most of the people who don't have jets and other such toys to get around.

The price dimension would only be a cut-off point for all -- if some course charged $199 and the other $50 -- the $50 one would not get additional points because it's less -- the ceiling point would only be there for courses that charge more than $200.

[Chuck Brown]

I like Matt's idea, a lot.  It might actually be a meaningful list in a wordl of ridiculous Course Rankings.

As for Pebble; does anybody seriously think it is a better golf course than Pinehurst No. 2?

Sean Arble - I am with you on Lakewood Shores' The Gailes.  If that golf course were in Monterey, or on the Ayrshire Coast (the topography of the Gailes would be passable in either locale), we'd be talking about it in the same reverent tones as we reserve for British Open rota courses, or for some of the great American classics.

[Cliff Hamm]

Matt I'm in complete agreement.  The top charge is debatable but I could live with $200 and not a penny more....

Let's take this to the point of absurdity, but to me greens fees at places like Whistling Straits, PB are at the point of absurdity.  Let's say Augusta, Cypress, et al fall on hard times and decided to allow unlimited public play at $5k.  Is that a course that should be listed as one of the best public courses?  I think most would agree not. Therefore there must be a cut off somewhere and $200 seems reasonable. 

[John Moore II]

Well, I know this is all subjective, but Tobacco Road on the list? I just don't see it. I really love the course, but I have played a number of courses that I would personally consider better, some far better, that are not on the list. Like I said, I love to play Tobacco Road, I just don't think its quite this good.

John

There is a lot not to like about Tobacco Road, but I give it huge marks for being a very statement yet setting so easy on the land.  For this alone I think Tobacco Road merits strong consideration for top 100 public. 

Ciao

Sean-Maybe I was misunderstood. I think Tobacco Road is a wonderful course. I love it and would play it before most other courses in the Pinehurst area. BUT I don't think its a top 100 course, public or otherwise. I've said before that there are 8 or 10 courses in the Pinehurst area (some private mind you) that I would say are better than TR and maybe another 5 or 6 public courses in the state that I would say are better.  I just don't personally think its that good, though, as I've said before, I think if I had 1 last round to play it would be played at TR.

[Richard Choi]

If you really want to talk about "public course", I think even $200 is too much. It should be under $150 or even better, under $100.

Of course, that would mean Pacific Dunes is out.

But I got a feeling that that would cause some consternation around here...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()