[Tom MacWood]

How many of the world's 100 greatest courses were designed by active ASGCA members?

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link:

http://search.golf.com/top-courses-and-resorts/top-100-world-courses-2007.html

[Lou_Duran]

And your point is?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

Not sure, but I think that it has something to do with train schedules!

[Tom MacWood]

Lou
Its a question, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Whats the fact are known you, Jeff, myself and anyone else can that their points. 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Wouldn't a better question be "How many of the world's 100 greatest courses were designed by ASGCA members active or dead?"

Still, this would not be a proper method of establishing a possible correlation between the quality of those in the organization versus those that aren't as I would think there are more than a few of them designed by architects who were dead BEFORE the ASGCA existed and who most certainly would have been included in the organization.

Forget men like Tilly and CBM, what about Ross, a founder memebr of the ASGCA I believe (though I could be wrong on that), his masterpiece in Pinehurst was most certainly designed well before the ASGCA was even a glimmer in its founders eyes.

What about men such as the Fownes and Crump? They certainly NEVER would have been eligible to even apply for membership.

May I ask what you are attempting to establish with this question?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Good point....how many of the world 100 were designed by golf architects who were active members of the ASGCA, this incudes architect who are living and those who have kicked the bucket.

[Lou_Duran]

The implications of the question seem obvious.  Since this is not a classroom and you are not a professor, wouldn't it be much simpler and effective to note your objections (to the ASGCA) and get the dialogue going?

BTW, I was under the impression that you didn't think highly of ratings and lists?  Why launch from such a flawed premise (that lists are valid)?

[Tom MacWood]

The implications of the question seem obvious.  Since this is not a classroom and you are not a professor, wouldn't it be much simpler and effective to note your objections (to the ASGCA) and get the dialogue going?

BTW, I was under the impression that you didn't think highly of ratings and lists?  Why launch from such a flawed premise (that lists are valid)?

Lou
This is a discusion group, and the question was designed to stimulate discusion. If you don't like the question, no one is forcing to you to weigh in.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Whats the fact are known you, Jeff, myself and anyone else can that their points. 

I recognise all the words but are they necessarily in the right order?  Borrowing heavily from Morecambe & Wise 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you still need to define which of the "Top 100" were designed BEFORE the ASGCA came into existence. These include the 10 or 11 that Tilly did (depending on which list on uses) CBM's & those of Ross and a number of other's. The number may actually be closer to only 50.

I would suggest that if one wants to examine quality of courses versus membership in the ASGCA then you ONLY use the Top 100 listing of Modern Courses done by Golfweek. I believe by its definition that the only courses eligible for this listing HAD to have been designed since the ASGCA was founded.

[Tom MacWood]

Thats not the question. I'm looking for the number of courses designed by ASGCA golf architects, who were members at the time the course was designed. For example Donald Ross was a member, but he was retired at the time he became a member.

[Bill_McBride]

Whats the fact are known you, Jeff, myself and anyone else can that their points. 

I recognise all the words but are they necessarily in the right order?  Borrowing heavily from Morecambe & Wise 

Andrew, I think it may be another Monte Python skit -- like cricket! 

[Garland Bayley]

Well they're not doing too bad as they have the #1 modern with Sand Hills.
Whistling Straits ain't to bad either.

[Garland Bayley]

They've also got a couple of my (not so heavily traveled) favorites in Juniper and Chambers Bay.
And they have the North Dakota Triumvirate Bully Pulpit, The Links of ND, and Hawktree.

Perhaps a better question is who are they missing besides Kidd and Doak?

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Tom MacWood on Today at 08:40:12 AM
Whats the fact are known you, Jeff, myself and anyone else can that their points.  


I recognise all the words but are they necessarily in the right order?  Borrowing heavily from Morecambe & Wise"



AndrewM:

I'm definitely no "expert word parser" and "expert grammariain" and "expert meaning interpreter" like some of the others on here but if I had to hazard a guess I would have to say this:

1. "Whats" must be synonymous with "once" and must mean "once" in the context of that sentence. I mean it does sort of sound like it, right?    

2. "That" must mean "make" in the context of that sentence even if "that" doesn't sound much like "make" at least it has one letter in common with "make" so I think that's (or should I say make's?) as close to proof that "that" means "make" as we need to be (or should I say "we" or even "they"?) or to get (or should I say "yet" or even "let"?)?

I would also like to add one last bit of spell housekeeping for the 11th time as well. His name is not Allan or Allen, it's ALAN D. Wilson!!  Oh Drat, silly me, that's completely off the subject of this thread because as august a man as he was Alan D. WIlson croaked about 12-13 years before the ASGCA was formed. Can't mess with the old "Timeline" you know?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Having pissed off the Merion contingent, its pretty obvious that this post is put up here soley to piss off the ASGCA contingent.  It really isn't to foster discussion.

Tom,

You asked on another thread what an ASGCA thread had to do with architecture. So now I ask, what does this thread have to do with architecture?  Being as two faced as you are, you must have good peripherial vision!

[Garland Bayley]

Having pissed off the Merion contingent, its pretty obvious that this post is put up here soley to piss off the ASGCA contingent.  It really isn't to foster discussion.

Tom,

You asked on another thread what an ASGCA thread had to do with architecture. So now I ask, what does this thread have to do with architecture?  Being as two faced as you are, you must have good peripherial vision!

Sorry Jeff,

But to me this seems like an admission that ASGCA architects don't do would class courses. Make your stand on the truth, not on what you surmise to be others motivations.

Like I posted above, with things like Sand Hills and Whistling Straits in your membership portfolio you have nothing to dodge here.

[Niall C]

I'm sure it must be possible to look up the list and count how many courses were designed by ASGCA members, so if anyone can be arsed can they please do so and post. Then perhaps we might find out what Tom Mac's point is.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know we have nothing to dodge. I believe at one time we did make a list of the courses designed by members, and especially the cousres designed by members since 1960 and it is substantial.  Like Tom Paul, if he wants to find and parse the list, I am simply not going to do it for him.  Like anything else, there will be interpretation, and for some, having only 90 of the top 100 modern would likely be interpreted as us not having the best gca's.  Be real, that is where this thread is going.

We have always had a few world class gca's who refused to join, starting with Dick Wilson, then on to many of his associates like Joe Lee and Robert Von Hagge and through to Tom Doak.  So, we will never have all of the top 100 moderns, and as pointed out, would never have all the classics, since the organization was formed in 1947, well after the death of most of the Golden Agers.  The first meeting was at Pinehurst because Ross was known to be ailing and they wanted him to be the first honorary President before his death.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm sure it must be possible to look up the list and count how many courses were designed by ASGCA members, so if anyone can be arsed can they please do so and post. Then perhaps we might find out what Tom Mac's point is.

Niall

It is easier to determine which GCAs are not on the list, and then subtract their courses from for example the top 100 modern.
What are you left with? Oh, perhaps 95 courses by ASGCA members.

[John_Conley]

Sorry Jeff,

But to me this seems like an admission that ASGCA architects don't do would class courses.

Bayley, the only admission I can see making is that ASGCA members don't do all the world-class courses.  With members like Pete Dye, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Fazio, Jim Engh, Rees Jones, and Bill Coore it sure looks like they design some.  I don't know how you could interpret otherwise.

[Kalen Braley]

It can be interesting to tune in for the drama....

But I'm not really sure what kind of good will come of a thread like this.  Isn't it enough that there are many hard feelings and irrepairable relationships from the Merion threads.  I think its time for GCA.com to do more spirited comraderie-building type excercises amongst its members, not further alienate one another.

[TEPaul]

"Being as two faced as you are, you must have good peripherial vision!"


Jeffrey:

That reminds me of the wonderful off-the-cuff remark of the hilarious New York mayor Jimmy Walker as he stood at the round lectern in an auditorium in the round;

"Well, if this isn't a great platform for a two-faced politician I don't know what is."
 
 

[Garland Bayley]

How many of the world's 100 greatest courses were designed by active ASGCA members?

Sorry Jeff,

But to me this seems like an admission that ASGCA architects don't do would class courses.

Bayley, the only admission I can see making is that ASGCA members don't do all the world-class courses.  With members like Pete Dye, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Fazio, Jim Engh, Rees Jones, and Bill Coore it sure looks like they design some.  I don't know how you could interpret otherwise.

A simple question was asked. It has a simple answer which without taking much time about it, I would suggest is about 95. To not give such a simple answer seems to me to be avoidance, which can be construed to as such an admission. Once the number is established, some will say that's too little, others will say that's plenty. At that point it is simply a matter of opinion. I think it is plenty and am willing to agree to disagree with some one that says it is to little. Case closed. Let's move on.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()