[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

There have been solid new layouts opened in the mountain time zone -- beyond your Ballyneal and Rock Creek, that are first rate courses. Jack did one at Red Ledges in UT -- the sad fact is most raters tend to be parochial and territorial. Possibly Plainfield would be noticed but there's no sure bet that a consensus of raters would be able to do so.

I don't doubt the overall depth of layouts in the metro NYC area -- but when you combine that element with a top heavy enlistment of raters from the same locale it only serves to reinforce the findings -- and it also permits other courses to glom onto the bright light that more legitimate course cause to happen.

[JC Jones]

Tom:

There have been solid new layouts opened in the mountain time zone -- beyond your Ballyneal and Rock Creek, that are first rate courses. Jack did one at Red Ledges in UT -- the sad fact is most raters tend to be parochial and territorial. Possibly Plainfield would be noticed but there's no sure bet that a consensus of raters would be able to do so.

I don't doubt the overall depth of layouts in the metro NYC area -- but when you combine that element with a top heavy enlistment of raters from the same locale it only serves to reinforce the findings -- and it also permits other courses to glom onto the bright light that more legitimate course cause to happen.

If its any consolation, Matt, I feel the same way about many Michigan courses vs ones elsewhere in the country.  Damn east coast bias!

[Matt_Ward]

JC:

You need to tell me what MI courses (besides Kingsley) that are being missed at the highest of levels ?

Candidly, I have an issue with a place like OH/S because it's a wonderful major site but where is the compelling architecture -- if anything, I believe RTJ screwed the course up but having the repetitive nature of bunker patterns there.

I see the MI market loaded with plenty of good courses -- but few of them are really noteworthy for nationwide status.

[Ed Oden]

Matt, your comments directed at Golfweek are misguided.  If your point is that there is a bias in favor of old line east coast courses to the detriment of newer west coast courses, then you should be singing the praises of Golfweek for creating a system which by its very nature precludes that bias from occurring.  It is impossible for an undeserving classic eastern course to bump a deserving modern western course because THEY ARE NOT ON THEY SAME LIST.  If you don't like the way Golfweek splits their rankings that is fine.  But your premise is simply wrong.  

[Steve Lang]

  right on for public access courses..

[JC Jones]

JC:

You need to tell me what MI courses (besides Kingsley) that are being missed at the highest of levels ?

Candidly, I have an issue with a place like OH/S because it's a wonderful major site but where is the compelling architecture -- if anything, I believe RTJ screwed the course up but having the repetitive nature of bunker patterns there.

I see the MI market loaded with plenty of good courses -- but few of them are really noteworthy for nationwide status.

I dont know what you mean by "highest levels" but I'll go with the Golf Digest Top 100.  Currently, there are four courses ranked:

16 - Crystal Downs
23 - Oakland Hills/South
49 - Arcadia Bluffs
90 - Tullymore

I wont argue the individual merits of the above selections (i.e. Crystal being higher and Tullymore not being ranked) but I will submit the following courses that should also be included (of the courses I've played):

Kingsley
Forest Dunes
Marquette (Greywalls)

Of the courses I've not played, many people rank the following as courses better than Arcadia and Tullymore:

Lost Dunes
Dunes Club
Franklin Hills

So, I would add at least 4 and maybe 6 more to the Golf Digest top 100.

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

Just to help me out -- do you rate for Golfweek ? Not that it matters because you are entitled to your thoughts.

I see no reason for the arbitrary split between "classic" and "modern" golf course listings. Why not simply have an overall listing period?

Ed, if the listings were lumped together it's more than likely the old style layouts - a number of which are dubious would still be there as the newer courses -- many from the west -- would be displaced.

JC:

It's e-z to say what courses you'd like to add -- but tell me from the Digest listing what would be the ones you would replace to get them there?

I agree with you on CD and Franklin Hills -- the former could be rated a bit higher -- the latter gets little nationwide attention.

I am also a mega fan of Kingsley -- I don't see Greywalls as a top 100 course ditto the same for Lost Dunes and  Tullymore. Arcadia is a great location and wonderful views -- the overall architecture is a borderline call too for me.

[JC Jones]

Matt,

I think someone ran the numbers and made a Golfweek composite ranking. I believe something like 80-ish were from the Classic list.

Of the courses I've played in the top 100, I believe Kingsley, Forest Dunes and Greywalls to be better courses than

Bandon Dunes
Harbour Town
Tullymore

I recently played both Calusa Pines and Forest Dunes.  I think Forest Dunes is a better course so, if Calusa Pines is top 100 then Forest Dunes is also top 100. 

[Matt_Ward]

JC:

Harbour Town and Bandon Dunes get bumped ?

Tullymore is an e-z call.

I don't see Harbour Town getting bumped for me -- BD is another story -- although Kidd has done better elsewhere. I'd rather play Tetherow but there are some on this site who can't stand the place.

thanks for sharing ...

[JC Jones]

Harbour Town isn't easy for me to bump because a) I love the course and I love the place and b) it brought something entirely new to the game when it was made and still provides for unique architecture.

However, the top 100 is relative, all of this is relative and from a pure architecture standpoint, I think it gets bumped relative to other courses.

[Matt_Ward]

JC:

When you say "relative" to other courses -- in English -- what does that mean?

Harbour Town reflected a major move away from the RTJ signature layouts that dominated the golf scene when it arrived. Totally changed the nature of design by re-introducing concepts / tactics that had been discarded for too long.

[Ed Oden]

Ed:

Just to help me out -- do you rate for Golfweek ? Not that it matters because you are entitled to your thoughts.

I see no reason for the arbitrary split between "classic" and "modern" golf course listings. Why not simply have an overall listing period?

Ed, if the listings were lumped together it's more than likely the old style layouts - a number of which are dubious would still be there as the newer courses -- many from the west -- would be displaced.

Matt, this seems typical of your responses when someone points out inaccuracies or inconsistencies in your posts.  Deflection with tangential thinking.  Stay with me on this:

1.  If you don't like Golfweek's approach of splitting their rankings that is entirely fine with me.  You are totally free to believe they should only have a single list. 

2.  If you believe there is a bias working in favor of old line east coast courses and against newer west coast designs, that is also fine with me.  I can't really say one way or the other.

3.  But you chose to merge the two concepts and suggest that Golfweek is the chief offender when it comes to that bias and the injustices created thereby when in fact Golfweek is the only publication where that can't happen because of the split.  It's flawed logic and you have to resort to the "if the listing were lumped together" argument in order to make your case.  Well, they're not, so you don't need to worry about that bias as it relates to Golfweek.

4.  If it doesn't matter whether I am a Golfweek rater then why do you ask?



 

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

Let's stay with the program here shall we.

Simple answer to a simple question -- are you a Golfweek rater or not ?

In regards to the rest of your comments --

1). I find the separation of the two categories by Golfweek as unnecessary. If Golfweek is that astute then let's see how a Sand Hills would fare against the likes of a Winged Foot / West or Pebble Beach when rated together.

2). The bias I mentioned is reflected in what is rated and what isn't. The Northeast gets plenty of extra courses listed -- no doubt some of them are well deserved -- others simply glom on (my opinion) on the legitimate great ones in the same zip code / neighborghood.

3). Wrongo -- I never said Golfweek alone is deficient. I did mention GD and said so several times and can add Golf Mag to that as well.. Try to read things I write -- not what you imagine.

[JC Jones]

JC:

When you say "relative" to other courses -- in English -- what does that mean?

Harbour Town reflected a major move away from the RTJ signature layouts that dominated the golf scene when it arrived. Totally changed the nature of design by re-introducing concepts / tactics that had been discarded for too long.

Whether we think we can be objective or not, cognitive psychology suggests that we actually make decisions with an anchoring bias.  That is, we place a value on certain things and make decisions relative to that value.  So, when you rank a course, you rank it relative to the value you've placed on the courses you've played and not on its independent merits.

[Andy Troeger]

I think you can make an argument that the west does hang with the east for awhile, perhaps through about the top twenty courses, maybe even a little more than that. At some point though, the depth of the east takes over. Much of this discussion is focusing on the northeast, but there are plenty of quality courses in the other eastern areas that still match up with the best of the west. While I love the Land of Enchantment, my previous home state of Indiana is far better for golf. I give Wolf Run/Victoria National a slight edge on Black Mesa/Paa-Ko and then Crooked Stick/Sycamore Hills are far better than anything else in NM and it goes on from there. I'd take Michigan over Arizona both at the top (Crystal Downs, Kingsley) and with depth although that's closer. There are plenty of great courses in the Carolinas and Georgia, not to mention Honors, Pete Dye GC, Kinloch, Baltimore CC, Valhalla, and plenty of other high quality courses that aren't in the main areas of eastern golf. Factor in Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc and you eventually in my mind you have a pretty even slate with the modern courses (as the 54/46 modern divide would indicate) and a pretty strong eastern slant with the classics.

[Ed Oden]

Ed:

Let's stay with the program here shall we.

Matt, if staying with the program means overlooking the flaws in your logic, then count me out.

Simple answer to a simple question -- are you a Golfweek rater or not ?

I see your initial statement that it doesn't matter whether I am a GW rater was disingenuous.  Obviously, it does matter to you.  But why?  If the answer is "yes" or "no" would that make any difference?  I haven't said one thing either for or against the GW approach or the quality of their rankings.  The only thing I have done is point out that you can't tie GW to the bias made the subject of this thread since it is conceptually impossible given their split list approach.

In regards to the rest of your comments --

1). I find the separation of the two categories by Golfweek as unnecessary. If Golfweek is that astute then let's see how a Sand Hills would fare against the likes of a Winged Foot / West or Pebble Beach when rated together.

Fine.  But Golfweek's split approach has nothing to do with the bias made the subject of this thread.  You didn't mention the split in your initial post and it wasn't brought up until JC did in reply #17.

2). The bias I mentioned is reflected in what is rated and what isn't. The Northeast gets plenty of extra courses listed -- no doubt some of them are well deserved -- others simply glom on (my opinion) on the legitimate great ones in the same zip code / neighborghood.

If there is east/west bias in the Golfweek rankings, it can't be in favor of older courses at the expense of newer courses since the lists are mutually exclusive.  If you want to argue other biases exist, be my guest.  But the one you have trumpeted here can't happen based on their approach.  Again, if your concern is old east getting the nod over new west, you should be in support of GW's approach since (for better or worse) they have a method that prevents your concern.

3). Wrongo -- I never said Golfweek alone is deficient. I did mention GD and said so several times and can add Golf Mag to that as well.. Try to read things I write -- not what you imagine.

Wrongo - I never said you said Golfweek alone is deficient.  I said that you "suggest that Golfweek is the chief offender".  Here is a quote from your initial post (caps added by me):

I mentioned to them all of the classic courses and candidly (this is a well traveled group) the left coast advocates said that too many of the old time layouts that get mentioned -- SPECIFICALLY IN GOLFWEEK -- are there for nostaglia reasons and have little real juice to hang in there with a number of the more recent vintage courses that the west has produced over the last 25 years.

I realize that you are technically describing the views of your friends in this statement.  But you go on to say that you agree with their opinions.  If you feel that I have incorrectly characterized these statements as suggesting that Golfweek is the "chief offender", then just let me know and I will be happy to admit my mistake.  It won't kill me to to do so.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

I think this thread could be really intersting.  I would love to know what you think are the top 10 courses east and west of the Mississippi and what roster is superior.

Perhaps then we could go in increments of 10 and see who wins East or West.

Just a thought.

[Matt_Ward]

Ed:

A couple of corrections -- my friend's mentioned Golfweek -- I didn't limit my comments to one pub alone. I also don't see how the split by Golfweek adds much given the findings they have generated -- my last count has 55 of their modern listings as being east of the Missisippi River. Just rate them all together -- let's see how Sand Hills fares against the other old time classic greats such as Winged Foot / West, Oakmont or Merion / East.

I also asked you -- if you rate for Golfweek? Why all the tapdance and the spin game of throwing it back to me. Simple question -- simple answer. If you don't wish to answer just say so.

Ed, the preponderance of the raters are east oriented and few really travel to see what is happening in the field -- the parochial grip is quite strong. I base that upon my own experiences and in having rated for 20+ years for different pubs. You are free to disagree and believe what you will.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

I can certainly attempt to do what you suggested.

However ...

the issue is not just the top ten -- in that manner -- both east and west are quite strong. The issue is whether there has been a real turning point for the other courses that lie somewhat below the ultimate top tier such as a top ten. I believea number of the old time layouts that are fawned about on this site are simply facilities that glom onto the shadows of the more deserving courses.The west , minus the attention paid to places such as Sand Hills, Ballyneal , Rock Creek and others of this type are often discounted as being second or third tier layouts -- that is not the case from my experiences.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Matt,

I don't have time to do a composite from GW's Top 100 Classic and Modern but here are the top3:

1. Pine Valley 9.53
2. Cypress Point 9.49
3. Sand Hills 9.34

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

What Ed is saying is that your argument regarding Golfweek doesn't make sense.  Golfweek is not comparing old and new courses.  The ratings criteria are not even the same!!!!  That is why a "compilation list" holds no water...the rating criteria are different for the modern list vs. the classic list and so the scores cannot be directly compared.


I am on the GW panel.  I travel.  I travel west, east, north and south.  This year, I am making golf trips to FL, SC, PA, MI, CO, NE, OR, CA, Scotland, and France.  I live in TN and will play and rate courses from TN, GA, VA and NC in addition to my travels.  To generalize about rater travel schedules is idiotic.  How do you know what the panelists do and don't do?  

Bart

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

I would love to see that analysis, as I think others on here would as well due to your experience.

I agree the list and argument will be based on much more than the top ten courses, but in order to make the assessment (which I think is the base of your question) that the middle 50 are better (or worse) in the west then we've got to discover what those middle 50 are and, of course, we need to elminate the top 50 to begin with.

Man...does that make sense?  I am analyzing financial statements all day today and am on a coffee high and am glassy-eyed.  Hopefully, you all get my gist.

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

So why not change GW's formulas and have one listing with comparable criteria ?

Another thing -- the issue is not about certain people who do travel.

Great - you do a stellar job -- that's far from the case with the Zagat's guide approach the magazines take -- just realize I am not suggesting Golfweek alone -- I have mentioned the others.

Brad, I know a number of the raters from having been involved -- served on both the Digest and GW panels -- and many have told me they don't really have the time and wherewithal to adequately do what's needed. They play the same cast of characters and from such a limited listing weigh in with their comments. As a result you get a few new ones sprinkled in -- but the bulk generally remains in place. The western half of the USA has made mega movement in the last 25 years -- the results don't show up because of the inability of the pubs to really see things clearly.

Excuse me - but I'm far from "idiotic" - I speak with considerable experience -- please don't profess to minimize the people I speak to and what they have provided me over the years.

[Mac Plumart]

Ok...I keep a composite list of golf courses ranking.  This list is an aggregation of GOlfweek, Golf Digest, and GOlf Magazine.  To be on this particular list, you must be rated on EACH of the following Golf Digest Top 100, Golfweek Top 100 modern OR classic, the Golf Magazine Top US 100 AND Golf Magazine Top World 100.  DUe to the criteria, I call this list the Unanimous Gems list...as all of these entities rate these courses on their very top tier of golf courses.

Here is the list and the east/west designation...

 Pine Valley……………….east
Cypress Point…………..west
Shinnecock Hills………...east
Augusta National………..east
Oakmont…………………east
Pebble Beach…………..west
Merion…………………..east
Sand Hills……………….west
Nat'l Golf Links…………east
Pacific Dunes…………..west
Crystal Downs…………..east
Seminole…………………east
Winged Foot West………east
Chicago………………….east
Fishers Island…………..east
Praire Dunes……………west
Pinehurst #2…………….east
Oakland Hills……………east
Whisting Straits/Straits..east
San Francisco…………west
The Country Club…….east
Muirfield Village…………east
Riveria…………………west
Bethpage Black………..east
Olympic Lake…………..west
Kiawah Ocean Course…east
Bandon Dunes………….west
Oak Hill East…………….east
The Golf Club……………east
TPC Sawgrass…………..east
Baltusrol (lower)…………east
Los Angeles……………..west
Garden City Golf Club……east
Southern Hills……………..west
Medinah 3…………………east
Inverness…………………east
Spyglass Hill………………west
Winged Foot (east)…………east
Shoreacres………………….east
Maidstone……………………east
Harbour Town………………east
Quaker Ridge…………………east
Somerset………………………east
Scioto……………………………east


So, in all here is the breakdown, but please double check my geographic classification of each course, I am not a geography major....

32 east courses
12 west courses
I used this list as it should eliminate bias of any specific set of rating criteria.  In all there are 44 courses on this list and 32 are east.  I also have the next tier of rated courses and so on and so on until all 218 courses which are rated within the US are listed.

WOuld anyone like to see those lists and the east/west designation or should we go another way?

But PLEASE check my geography...for instance I have Whistling Straits as an east course.  Southern Hills west.  And a few others I am not 100% sure of.

[Matt_Ward]

Mac:

Well stated.

I will need some time to ponder -- I did previously list a top 50 metro area (NYC) not too long ago. The sad reality is that too many ratings involve two elements -- has a course hosted a big time event (which has nothing to do in many instances with its architecture quality) and the other is if it's an "old" course which so happens to be in the neighborhood of other great courses. Certain people make the assumption that such "in the neighborhood" courses have the same heft as the most deserving of courses.

The west suffers because certain people view desert golf as lacking -- ditto if courses are from mountain type vicinities. If cart usage is needed for such difficult sites then you have another mark held against them.

One of the elements people here need to realize is that plenty of solid courses have come forward in the last 25 years -- and it's more than just the creation of talented people such as Doak, Kidd, Hanse, C&C, etc, etc.

thanks for your comments ...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()