Are we sure PV is the best?

[Mark_Fine]

I’m surprised at all the posts and talk on rankings, voting criteria, etc. these days on GCA, especially from a group that supposedly thinks they are a waste of time  

Anyway, I thought I'd add some fuel to the fire with this quote below from Mackenzie.  Clearly, we would tar and feather him if he were to post his top five or ten courses on GCA and it didn’t include Pine Valley!  If Mackenzie can’t get it “right” or has different criteria as to what is ideal or the best, how are the rest of us supposed to know what should or shouldn’t be ranked?

“Pine Valley is, with the possible exception of Cypress Point, by far the most spectacular course in the world.  I have never seen a course where the “artificial” bunkers have such a beautiful and natural appearance, and the undulations on the greens are excellent.  On the other hand, I do not consider any course ideal unless it is pleasurable for every conceivable class of golfer.”    - Alister Mackenzie

Mackenzie appears to be stating in politically correct terms that while PV is a spectacular man-made golf course, it is not really playable for most golfers?  On that note, he seems to write it off as one far from ideal.  So how can it be “the best”?

I happen to give it a Doak 10 but clearly the good doctor would beg to differ with me!  
Mark  

[TomSteenstrup]

Well, maybe the best isn't the best for everybody. What is the average handicap of most active posters here and the raters from the magazines? My guess is that it isn't the same as the average golfers.

As Mackenzie considered playability for everybody an important criteria, his conclusion is logical. Do any of the magazines consider playability in their rankings? Do any of the low-handicappers here?

I have no idea how I would rank Pine Valley if I ever played it. Would I be in awe? Yes. Would I enjoy a round? Yes - but only because of what the course is in status. With a short-hitting, 20's-handicap, I doubt I have enough game to enjoy the actual play. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Tom

[redanman]

Golf Digest already weighed in on this one, didn't they?

[schoeller]

Golf magazine rankings aside, we all must know that its not really appropriate to ask if Pine Valley is the best.  Its kind of like asking if chocolate is the best ice cream flavor.  We know the majority of people prefer chocolate to all others, but there is a sizable no. who like vanilla and others.  No one is "right" but if a vote were taken or a panel established to rank the flavors, chocolate would come out the "best."  

[Richard_Goodale]

The topic is a great one, but I'd hardly cite MacKenzie as an impartial authority.  I'd be surprised if PV made his worldwide top ten, after CP, ANGC, Valley Club, Royal Melbourne, U of Michigan, Pitreavie, Pasatiempo, Halifax, Crystal Downs, etc.......

[APBernstein]

Pine Valley is a private course that's membership is generally of a low-to-mid handicappers.  The course, to me, seems to fit its membership perfectly.  There is little chance of an influx of 30 handicappers playing the course, as would be the case at, say, Pebble Beach.

To me, it is more important that Pine Valley fit its membership than whether it is ranked #1 in the world or country.  I think most Pine Valley members would agree with me.

However, with that said, I give it 10's across the board.

[Mike Cirba]

So far, it's the best I've seen, even if it was designed to challenge the best golfer and is not Mackenzie's ideal.  

One cautionary note...

I believe that one of the major strengths of PV has been the fact that it's natural areas have been always kept in a raw, unkempt state.  This has added beauty, challenge, natural integration, and psychological terror at every turn.

I would hate to see these areas become more "formalized", "defined", and "cleaned up", beyond the regular maintenance required to not let them become totally overgrown.  

I prefer "wild", and I think that look has served PV exceedingly well throughout its storied history.  

[Ran Morrissett]

Mark,

Not to hijack the thread, but consider this question: what would MacKenzie have done if he had been hired by Crump to design a course on the PV site?

Would he have done away with the forced carries etc? I don't think so as it was a rugged site to begin with and he certainly wouldn't have gone out of his way to build a course that didn't reflect those properties.

Cheers,

PS By the way, not that the Good Doctor would ever throw us a curve ball   but where is it easier to find you ball - PV in the sandy scrub or Crystal Downs with your ball sunk down in that thick rough?

[Lou Duran]

The other one or two recent threads on ratings might touch on this subject.  I don't have any specific numbers, but I suspect that the subset of raters that actually have the opportunity to play the likes of PV and CP is a very small percentage of a set (all raters) that in itself is extremely minute.  PV and CP could very well be the top two courses in the U.S./world.  But one has to wonder how much exclusivity impacts perception, and whether the opinions of the very few provide a sound basis to confer such distinction.  On the other hand, I don't know that PV and CP really care (about their rating), and it is not an issue of significance or consequence to very many.

BTW, I love Dr. MacKenzie's image and writings, but the two courses of his that I have played are hardly the type that are readily playable and enjoyable for the average golfer, specially if they are of the paper (card) and pencil persuasion.  In PV's defense, given an option, golfers will often play a longer, much more difficult course that doesn't fit their game.  As a starter at OSU while a student there, I was often frustrated with a long walk-up list for Scarlet, with the much easier, but very pleasant Grey course providing quick access.  It didn't matter that many of the women, seasoned citizens, and novice players couldn't break 100 on Scarlet on their best day, they had to play the harder course.  Perhaps notoriety or the infrequent chance of surmounting a difficult challenge (or maybe masochism) play a big part on how we perceive the golf experience and how we value/rate the golf course.      

[rater]

Lou Duran

I think a very large number of all raters have played Pine Valley, less for Cypress Point, but still a good persentage.  Augusta National is the one that grown men beg to play, offer trades and the like.  It tells you something.

[TEPaul]

First of all we had this question of "ideal" as far as being playable by all levels regarding Pine Valley a couple of months ago and the conclusion was, as I remember it, if that's what's considered "ideal", I'm quite certain George Crump back during creation and Pine Valley today couldn't care less!!

The golf course clearly was never intended to be playable (the way some apparently are thinking of playable, like being able to putt the ball from #1 tee all the way to #18 green) by all levels of players either then or now and I'm also quite certain that nobody connected with Pine Valley would ever consider trying to make it that way in any way now. The golf course was intended to be a championship track designed  exclusively for a high caliber of player and it never remotely tried to pass itself off as anything but that.

Having said that though, the annals of Pine Valley as evidenced by its two history books and other documentation, is replete with a sort of bemused reaction from the club and its membership about how much very high handicappers (and presumably every level of player) seem to just enjoy the hell out of their golfing experiences at PV as they shoot a million and the course almost without exception beats them to a pulp!

So I would ask you, what then is ideal? Is it that any player of any level shoots some particular score sort of in relation to his ability on some well designed "median" barometer course (like a slope of 113) or is it whether any level of golfer has a great time playing a golf course? Or even in the case of Pine Valley where these higher handicappers or poor players appear to have a ball despite much letting of blood? So what is "ideal" in that context?

Mackenzie, if you asked him about this in relation to his remark and quote, might agree that enjoyment is the underlying goal of golf and architecture and if that's what players feel when playing PV than it must be "ideal" somehow!

As for MacKenzie's statement the way some seem to interpret it, the more I get into golf architecture and the history of it the more I realize that many of those old guys (just like today) said many things depending on the occasion and would probably laugh at us uproariously for taking everything they said so damn serioiusly!

So are we sure PV is the best? Probably, or damn close to it for valid architectural reasons! It didn't stay on top for about 15 years (and now #2 to Pebble by a whisker) because it's got great snapper soup, that's for sure!

And anyway, which magazine is it that Pebble is #1? In my opinion, forget Pebble as #1 anyway, I'm one of those that subscribe to the theory that there's a course better than Pebble about three miles from it! Cypress and PV should be the ones vying for the top spot but I'd still put PV on top even as much as I love the architecture and everything else about Cypress and even if they'd construct that back tee and the bridge to it on #18. PV's holes taken as a total group are just a bit more solid!

[Paul Richards]

As great as Pine Valley is, Cypress Point is still the best
course on earth, in my book.

[Jeff_Lewis]

PV has no weak holes. In that respect it may be unique. But PV would be overwhelming for 80-90% of all golfers to play. Given that PV is not a public course, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But, building a course that appeals across ability levels is probably more difficult than building one that appeals primarily to the better player. If we were to use that versatility to define the best course, perhaps Pinehurst 2 would be the best course in the country, as it can be set up for a tough us open, but is a delightful resort course most of the time.

The big challenge for architects in the future, if equipment goes unchecked, will be trying to build golf courses that are fun from 5800, 6800 and 7800 yards....is that possible?

[Mark_Fine]

We’ve heard so far:

·      Playability seems to be important
·      GD has made known their opinion
·      There are no right answers
·      Mackenzie is not impartial and would vote for his own courses
·      PV was designed to “fit it’s membership”
·      PV was designed to challenge “the best golfers”
·      What would Mackenzie have done differently with that site??
·      Exclusivity may influence the raters?
·      PV was never intended to be playable by all levels of players
·      Mackenzie may not have meant what he said
·      CP is the better course
·      Building a course that appeals to a wide spectrum of golfers is very tough

Seems to me there is no good answer here to the question – Are we sure PV is the best!  

Doesn't this once again show that evaluating courses and golf course architecture is a very subjective and personal thing.  There are no right or wrong answers, only various opinions.  Even one of the most noted golden age architects has a different opinion then many of us and good reasons for it.  

[jim_lewis]

Mark:

I am not sure which is the second best course in the world or which is number 100, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Pine Valley is the best, and by a comfortable margin.


I also don't buy into the idea that just because an architect is one of the best at designing courses that his evaluation of courses is flawless. Just read through Tom Doak's Confidential Guide and count his mistakes . Tom, this is my first attempt to use a smiley face. I hope it works.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
You could see how a statement like what Mackenzie made could influence people (other architects for example) as to what they should attempt to design.  Some architects are obsessed with "playability" and it shows in their work.  Could Mackenzie's position on this aspect of design be part of the reason??

Unfortunately, we can't go back and ask the dead guys "what they really meant" when they said these things.  Mackenzie, has always written about playable courses for the vast majority so it's reasonable to think he was being sincere in his comment about PV.  

By the way, GD incorporates playability into their numbers "except for rating the Top 100" courses.  Some agree with this, some disagree.  Either way, you have to admit, PV would get a very low playability score.  You can't have it both ways can you?
Mark

[Ed_Baker]

Well done gentlemen,

I would only add that Pine Valley continues to maintain its lofty posistion in course rankings year after year. The obvious conclusion would be that whomever does get to play it and rate it remain in awe,year after year. So "somebody" that puts stock in ratings remains impressed. I have only played it six times in my life and it ate my lunch each time. My best score ever at Pine Valley is 83 and that was when I was carrying a handicap index of 4.3. What does this mean? Nothing, other than Pine Valley is one tough test of golf and the overall golfing experience of a day at that club is simply one of the finest the game and its venues have to offer.

The "best" is that unattainable ideal that we keep coming back too on this board simply because nothing exists that is all things, to all people, all the time. One of this countries great Presidents risked everything for an affair with Marilyn Monroe, Liberace didn't even rate her in the top 1000!

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

I just don't think you can reduce the rating of golf courses, particularly at the national level to a simplistic "who's #1" issue in the same manner that you see all the fanfare and hype connected to the inane madness in determining who is #1 in college football, etc.

I believe rating courses in a series of ten is a better manner in determining the finest layouts in the USA. At any given moment one of them might be the better of the others, but over the course of time they are just too close to simply designate with the promotional hype of "who's #1." Usually, the purpose in staging such an effort is done by a publication to build interest when inevitably some where down the line they decide to drop the old #1 for the new #1. I mean don't people see this for what it is ... building readership with this endless who's #1 and who's #23 and blah, blah, blah.

I think it's possible for courses to be highlighted in some sort of numerical order at the individual state level because the sheer depth is not as present as you find at the national level-- although in some cases the balloting for the top position in certain states would be extremely interesting -- i.e. CA, NY, MI, PA, to name just a few.

With all that said I would clearly include PV in my top ten of course but the other nine I would link with the lengednary layout from South Jersey are ones I would not hesitate for a second to play as well.

Hope this helps ...

[TEPaul]

"By the way, Golf Digest incorporates "playability" into their number....Some agree with this, some disagree. Either way, you have to agree, Pine Valley gets low a playability score. You can't have it both ways."

Who wants it both ways? Pine Valley doesn't, never did. Golf Digest? I really don't think they nor their "playability" number  would influence Pine Valley and its course. I sure know it would never influence my opinon of the course as the best. What about the fact that practically everyone who has played the course seems to have enjoyed themselves? Does that sound like pain to you? It sounds like pleasure to me, ie, pleasurable!

If you're really trying to identify some ideal architectural "principle" with MacKenzie's statement, you've failed to do it, in my opinion. "Playability number" or no "playability number", Golf Digest's or anyone else's, Pine Valley, whatever it is, has pretty much proven it's inured itself against things like that, criteria like that. Why do you suppose anyone and everyone would like to play the course?

Probably because anyone and everyone really does believe, for some reason, it's the best and has been all these years---probably because it just is, period.

[TEPaul]

Just for sake of comparison though, let's say Pine Valley is too hard so it deserves to have a low "playability number" and therefore to be considered less than "ideal" and therefore less than the "best".

Let's take Lehigh. What would you say that its "playbability number" would be? And adding in it's inherent architecture how would you then rate it for being "ideal" and how would you rate it in a comparison of golf courses as being in the "best".

And given all that how would you then compare it to Pine Valley as to which is the "best"?

[redanman]

Mark


To address your original question, ignoring my early smart-assed post

The only course that can match the Valley for sustained architectural excellence hole for hole, shot for shot (IF.... that is what is meant by best) is NGLA in the USA. I know for a fact that you only consider it a top 25 course in your opinion, so how do you address that?  What other factors do you consider in  determining the "best"?

My wife can play the NGLA layout easily, not lose a ball, the short course at PV made her go phewwwww a few times.  The big course there is much more demanding.  Does that count or is a course like NGLA too easy to be the "best"?  Not enough history or shot values?

Also, IMHO Quotes from the old guys don't  apply so much anymore.

[archie struthers]

How can you possibly say that one golf course is the best, given all the criteria. But for my money, if you had one place to spend three to four days playing golf with your favorite foursome where would you go?

Chalk up one vote here for downtown Clementon, for pure golf and great fun!

[Mark_Fine]

PV would be one choice, Archie, but I could think of a bunch of others just as worthy    


But anyway, the purpose of my post was several fold:  

1.      To simply to point out that if you read enough books about golf architecture, you will find all kinds of statements and conclusions drawn from all sorts of very knowledgeable people.  Mackenzie is quoted quite often on this site and generally his words are accepted almost as gospel.  But here was a statement he made that “goes against the thinking of many of us”.  When is he right, when is he wrong – who knows?
2.      Many architects today read these same books and must draw their own conclusions and interpretations.  I’m just trying to understand what might have inspired the different design philosophies of today’s architects.
3.      To make a point that courses are designed and built for many different reasons.  I believe few are designed without a specific intention.  The Ocean Course for example was not designed to accommodate the ladies auxiliary golf league.  Osprey Ridge was not designed to beat up the resort guests.  Pacific Dunes was not designed to attract the U.S. Open.  PV was not designed to be playable for everyone.  

The definition of “best” and “ideal” will always be elusive.  So when someone or some magazine says, course XXX is the best, we have to remember it’s all relative.  Like I said earlier, I give PV a 10, but I also give a dozen or so other courses I’ve played 10’s as well!  

And as Matt Ward stated, it’s very tough to list courses in numerical order.  I haven’t been able to ever do it.  My personal “favorites” list is in groupings.  It is not in numerical order.  

Ran is the only one I know who knows why #36 is ahead of #37.  How he does that I haven't figured out yet!    
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

Agree with your take completely on the genesis of why certain courses are built and the audiences they seek to attract. Put the average Joe Sixpack golfer on PV with his usual Saturday morning foursome and unless they have forecaddies they might be out there for quite some time. They may love it but is the course really designed for them? Put a low handicap golfer our there and the reaction will likely be different. Redanman's point on NGLA is a good one relating to playability. Would I list NGLA in my personal top ten. No -- but I do believe without question it's a first rate one and one of America' finest. Set me up at SH and I'll play there everyday because I know it will test me to the max. I can easily make a case on the appeal of SH and how it can handle the average and world's best all at the same time. How many courses in America can say that? Is that the major barometer in determining ultimate greatness?

What would make things interesting is when people DO list their top ten courses because then you see what "floats their boat." Do they lean to one particular style? ... architect? Do they like to have a contrast between old time classics and first rate modern efforts? Or is just one type period.

Mark, clearly PV is a 10, however, I know I can list nine others I would play any time that are no less a ten in my mind. At the national level it's really hard for me to conceptualize how you can rate one course #56 and another is #89. I've heard the argument here on GCA and in other places that America really has a dozen top ten courses. And, it's an argument that I believe certainly has merit.

I can see a numerical listing at the state level because the sheer depth isn't that great with the exception of a few states where the battle for the top spot would be most interesting.

  

[George Pazin]

I'm wondering how many mid to high handicappers would choose to play PV in a manner fitting their games, as opposed to hitting the shot that they think the course requires.

When the old guys spoke of different strategies & options, they presumed that players were smart enough to play their own game.

Speaking as a mid to high handicapper myself (23), if I were trying for the lowest score possible at a course like PV, it would probably mean a lot of irons off the tee, keep it in play, lots of mid iron layups and relying on my mediocre short game to salvage bogey on most holes.

However, if I were granted the rare opportunity to play PV, I would probably go & try to hit the shots required, figuring I wouldn't be back anytime soon, so one or two memorable shots would make the round for me and I would likely get destroyed based on total score.

I don't think you can hold it against the course that most high handicappers don't play within their means.