News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Chris Hans

  • Karma: +0/-0
GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« on: March 07, 2011, 12:05:05 AM »
With the new list set to be released within the next week or so, does anyone know of any new additions to the list??
 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2011, 12:32:18 AM »
Okay, not to be snotty here, but by definition, can there be any "new" additions to the list?  Don't they all have to be over 50 years old?

Oh, wait a minute. I get what you mean.....
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 12:35:56 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2011, 12:48:02 AM »
With the new list set to be released within the next week or so, does anyone know of any new additions to the list??
 

hahahaha
It's all about the golf!

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2011, 12:53:14 AM »
Maybe somebody can talk Brad into moving Sand Hills over into the classic category.

Jim Nugent

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2011, 05:02:09 AM »
I keep hoping they will publish a combined category, that ranks all courses against each other. 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2011, 06:02:37 AM »
I keep hoping they will publish a combined category, that ranks all courses against each other.  

Jim:  It'll never happen.  Brad knows the split is the only things that makes the GOLFWEEK rankings different than the rest.

You can just compare the numbers if you want a combined list.  I'm sure it's not exactly how the top 20 would come out, but probably pretty close after that.  Of course, GOLFWEEK insists you can't combine the numbers because the criteria are slightly different, but then they turn around and use the combined numbers for all of their other derivative lists, so you can take that warning with a grain of salt.

I'm more interested to see the Modern list this time; I think they finally got enough votes to rate Rock Creek.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2011, 06:20:04 AM »
I hope they have enough votes too.

Who wants to guess where RCCC will fall on the modern list.  My guess is top 15.

JC

Matt_Ward

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2011, 07:34:03 AM »
Jonathan:

How high did Ballyneal enter the scene ?

Likely Rock Creek will be in that same neighborhood in my mind.

Although I will say that I see both of them having so-so concluding holes in each case.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2011, 11:28:32 AM »
Matt - while there is some agreement with you on the finisher at RCCC being suspect (I'm not one of them), no one but Matt Ward thinks the finisher at BN is anything but world class.  JC

Matt_Ward

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2011, 09:42:47 PM »
Jonathan:

World class at Ballyneal ?

I think the hole is very good but I see the holer that precedes it as the better one.

You didn't answer my question from before -- where did Ballyneal debut ?

Likely Rock Creek will be in the same area.

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2011, 06:41:25 AM »
2007 - 43rd Debut
2008 - 15th
2009 - 8th
2010 - 5th
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 10:03:26 AM by Jonathan Cummings »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2011, 09:24:30 AM »
The digital version of the new Golfweek's Best 100 Classic/Modern issue comes out Wednesday; the printed version comes out Friday and we will post the list on the Web right around then.

Different (not new) courses get on the Classic (pre-1960) list by going through massive restoration/renovation or by upgrading aspects of the design.

 

Jim Nugent

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2011, 10:12:57 AM »
Brad, as the years pass, will you move the cutoff date for classic courses up? 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2011, 10:24:08 AM »

Different (not new) courses get on the Classic (pre-1960) list by going through massive restoration/renovation or by upgrading aspects of the design.


Or by panelists going to see the course for the first time, or changing their minds after a replay, no?

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2011, 10:37:02 AM »
Brad,

Do you have any records that show how many courses were built from 1932 to 1950?

I know Bethpage was built during the depression but I am trying to find out how many other courses were built between those dates.

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2011, 10:43:05 AM »
Yes, of course a Classic layout can also make the list by new raters voting on it, or by raters reassessing their old votes and voting again upon a second visit.

Jim Nugent, I am adamant about not moving the line; I've written too much about why 1960 makes good sense. I get the reasoning by shifting the line at some point, and I'd be more tempted to do so if there were going to be as many new courses coming on line in the next decade as there were in the last decade, but that won't happen now given where golf development is going. So if it stays entirely up to me, the answer is "no."

Urbina, the NGF data on course construction 1932-1950 are not there, as I recall, and as you can surmise the numbers are nearly negligible. I can look up what I have when I get home and see what I can come up with.

Brad

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2011, 11:08:43 AM »
I'll bet Aronimink rockets up the list...although I'd be lying if I knew where it was previously...#60+ or -?

Peter Pallotta

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2011, 11:22:06 AM »
The interesting aspect to me are courses that have not been substantively restored or renovated that move up in the list/rankings. I understand the mechanics of such a move -- but it is interesting to imagine a golf course, sitting there inert and unmoving, decade after decade just minding its own business as the whirl of the world's changing tastes and temperaments bubble all around it suddenly finding that it's appreciated all over again, as if for the first time.  It reminds me of Lana Turner being discovered at the soda shop in Schwab's Drugstore.

Peter
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 11:31:39 AM by PPallotta »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2011, 11:33:26 AM »
It reminds me of Lana Turner being discovered at the soda shop in Schwab's Drugstore.

She looked much too young (and lively) to have been sitting there for decades, inert.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the analogy!

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2011, 11:33:58 AM »
What could be the possible need for rater camps if not for educating the raters on what is great architecture?  When you combine this process with the doubling of the number of participants you will naturally see some changes.  I imagine this is good as it will be more difficult for individuals who are members of clubs to influence their friends to vote up their clubs.  Any long time member of this site must remember the rallies held for Beverly and Lehigh, two deserving clubs, who both shot to prominence after successful campaigns.

Please note:  Now that everyone I know is a Golfweek rater I have decided to hate on the non-raters instead.   Buddy up buddies, you got a new fan in me.  btw:  I was born in 1960, it was the dawning of a new age.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2011, 11:44:24 AM »
It reminds me of Lana Turner being discovered at the soda shop in Schwab's Drugstore.

She looked much too young (and lively) to have been sitting there for decades, inert.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the analogy!



Perhaps Peter plans to restore/renovate her.


Peter Pallotta

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #21 on: March 08, 2011, 12:02:31 PM »
Tee hee -

I just meant that she was as attractive and sexy 10 minutes before she starred in the Postman Always Rings Twice as she was 10 minutes after.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 04:56:30 PM by PPallotta »

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #22 on: March 08, 2011, 02:39:59 PM »
RCCC should be top 5, but I am afraid Matt is going to be right again and it will fall around 40.
Mr Hurricane

Jim Nugent

Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #23 on: March 08, 2011, 02:47:34 PM »
RCCC should be top 5, but I am afraid Matt is going to be right again and it will fall around 40.

Jim, could you tell us your top 10 modern?

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek Top 100 Classic
« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2011, 02:53:41 PM »
Curious why you guys think RCCC will place where BN did initially? BN started at 43 and was up to 5 last time. I bet RCCC debuts much higher. Doak is more well known, the off course amenities are there, and RCCC is the more remote/exotic location. Plus they have trees. ;)

I personally prefer BN by the way.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 03:00:12 PM by Sean Leary »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back