Is the next 100 Modern stronger than the next 100 Classic

[Sean Leary]

Clearly the Top 100 Classic is superior as a group to the Top 100 Modern. However I think the second 100 moderns might be better as a group than its classic counterparts. Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

I was really baffled by reading the list of the second hundred Classic courses.  I kept thinking there had to be better candidates than those ... there were an awful lot of courses that made me yawn.  But, I haven't sat down and tried to figure out whether there were a bunch of good courses that were overlooked, or if the depth is indeed that weak.

For sure, off the top of my head, I could think of more good Modern courses that didn't crack the top 200.

[Andy Stamm]

Tom,

Could you provide some of those better Modern courses off the top of your head? I was thinking the same thing, but I'm just wondering what you had in mind.

Thanks.

[Sean Leary]

I think you could take almost any course in the next 100 modern and plug it in between 50 and 100 without out much argument or complaint. The difference between number 50 and 200 is next to nil.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't know about your question Sean, but Tom wins the top 10 with 4 entries.

[Mike Hendren]

Sean, first I look forward to seeing you next week in Bandon.

Your premise is interesting.  I've played the following and would put them in this parenthetical order off the top of my head:

Spring Creek Ranch  110  (15)            Mountain Ridge  104  (3)
Quintero  118   (17)                           Beverly  108  (2)
Olde Stone  138  (16)                        Lookout Mountain  127 (7)
Rustic Canyon  145 (9)                      Omaha CC  128  (8th)
Golf Club of TN  161  (14)                  Blue Mound  131   (1)
Sugarloaf Mountain  172  (18)             Idle Hour  136  (4)
Black Creek  185 (12)                         Belvedere 148  (19)
Erin Hills  189 (11)                              French Lick  154  (5)
Members Club at Aldarra  199  (13)      Mid Pines  159  (6)
                                                         Oak Hill 171  (20)
                                                         LuLu 191 (10)

The key to this comparison is Donald J. Ross.  He gives the Classic group a lot of bench strength.  The Modern's best sixth man is Tom Fazio, ironically the king of the 6's.

Bogey

[Sean Leary]

Sean, first I look forward to seeing you next week in Bandon.

Your premise is interesting.  I've played the following and would put them in this parenthetical order off the top of my head:

Spring Creek Ranch  110  (15)            Mountain Ridge  104  (3)
Quintero  118   (17)                           Beverly  108  (2)
Olde Stone  138  (16)                        Lookout Mountain  127 (7)
Rustic Canyon  145 (9)                      Omaha CC  128  (8th)
Golf Club of TN  161  (14)                  Blue Mound  131   (1)
Sugarloaf Mountain  172  (18)             Idle Hour  136  (4)
Black Creek  185 (12)                         Belvedere 148  (19)
Erin Hills  189 (11)                              French Lick  154  (5)
Members Club at Aldarra  199  (13)      Mid Pines  159  (6)
                                                         Oak Hill 171  (20)
                                                         LuLu 191 (10)

The key to this comparison is Donald J. Ross.  He gives the Classic group a lot of bench strength.  The Modern's best sixth man is Tom Fazio, ironically the king of the 6's.

Bogey

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately I will not be able to make it to Bandon next week. So at least one of us won't be playing in the rain.

You are a self professed ODG lover so your rankings don't surprise me too much. There just seems like a lot of Doak 5 courses on the second Classic list and I think practically all of 50ish-200 moderns are Doak 6's....

[Sean_A]

Sean

Are these courses you see ones that are worth getting on a plane to see?  I was thinking the second 100 looks a bit of a bore on both lists with some obvious standouts, but not nearly enough over 200 courses.  I long thought that at least the Classic side could go very deep, but now I am thinking its better cut it off at under 100.  Are courses just blown into greatness by folks who are bored?

Ciao   

[Sean Leary]

Sean

Are these courses you see ones that are worth getting on a plane to see?  I was thinking the second 100 looks a bit of a bore on both lists with some obvious standouts, but not nearly enough over 200 courses.  I long thought that at least the Classic side could go very deep, but now I am thinking its better cut it off at under 100.  Are courses just blown into greatness by folks who are bored?

Ciao   

Sean
I would say that is fair, with probably a few exceptions.

[Kyle Harris]

Could definitely be a function of votes.

How many raters are aware of classic courses that aren't necessarily publicized worthy of the second one hundred... especially as compared to a modern course?

[John Kavanaugh]

Could definitely be a function of votes.

How many raters are aware of classic courses that aren't necessarily publicized worthy of the second one hundred... especially as compared to a modern course?

This is simply a function of the great old classic courses not answering the call of Golfweek raters who beg for access.  Those who happen to be a rater and gain access through traditional means feel no need to impress Brad with a ballot.  The largest percentage of raters are good people fully aware of where the greats are.  To say they are flying around the country blind is needless needling.

[Tom_Doak]

Shivas:

I'm sure you are right.

One of the problems with going so deep down a ranking list is that, much like state-by-state lists, you start to lose focus on what it is you are actually looking for.  The rankings are set up to reward courses that "have it all", but once you get down to the courses that don't have it all, what's more important?  Length?  Conditioning?  Or, character?

It's character which seems to take a beating in the second hundred listed.  The courses that are served up are mostly "more of the same" -- mostly designed by the same architects, and mostly displaying the length and conditioning to be considered for the top 100, although most of them were found lacking precisely in the area of character.  Meanwhile, the courses with character -- places like Belvedere in Michigan or Plymouth in Massachusetts -- are relegated to some other category altogether, and not really under consieration for the top 100.  [CORRECTION:  Belvedere is listed at #148, probably about where it should be.]

I've got to go back and look at the second 100 again.  What about all the old Philadephia courses?  How many of them made it?  There ought to be a bunch of them.

[Ran Morrissett]

The second one hundred classics contain a lot of core courses without homes. The architects were less constrained and the quality of the raw sites remained awfully high.

The top one hundred modern - especially the second fifty - are housing based with the architects only rarely given free reign over a block of land.

Also, if you think golf is a walking sport, compare the green to tee walks on the second classic one hundred versus the modern one hundred and you'll have your answer too.

Cheers,

[Phil McDade]

Tom:

Philly courses on the 2nd 100:

Manny's -- 118
Philly Cricket (Wissahickon) -- 134
Gulph Mills (TEPaul Central) -- 184
Merion West -- 189
LuLu -- 191

Plus....

Saucon Valley Old -- 111
Saucon Valley Grace -- 138
CC of Scranton -- 190

It strikes me that a bunch of the 2nd 100 have been the subject of either GCA photo threads that I recall, or GCA profiles, notably Kirtland, Engineers, Hollywood, Bev, Montery Peninsula, The Country Club (Pepper Pike) -- GCA profiles. I'd have to spend some time digging up photo threads of the other ones, but there are at least 20 that have been profiled extensively.

Looks to me like quite an interesting list of courses.

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/mar/10/golfweeks-best-next-100-classic-courses/

[David Kelly]

I was really baffled by reading the list of the second hundred Classic courses.  I kept thinking there had to be better candidates than those ...

There are. 

So are you keeping them a secret?

[Phil McDade]

I was really baffled by reading the list of the second hundred Classic courses.  I kept thinking there had to be better candidates than those ...

There are. 

So are you keeping them a secret?

Reverse Jans, for starters...

[Sean_A]

Sean

Are these courses you see ones that are worth getting on a plane to see?  I was thinking the second 100 looks a bit of a bore on both lists with some obvious standouts, but not nearly enough over 200 courses.  I long thought that at least the Classic side could go very deep, but now I am thinking its better cut it off at under 100.  Are courses just blown into greatness by folks who are bored?

Ciao   

Sean
I would say that is fair, with probably a few exceptions.

Sean

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think of rankings they way they are presented in these mags as cream of the crop - the ones which drive the game of golf as much as any course can - the ones we want to get on a plane and see.  I don't understand why the rankings go so deep when the courses don't warrant it.  I am probaby cranky because the Wings have been stinking up houses across the west coast recently, but man I would much rather have a Michelin-like system in place where the placing of a course means something in relation to the cream of the crop and the desires of golfers.

Ciao 

[Jonathan Cummings]

Sean

Are these courses you see ones that are worth getting on a plane to see?  I was thinking the second 100 looks a bit of a bore on both lists with some obvious standouts, but not nearly enough over 200 courses.  I long thought that at least the Classic side could go very deep, but now I am thinking its better cut it off at under 100.  Are courses just blown into greatness by folks who are bored?

Ciao   

Sean
I would say that is fair, with probably a few exceptions.

 something in relation to the cream of the crop and the desires of golfers.

Ciao 

Cream?? - please tell me how the going from the top 100 C&M (200 courses = top 1%) courses to exploring the top 200 C&M (400 = top 2%) courses is watering down an investigation of top golf courses?

JC

[Andy Troeger]

Clearly the Top 100 Classic is superior as a group to the Top 100 Modern. However I think the second 100 moderns might be better as a group than its classic counterparts. Thoughts?

I have to admit that I don't accept this original premise. The very top of the classic list might be superior, but even then I think that the elite modern courses hold their own pretty well. They just don't have that "test of time" benefit that only time can bring.

The second modern list gets higher scores on average than their classic counterparts, for whatever that's worth. I do think the courses I've played from the second classic list are pretty good, but my experience is very limited. Ross Course at French Lick and Lookout Mountain give some of the big names on the first list a run for their money IMO--they just don't have the historical pedigree. I'm admittedly a sucker for moving terrain, but I'd enjoy a replay of those two course as much as places like Scioto or Colonial, which are still obviously great in their own right.