[DMoriarty]

When do you suppose those who put out the list plan on explaining it?

I'd have thought up front would have been the right time. The list, or part of it, is out.  Seems unreasonable to expect people to wait to comment until some future time when methodology is explained, if it ever is.  Aren't these things supposed to generate conversation?

[Niall C]

I was a participant in the Golf Course Architecture Top 100

One of the rules was that it was a course that I have played on not walked around or seen on TV or magazines.

Ben

Presumably this precluded Martin Hawtree from participating as allegedly he doesn't play golf 

On the basis that it's all a bit of fun, I think this is quite an interesting way of doing it. It perhaps means some participants coming up with selections that are maybe less about group think/peer pressure and a bit more interesting and imaginative.

Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

I was a participant in the Golf Course Architecture Top 100

One of the rules was that it was a course that I have played on not walked around or seen on TV or magazines.

Ben

Presumably this precluded Martin Hawtree from participating as allegedly he doesn't play golf 

On the basis that it's all a bit of fun, I think this is quite an interesting way of doing it. It perhaps means some participants coming up with selections that are maybe less about group think/peer pressure and a bit more interesting and imaginative.

Niall

Ben is not correct. The rule we set was that you had to have seen the course in person. We did not specify that you had to have played it - we felt that professional architects were qualified to evaluate a course by walking it (if it's good enough for the Confidential Guide, it's good enough for us!)

[Ben Stephens]

I was a participant in the Golf Course Architecture Top 100

One of the rules was that it was a course that I have played on not walked around or seen on TV or magazines.

Ben

Presumably this precluded Martin Hawtree from participating as allegedly he doesn't play golf 

On the basis that it's all a bit of fun, I think this is quite an interesting way of doing it. It perhaps means some participants coming up with selections that are maybe less about group think/peer pressure and a bit more interesting and imaginative.

Niall

Ben is not correct. The rule we set was that you had to have seen the course in person. We did not specify that you had to have played it - we felt that professional architects were qualified to evaluate a course by walking it (if it's good enough for the Confidential Guide, it's good enough for us!)

Adam,

That's a grey area as there are so many different interpretations regarding the Golf Course Architecture magazine rules that were set ie. 'we have to see the course in person' Some courses only allow people on for play only not just to see it for the sake of it - and the majority of us will have played on the golf courses rather than walk around it. I very rarely walk around a golf course alone. Some may have seen the courses on TV as well as play it which has further influenced their opinions for example the Open and how the pros play the courses.

In my view there is more experience playing it and knowing what kind of shots are required as well as experiencing the condition and shape of this particular course. This is what Martin Hawtree is missing out on and I am sure his comrades at Hawtree help him out in this regard.

Cheers
Ben

[Adam Lawrence]

I don't see there's any grey area Ben. We said you must have seen the course in the flesh. That means walking or playing, fairly obviously.

[Mark Saltzman]

61-70: http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Architects-Choice-7061/2799/Default.aspx

[David Harshbarger]

Not a single course in the US of A in the 70-61 grouping.  Now that is interesting.

I think it is an interesting list, with Mid Ocean and Nordwijkse popping in, especially.

[Tom_Doak]

Not a single course in the US of A in the 70-61 grouping.  Now that is interesting.

I think it is an interesting list, with Mid Ocean and Nordwijkse popping in, especially.

David:

The panel had more European architects than others, due to the circulation of the magazine, I think.  And some of them were apparently unafraid to stuff the ballot box in favor of their own clients, judging from #63 on the list.  Hard to believe that some architects voted for these courses among the top ten they had ever seen or played -- but in this system, the less you've seen, the easier it is to get one of your own courses on the list!

[Jim Nugent]

I don't see there's any grey area Ben. We said you must have seen the course in the flesh. That means walking or playing, fairly obviously.

Here's hoping again that you explain the methodology you used to compile the rankings. 

[David Harshbarger]

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Architects’-Choice-6051/2800/Default.aspx

The 50's, include many well considered courses, as Tom notes, with a European slant.  Utrecht de Pan and the New at St. Andrews, the latter I do not recall in any major list.

For my part, the fact that the list is skewed towards a small largely European sample makes it more interesting.  The comments from participants provide some context, also, and make it clearer that these are personal lists, not the lists of what everyone thinks should be the World's top 10.

The comments on the New course suggest how it may not be the "best" course that resonates the most.  If the list were instead of the courses that had the biggest influence on your development as an architect, wouldn't we expect many lesser lights to be included, as when the course was experienced in an architect's development would play a larger role than intrinsic qualities of the course itself might suggest.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I find some of the comments above very disappointing indeed.   The accustaion of ballot stuffing is rather distasteful. Where is the proof?

This was an architects' choice list. There was never any claim made that it would be perfect. Which list can claim to be perfect; the one that matches your tastes? Take it for what is is, not for what you think it should be. Sure, there may be more European courses, but there's a good reason for that.

Must this list match all the other lists published by GD, Golf, Golf World, etc. So what if the New Coures at St. Andrew's and Trump are in the list. Who's to say they don't have a legitimate place in the list.

Oh I get it now; we all must have similar opinions and have the same appreciation for the same courses.      

[john_stiles]

Being in the US,  I like seeing the view from the European side.     Hopefully a European course will pop up that is totally new to me.

It might even sell a few more magazines.  Who knows !

At least it will generate some work since the  ' ole golf course website '  might need to be updated with the latest ranking.

On the other hand, how would you slip to Donald the ranking of the beloved Trump Aberdeen.   Would you mention that first when you had to do the morning brief  ?

[Mark Saltzman]

41-50: http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Architects-Choice-5041/2802/Default.aspx

31-40: http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Architects-Choice-4031/2803/Default.aspx

[Tom_Doak]

I find some of the comments above very disappointing indeed.   The accustaion of ballot stuffing is rather distasteful. Where is the proof?

This was an architects' choice list. There was never any claim made that it would be perfect. Which list can claim to be perfect; the one that matches your tastes? Take it for what is is, not for what you think it should be. Sure, there may be more European courses, but there's a good reason for that.

Must this list match all the other lists published by GD, Golf, Golf World, etc. So what if the New Coures at St. Andrew's and Trump are in the list. Who's to say they don't have a legitimate place in the list.

Oh I get it now; we all must have similar opinions and have the same appreciation for the same courses.      

Donal:

The potential for ballot-stuffing on a list like this is EXTREMELY high, when

a) you allow not only the principal architect of a course but all his associates to vote,
b) you don't print a list of who voted, and
c) you don't say how many votes each course got.

Of course there is no proof ... they haven't provided any data to give any.  But I'm very familiar with how the results of rankings happen, having run one of these myself for years, and advised on others.  How about you?

We all only voted for what we believed to be the top ten courses we'd seen.  How many votes do you think it took to get Trump Aberdeen to come in at #63?  And whom do you think voted for it?

[David Harshbarger]

Tom,

Did you participate? If so, how did you place your marks?  If you did not, how would you have placed them?

(And where does Trump International fit in the scheme of things, now that it's fresh to mind?)

Dave

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Did you participate? If so, how did you place your marks?  If you did not, how would you have placed them?

(And where does Trump International fit in the scheme of things, now that it's fresh to mind?)

Dave

David:

I did participate.  I can't remember the ten courses I voted for, to be honest, but they all came from my well-known list of fourteen courses that got 10's on the Doak scale.  So, Pacific Dunes probably got a vote from me, but that's the only one of my courses that did, because I've played all the other 10's.

I was more impressed with Trump International than I expected.  I can see it being a contender for the top 100 courses in the world, though it probably won't have my vote ... so far, of the courses listed on the GOLF ARCHITECTURE ranking, I would rate it ahead of only the New Course, and I'm sure they've missed a few I would include in the top 100.  But, in this voting format, it can only get on the list if several people put it in their top ten, and honestly, there are a lot of courses included which only made it because their supporters are not well traveled or because they voted politically to help a particular course.

[John Sabino]

Ballot stuffing does seem like a bit of a harsh accusation to me. I give Adam credit for this effort and like the results. It is really good to see Prestwick rank so high and to see Chantilly included among the world's best as it deserves to be. No system of ranking is perfect as is evidenced by Medinah ranking so high on many of the other lists; give this system credit for not doing that (hopefully it's not in the top 30  ).

Any system you use is going to be biased one way or another, tilted toward one geographic area or another. This ranking does seem to be European-centric. I haven't yet seen any Japanese courses listed and they are some of the best in the world, hopefully Hirono and Kawana will make it in the top 30. The fact is that rating and ranking golf courses is completely subjective and is not scientific regardless of which magazine you use. I am assuming positive intent and that the folks voting have integrity and voted fairly and honestly.

[Niall C]

Its a vote, of course it biased, that's what the participants are being asked to do, show there bias, no ? Also why shouldn't staffers in gca companies not get a vote ? Is there an assumption that they will vote as they are told by their employer ? Hardly credible. Of course they may show a bias towards courses they know intimately and spent time developing, perhaps only natural.

Balmedie International - interesting one. I can hardly be accused of being the biggest fan of this development, and like others believe its got some ways to go before reaching full functionality if I can call it that. However I believe it's possible already to judge the architecture to a very large extent and with the number of architects that have played it recently in promotional junkets I can well understand how far up the rankings it is. Now ranking Castle Stuart, that just baffles me 

Niall 

[Joel_Stewart]

Now ranking Castle Stuart, that just baffles me 

Is Castle Stuart that polarizing?  I had heard nothing but good things about it and now this and Graham McDowells comments?

[Garland Bayley]

...

I was more impressed with Trump International than I expected.  I can see it being a contender for the top 100 courses in the world, though it probably won't have my vote ... so far, of the courses listed on the GOLF ARCHITECTURE ranking, I would rate it ahead of only the New Course, and I'm sure they've missed a few I would include in the top 100. ...

NEWS FLASH. Doak rates Torrey Pines Ahead of Trump International!

I'm sure The Donald is going to be crushed.

[Bill Gayne]

Tobacco Road is a bit of a surprise to me.

[David Harshbarger]

Tobacco Road is a bit of a surprise to me.

Bill, I was heartened to see Tobacco Road listed.  It's widely seen as the best work of an outside the box architect, and should be recognized for what it is as much as for what it says about the potential of the form.

[Bart Bradley]

Let's be honest now.

In order to be on this Top 100 list, a course has to be listed as one of the TEN BEST the architect has EVER seen.  No matter your perspective on the New Course or on Tobacco Road, if you have seen the world's greatest courses, neither of those is going to get a vote in your all time TOP TEN.  So, either the voters have seen very few great courses or the voting was intentionally biased for one reason or another.

I haven't seen the Trump Aberdeen but I think that is Tom D.'s point.  To make this Top 100 list, the course had to be in a couple of architects' Top 10 (which is a very strong endorsement).

Adam, I respect a lot that you do.  But this methodology seems more than a bit shaky.

Best wishes,

Bart

[Eric Smith]

Laying blame on Adam because the results generated do not align with your own OPINION isn't the tact I'd take. Your expectation that all architects need to have seen all or most of the greats before submitting their personal top 10 is an unreasonable one as well. If only they had your job!

[Eric Smith]

Laying blame on Adam because the results generated do not align with your own OPINION isn't the tact I'd take. Your expectation that all architects need to have seen all or most of the greats before submitting their personal top 10 is an unreasonable one as well. If only they had your job!

I'd like to amend my post to read:

Laying blame on Adam because the results generated do not align with your own OPINION isn't the tact I'd take. Your expectation that all architects need to have seen all or most of the greats AND CONFIRM THEM to be correctly placed among the various lists of such, before submitting their personal top 10 is an unreasonable one as well.

I read not too long ago where a well traveled magazine panelist, respected here for a number of years, had Trump Aberdeen listed as the #1 Modern in the world. He listed the other usual suspects behind it - Sand Hills, Friar's Head, Pacific Dunes, etc. But by placing Trump at the top of this list of bona fides, is this man simply ahead of his time? Because by the look of things, seeing what I've read here and in the magazines, the golf course will one day settle in among the best courses in the rankings lists, so what's wrong with ranking it at such a position now? And why worry about it coming in at 60 something when it's headed for 30 something? Conspiracy theories be damned. Oftentimes people are going to like something different than you do. So what!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()