[Mark Chaplin]

Eric - an immature 100 point wine wouldn't be rated the best wine in the world. A selection of ingredients sitting on a top chef's chopping board isnt the best dish in the world. Nor is an uncut unpolished diamond displaying its finest attributes. Conditioning does make a difference and until Trump is properly matured it will not IMO reach its potential.

[Bill Gayne]

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.

It would be interesting to see the individual rankings for Tobacco Road. I would guess that some of the panel have it unranked which implies that others had to have it very high to place an overall 50th.

[Tom_Doak]

...

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!

GJ:  I did not see Torrey Pines in there.  That makes two courses in the list that I'd put Trump International ahead of.  I haven't seen Valderrama, so that might be another.

[Eric Smith]

Eric - an immature 100 point wine wouldn't be rated the best wine in the world. A selection of ingredients sitting on a top chef's chopping board isnt the best dish in the world. Nor is an uncut unpolished diamond displaying its finest attributes. Conditioning does make a difference and until Trump is properly matured it will not IMO reach its potential.

Mark, I agree with you that conditioning matters - but only as a part of the equation. Think back to Pinehurst before the latest renovation. Or Merion as it is presented today. Not what many would consider ideal conditions, yet both were / are hardly called anything but great golf courses.

[John Kavanaugh]

When I hear a rater questioning the integrity of another list I am reminded of the stripper who told me the girls down the street are dirty sluts.

[Mac Plumart]

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!

Eric...

So what?  

So...let's dance!

[Bart Bradley]

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!

Or yours.

[Tom_Doak]

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!

Eric:

I did not "lay blame on Adam," in fact I did not mention his name, because I don't know if he devised this system of rankings or not.  But it's a flawed system bound to produce some flawed results.  This system essentially gives free passes for the people who have seen the least # of great courses [or the people who willfully cast their vote for political reasons] to place an undeserving course in the rankings.  And I say "undeserving" because this system is flawed -- it's not just a difference of opinion, it deliberately disqualifies the opinions of people who have seen a course and been unimpressed.

Your suggestion that Trump International is "headed for 30 something" on the basis of one person's opinion, whom you didn't even name, is pretty lame.  It may be headed for that, but it takes more than bluster to get there. 

We all understand that rankings are subjective, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me, especially if they haven't seen the same things I have.  So the only thing that really matters is whether YOU and I think the course is deserving of a top 30 ranking, or not.  If you do, say why.  If you haven't seen it, be quiet.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom D:

I am pretty sure that Eric's post was being critical of mine, not yours.  However, my post simply highlighted the very shortcomings of the methodology of this ranking list that you are also pointing out.

Eric:

I am not laying blame on Adam.  I am laying blame on the methodology of the ranking.  I agree with Tom D's statements regarding why this way of creating a list is open to easy manipulation.

Bart

[Eric Smith]

Tom,

Of course there is no way of determining who is and who isn't political when it comes to these sorts of things. Is there? I love how you've taken the point I am trying to make and make it all about the course in Aberdeen. The point is how you guys want to discount others opinions just because they are not in line with yours. If an architect has Tobacco Road in his top 10 why is he considered a hack?

[Adrian_Stiff]

When Adam asked me to give 'my 10' I said I did not want too. The reason being that I have never travelled to most of the golf courses that are world Top 100 and therefore the best 10 that I have seen/played would distort those rankings and produce the very thing that you are now discussing.

1. Pine Valley 2. Augusta 3. Cypress Point 4. Royal County Down 5. Turnberry 6. Royal Melborne 7. Shinnecock 8.The Old Course 9. Merion 10. Sawgrass  would probably be my first 10 but I have only been to 3 of those. I did submit a 10 in the end but I suspect some were weird.

I do think my opinion should have been disregarded as should anyone that had Trump in the worlds best 10 or St Andrews New, that is just stupid opinion. I also suspect I have seen as many courses as quite a few other UK architects having been to the States quite a bit and many/most have not been to Australia.

If you are going to collate ratings you need to establish a criteria of how to score. The Doak Rating is a good basis for everyone to score, perhaps it even needs half points, you simply ask people to score any golf course on that scale, you need solid opinion and that probably means you need at least 10 people to mark a course before a rating can be reasonably fair. The great courses will have lots of 'scorers' the lesser ones might have less. What you have to do is disqualify the idiot opinion though, perhaps if its a % out for the main band it does not count, you cant have someone giving Trump a Doak 1 or a mom and pop course a 10. So you just score the courses that you know.

[Sean_A]

When Adam asked me to give 'my 10' I said I did not want too. The reason being that I have never travelled to most of the golf courses that are world Top 100 and therefore the best 10 that I have seen/played would distort those rankings and produce the very thing that you are now discussing.

1. Pine Valley 2. Augusta 3. Cypress Point 4. Royal County Down 5. Turnberry 6. Royal Melborne 7. Shinnecock 8.The Old Course 9. Merion 10. Sawgrass  would probably be my first 10 but I have only been to 3 of those. I did submit a 10 in the end but I suspect some were weird.

I do think my opinion should have been disregarded as should anyone that had Trump in the worlds best 10 or St Andrews New, that is just stupid opinion. I also suspect I have seen as many courses as quite a few other UK architects having been to the States quite a bit and many/most have not been to Australia.

If you are going to collate ratings you need to establish a criteria of how to score. The Doak Rating is a good basis for everyone to score, perhaps it even needs half points, you simply ask people to score any golf course on that scale, you need solid opinion and that probably means you need at least 10 people to mark a course before a rating can be reasonably fair. The great courses will have lots of 'scorers' the lesser ones might have less. What you have to do is disqualify the idiot opinion though, perhaps if its a % out for the main band it does not count, you cant have someone giving Trump a Doak 1 or a mom and pop course a 10. So you just score the courses that you know.

Or...they could drop the "best" malarkey and just ask for favourites.  I can understand where Tom is coming from, but honestly, who wants to read another list starting with Pine Valley and running down the usual suspects?  That is a waste of time.  The issue for me is it seems the best were asked for in this situation yet it seems hard to believe that is what was delivered. 

Ciao

[Robin_Hiseman]

I questioned Adam at the time that if he was looking for a list of what golf architects believe are the best designed golf courses around the World that this wasn't the best way to go about it, but as Sean says, to have done that would have in all likelihood (as it still may) produce a replication of the well established rankings.

I consider myself to be a reasonably well travelled golf architect, but this voting system meant I couldn't even consider courses like NGLA, Cypress Point, Royal County Down, Sand Hills etc, that I know are 'better' courses than some on my list.  I've seen Pine Valley, Augusta and Muirfield, but I excluded them because I imposed on myself the rule that it had to be courses that I've played.  I'm not fussed about my selection aligning with accepted wisdom, or the viewpoint of those fortunate enough to have seen more than I have, but i'm not keen on the rather snobbish attitude that those qualifying golf architects who haven't been fortunate enough to enjoy physical exposure to the world's greatest golf courses are seemingly not qualified to express their opinion on an equal basis to those that have.  We all either follow the voting criteria, lie about about what we've seen, or abstain because we feel that our portfolio isn't worthy.  It would suck if there were qualifying architects who didn't reply because they felt the latter applied to them.  I expect there will have been a few.
   
Adam and Toby are perfecly capable of analysing the inputs, weighting appropriately and redacting deliberately cooked up ballots...as I know they have done!  I couldn't get names out of them though, despite plying Toby with ale.

[Mac Plumart]

With all lists, it is important to grasp the criteria in order to understand what the lists tell you.

This one is a poll of professional architects and their staffs.  And they picked 10 courses to put on the list that they've seen.  Perhaps this has the potential to show what courses have the most influence on professional architects.  Perhaps some unique courses will show up on the list.  Maybe it will show that a professional architect needs to get out and see\study more courses.  Or maybe it will end up being the same courses in the same spots, like many of the other lists.

Regardless, let's see how it all shakes out and then consider the pros and cons of the list.  What was good about the process and what might be considered to be tweaked?

[Tim Leahy]

Olympic Club Lake only 95th? Guess they don't like trees instead of fairway bunkers.

[Kevin_Reilly]

For SFGC, the description says "Renaissance Golf Design was commissioned to rebuild the club’s greens in 2001, and at the same time restored Tillinghast’s original thirteenth to fifteenth holes."

They are about 5 years off in the 13-15 work.

[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.      

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?

Tom:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the shortcomings of the process. I simply object to your accusation of ballot stuffing. Ballot stuffing is where one person casts several votes. I think you should withdraw that accusation, since you admit yourself that you have no proof.

I do not know Adam personally, and therefore have no reason to question his motives and integrity. I don't believe there was any agenda, other than to gather the opinions of golf course architects. Besides, this is not a re-run of Bush v Gore. Are you that suspicious of the process, that you need to know who voted, and which courses they voted for? Why take it so seriously?

The suggestion that associates will blindly vote the same way as their principal architects is a little unfair. Do you feel the same way about your associates?

As you confirmed yourself, you took part in the survey. Did you raise any of your concerns prior to voting? If no, then why not? Did you consider not taking part? If you were so concerned about they process, why did you participate?

No, I have not been involved in any sort of golf ranking process.

All surveys of this type have inbuilt flaws. Take for example the issue of access. An unknown architect just starting out on a career might have difficulty getting to see Cypress Point. You on the other had would have a better chance of gaining access on account of your reputation. Should the ranking algorithm factor in difficulty of access? Approximately 50% of the world's courses are in the US; do we need to tweak the algorithm for this? Should someone that has seen 1000 courses have more influence than someone that has only seen 200 courses? As you can see, developing that perfect ranking system is impossible.

I have no idea how many votes were needed to propel Trump Aberdeen to #63, but judging by the comments of those that have played the course, this position seems reasonable. Bear in mind that Golfweek put it at #1 in their UK & Irl modern list.

[Mark Saltzman]

11-20: http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Architects-Choice-2011/2806/Default.aspx

[Niall C]

Dr Arthur Spring says: “Each and every hole is a strong one. I rate golf holes on the overall layout, the changes of direction and the avoidance of visual and auditory interference on each hole in normal playing conditions. Muirfield ticks all the boxes in every regard.”


Clearly Dr Spring has no love of the traditional Scottish caravan park or the overhead flight path. Can't help feeling that adhering to his strict rules would be like kicking Uma Thurman out of bed because of the shape of her feet.

Niall

[Emile Bonfiglio]

No surprises on what the top 10 will be...

I predict that St. Andrews takes the top spot.

[Ben Sims]

With all lists, it is important to grasp the criteria in order to understand what the lists tell you.

Mac,

Nobly put and I agree to be sure, but let's live in reality.  Readers aren't making the distinction you make above.  I have NEVER seen a list produced by any publication from golf courses to diapers that doesn't imply that their list communicates the best of that genre.  It's implicit in the techniques used to market and publish these lists that the list is arrived at with the best methods, and is therefore as infallible as these lists can be.  This is why statisical analysis is so important to Digest, Links and GW, and also why it isn't so important to Golf and Golf Architecture.  They all think they have it right.

Which is why none of them are right.  Which is why composite lists of each magazine mean nothing.  Which is why I'm inclined--less and less--to put any stock whatsoever in a ranking of golf architecture.  

[Steve Lapper]

With all lists, it is important to grasp the criteria in order to understand what the lists tell you.

Mac,

Nobly put and I agree to be sure, but let's live in reality.  Readers aren't making the distinction you make above.  I have NEVER seen a list produced by any publication from golf courses to diapers that doesn't imply that their list communicates the best of that genre.  It's implicit in the techniques used to market and publish these lists that the list is arrived at with the best methods, and is therefore as infallible as these lists can be.  This is why statisical analysis is so important to Digest, Links and GW, and also why it isn't so important to Golf and Golf Architecture.  They all think they have it right.

Which is why none of them are right.  Which is why composite lists of each magazine mean nothing.  Which is why I'm inclined--less and less--to put any stock whatsoever in a ranking of golf architecture.  

Ben,

Well said. A solid argument made without misguided passion, however, human nature being what it is.......Kingsbarn so high??? Really??

[Jim Nugent]

Guesses for the top 10 (not in order):

Pine Valley
CPC
Pebble
RCD
TOC
Shinnecock
Royal Melbourne
NGLA
ANGC
?

[Chris DeNigris]

Hint- Think North

[David_Elvins]

Guesses for the top 10 (not in order):

Pine Valley
CPC
Pebble
RCD
TOC
Shinnecock
Royal Melbourne
NGLA
ANGC
?

I assume the other one is Bayonne.


Or Dornoch.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()