Tom Doak,
I hope that in your new book, perhaps in the Preface, you will describe your preferences in sufficient detail as well as the methodology and due diligence employed in reaching your conclusions. I would enjoy if you also rated your own courses, though I understand the issue of sensitivity with clients.
Pat Mucci,
Why are you defining the timeline? Do you believe that "great" is only a qualifier for a specific period of time? I understand why Golfweek differentiates "Classic" from "Modern", though I think it is an unnecessary, artificial construct which probably has more to do with marketing than a reasonably subjective analysis and ranking of the best golf courses.
In your time period, Texas is lacking for reasons adequately noted by others. Not only was the concentration of population and wealth late to the state relative to your beloved Northeast, the type of people making and accumulating money (as alluded to by Bill McBride) were hardly from the genteel, financial classes a few generations old (not many trust fund folks here, even today, where the last three or four generations of men have never worked).
Greg Clark in the linked thread provides a good list of our better courses. I personally believe that Fazio has four, maybe five that are worthy of national recognition, Nicklaus has a couple, ditto for Plummer, C & C has one- albeit much less adorned and frilly than some of their more acclaimed offerings elsewhere- with maybe a second one coming, Williams, Sutton and Weed have one each.
Many years ago, Tiger Bernhardt (who we miss very much) and I played Riviera on a very typical SoCal mid-afternoon. It was a few degrees below 70, wind "blowing" from the Pacific at 2-3 mph. We step to the tee on #4 and our caddie warns us of the heavy wind. Tiger gives me a look of incredulity and hits a driver (I made him play the back tees) which the kikuyu killed just short of the green. I hit a long iron wildly to the right, but the kikuyu holds me up and I get up and down for par, as I recall. Though tight, we didn't lose a ball and raised a sweat all day. Idyllic.
We ran a qualifier yesterday for the TGA Am at Brook Hollow in June. It was one of a dozen or so, this one on a good, inexpensive community course north of Dallas. 60 players fought 20-30 mph winds on a course that was hard as a rock from a drought now running for two years and a cold winter and spring. Balls flying all over the place, but four players at two over 74 played-off for the final eighth spot in the Am and the order of three alternate slots (took four extra holes). The medalist shot a 69; the winner of the last spot made birdie on 18, the first play-off hole, 430 yards, uphill, directly into the southern wind, with trees guarding the landing zone similar to #18 at CPC.
Golf in Texas is an intense, sweaty, physical struggle against the golf course and, often, a pissed-off Mother Nature. It is the antithesis of a round at SFGC or Quaker Ridge. Our courses are built on mostly unexciting terrain exposed to the elements. Those blessed with good topography are usually damned by poor soils, dry conditions, and scarce water for irrigation. In most places, the wind is nearly always a factor, and when it is not, the bugs, heat and humidity make us wish that it was. It is no surprise that those weaned on Olympic, CPC, Winged Foot, etc. may have a poor opinion of Texas golf.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think that the depth and breadth in every category- private, public, resort- here is outstanding. The pricing is often attractive and there is no question that we breed a very high quality golfer. Could the state produce so many good players without good architecture? I think not, unless you believe that "great" gca is of the kind you find mostly in a picture book on your end table as opposed to what you engage in an intense, physical, personal manner. And it can get very personal here.