Course Rating Compression: Cypress Point Club v. Country Club of Troy

[Tim Martin]

You just feel CPC is different. Maybe because I had not seen it on TV other than the odd clip, I have never been more excited in my life about getting to the next tee and discovering what is out there, while enjoying a fair test of golf. Even before you get to see the ocean, the incredible dunes, every bunker, the shaping of each green gets your heart racing. You could eliminate #16 and #17 and still have a top 5 course. Unlike other greats, you can play it year round. Also unlike other greats, a 12 handicapper would enjoy playing CPC every day for the rest of his life.

Doesn't 16 truly send it to another level? I would be interested to hear what others think about your contention that it retains top five status without 16 and 17. I won't render an opinion because I haven't played it.

[MClutterbuck]

You just feel CPC is different. Maybe because I had not seen it on TV other than the odd clip, I have never been more excited in my life about getting to the next tee and discovering what is out there, while enjoying a fair test of golf. Even before you get to see the ocean, the incredible dunes, every bunker, the shaping of each green gets your heart racing. You could eliminate #16 and #17 and still have a top 5 course. Unlike other greats, you can play it year round. Also unlike other greats, a 12 handicapper would enjoy playing CPC every day for the rest of his life.

Doesn't 16 truly send it to another level? I would be interested to hear what others think about your contention that it retains top five status without 16 and 17. I won't render an opinion because I haven't played it.

Let me add to the discussion then. I dont think 16 is in my top 5 holes of the course. It is fun to play a few times. But if I was a member, and played CPC every day, I think 16 would probably be one of my least favorite holes. I cant be adamant about it because I do not play it every day, but it is not the fairest test out there. I prefer 15 to 16 without any question.

[Sean_A]

Among classic (pre-1960) courses, Golfweek rates Cypress Point #2 (I haven't played Pine Valley) and CC of Troy #192.  I find the former slightly over-rated but don't disagree with the respective rankings   That said, I might split my rounds 5/5 - honestly.  Give me specifics reasons why one is #2 and the other #192.  I know there are legitimate reasons, I'm just not smart enough to name them.

Thanks in advance.

Bogey

Bogey,

Ocean, exclusivity, aesthetics. In that order.

In my personal opinion, there isn't enough difference between individual shots on golf courses to warrant a ratings difference of a Doak 10 to Doak 5. Or in this case, #2 vs. #192 on a magazine list. Aesthetical and location differences, however, more than warrant that difference. Don't confuse that to mean that ground contours are irrelevant.

I could write a paragraph or two on this very subject, as I think the nebulous "shot values" quotient used by some lists is ridiculous. A high fade hit around a tree on a mom and pop farm course is the same high fade used to get to the back right pin on #14 at Augusta.

Ben

In general, I agree with you.  Often times, the main difference between good and great is a sense of place or grandeur with nuts and bolts hole quality taking a back seat.  I would say reputation, exclusivity and setting can easily make up 3 of five points between courses.  But then, kit must be remembered that the D Scale is meant to be  a sliding scale for recommending courses to see so why shouldn't reputation, setting and exclusivity make up a big reason to see a course?  

Ciao

Sean, I fear you have been spending too much time with Sheehy.   What's next - photographs of your lunch?

Responses to this thread continue to blow me away and fly in the face of long-standing conventional wisdon on GCA.  I thought it was all about the architecture.   Dang it - 14 years down the drain.

Bogey

Bogey, why should I change my stripes now? Its never all about architecture for me.  If it was, I would never pay to play great courses.  I have forever said declaring courses as good, better, best is a mugs game.  Just stick with what makes you happy and all will end well.  There isn't enough architecture to separate the vast majority of fine courses.  It comes down to what people like and people seem to like CPC an awful lot.   

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

Here ya go, lads: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53009.0.html

You need to get down to Reply #38, the one with the dog's crotch, to get to the actual photo tour. The first tharty-seven are pre-game.

I know where Boges is coming from and I can't wait to see where he's headed. His voice is refreshing and should be held in great regard on this here site.

[Mike Hendren]

I've been interested in CC of Troy for some time as well, but definitely would take a round at CPC over it.  There are a ton of cool older courses, but CPC is epic

Why is it "epic?"

Respectfully,

Bogey

[Jason Topp]

Bogey:

Hopefully this is not off topic.  I think it relates to the general topic of the gap between the very top courses and those held at the next level.
I thought about this issue in a different context after playing Lawsonia Links yesterday which reminded me a bit of Crystal Downs.  Why is Crystal Downs considered one of the best courses in the country while Lawsonia has fallen out of Golfweek's Top 100 classic courses?  

The easy answer involves, exclusivity and views.  If I were to make the case for architecture based criteria for differentiating between the two, I would come up with the following:

- Par 4 variety - Lawsonia's par 4's are quite good but does not have the variety and quality of short par fours that exist at Crystal Downs.

- Wow Factor - the striking aspect of Lawsonia consists of the bunkers and sharp slopes off the greens.  Crystal Downs includes a number of truly unique holes I have not seen elsewhere.

- Bunkers - The bunkers at both places are very unique but I find the Crystal Downs bunkers to provide more varied and interesting choices of recovery shots.  The sloped scabs at Crystal Downs are very interesting hazards with opportunities for glory and doom.  Lawsonie's bunkers offer more doom than glory.

- Fairway contours - the fairways at Lawsonia are rolling with plenty of interest but do not compare to the humps and bumps on some of the holes at Crystal Downs.

-  Head to head  - while a subjective and artificial exercise, I do find that head to head counting of preferred holes acts as a check on overall impressions and biases.  I came up with an 11-7 count in favor of CD:

     1- CD; 2 LL; 3.CD; 4.  CD; 5. CD; 6. LL; 7 CD; 8 CD; 9 LL; 10 LL; 11 CD;  12 CD; 13 CD; 14 LL; 15 CD; 16 LL; 17 CD; 18 LL

Many of these choices are close.  I would consider holes 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 18 to all be very close choices .  8 of those went to CD meaning that the tally is within the margin of error for a reverse result.

I do not think any of these factors can justify such a wide disparity in course rankings.  In fact, I could argue for a reverse result based on the landscape, which at Lawsonia involves terrain that provides plenty of interest yet is more pleasant to walk than that at Crystal Downs.  I could argue that I prefer Lawsonia's greens which provide plenty of interest and challenge with less severity than than those at Crystal Downs.

Maybe it is arbitrary.

CD from the air http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/crystaldownscc/aerial.htm#
LL from the air http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lawsonialinkscourse/aerial.htm#

[Tim Martin]

To piggyback off of Jason's post I would offer the disparity in GW's most current Top 100 rankings between #10 Fishers Island and #38 Yale. Although the difference in ranking is less than either example and only twenty eight slots I think without LI Sound as a backdrop Yale and Fishers are neck and neck. Both courses are comprised of templates and neither is short on scale or dramatic shots. The OCEAN and the wind clearly land the knockout punch for Fishers.

[jeffwarne]

Should I infer from your 5-5 split between the two that you think CC of Troy may have as much "architectural merit" as Cypress Point, or just that you enjoy them both almost equally regardless of architectural merit?

Excellent question.  I dunno.  How about this - I simply can't enjoy a course more than I enjoyed Troy, or Teugega, or Glens Falls, or Onondaga or The Yahnandasis, or Fenway - the 6 I played last month.  I wouldn't even begin to argue that they are in the same league with Cypress Point, Shinnecock Hills of The National Golf Links of America, however.   

I appreciate David Moriarty's post above - that's what I was fishing for.  Then again, I think my litmus rebuttal would be a few photographs of the beautiful, simple and hard-to-hit 1st green at Troy. Two possible theories explain my thinking - great golf courses are somehow more difficult for me to love, yet I'm a sucker for the Troy's and Lulu's of the world (I hate to say it but Troy, Teugega and Glens Falls blow Lulu away).  This might be a reflection of my poor to modest game.  Second, and I think this has more merit -  the law of diminishing returns applies to golf courses - a 6 blows away a 3 but some 9's aren't that much better than some 6's.

Also, this is random, but there is a big difference between a Fazio 6 and a Travis 6. 

Now I'm totally confused.

Bogey

+1
100% agreed about the two "6" s comment, but then many wouldn't give them both "6"s
One of my criticisms of the CG was the amazing # of "6"s given to very ordinary (though expensive) modern golf courses by signature architects

[Tim_Weiman]

You just feel CPC is different. Maybe because I had not seen it on TV other than the odd clip, I have never been more excited in my life about getting to the next tee and discovering what is out there, while enjoying a fair test of golf. Even before you get to see the ocean, the incredible dunes, every bunker, the shaping of each green gets your heart racing. You could eliminate #16 and #17 and still have a top 5 course. Unlike other greats, you can play it year round. Also unlike other greats, a 12 handicapper would enjoy playing CPC every day for the rest of his life.

Doesn't 16 truly send it to another level? I would be interested to hear what others think about your contention that it retains top five status without 16 and 17. I won't render an opinion because I haven't played it.

Let me add to the discussion then. I dont think 16 is in my top 5 holes of the course. It is fun to play a few times. But if I was a member, and played CPC every day, I think 16 would probably be one of my least favorite holes. I cant be adamant about it because I do not play it every day, but it is not the fairest test out there. I prefer 15 to 16 without any question.

M:

I think I agree with your observation about #16 at Cypress with one build: it might not be the hole one would enjoy playing everyday, but it is the hole one would always enjoy bringing guests to play.

[Josh Stevens]

Troy I'm sure was docked 50 spots for historical inaccuracy, noting on their website that the place was designed by noted American architect Walter Travis, who of course was not American.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jason,

I realize your analysis is more than HTH but your margin of victory, in percentage terms, actually is wider than the gap between GW's scores for the two courses*. My point being, the GW score gap between those courses is not as wide as many seem to infer from the difference in their rankings, as is also the case for CPC v the Trojan.


*GW's 2014 rankings do not publish scores for the second hundred so I took the score of the 104th-ranked course in the 2013 rankings.

[Sean_A]

Mark

It doesn't matter as to Jason's point....I think.  We are all saying the same thing, there are 250 courses in top 100.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mostly yes. A finer point is that people wrongly ascribe legitimacy to the "ranking numbers". Much confusion results. 

[Sean_A]

Mark, yes of course, the numbers are meaningless, maybe worse, idiotic.

Ciao

[Chris DeToro]

I've been interested in CC of Troy for some time as well, but definitely would take a round at CPC over it.  There are a ton of cool older courses, but CPC is epic

Why is it "epic?"

Respectfully,

Bogey

this isn't a slight on Troy at all, but CP is a perfect 10.  The terrain, the routing, the playability and then layer on the dramatic views with the cliffs and the ocean. 

I agree with the premise of your argument and think that had you picked a lesser course than CPC that the point would have been blurred a bit

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

I realize your analysis is more than HTH but your margin of victory, in percentage terms, actually is wider than the gap between GW's scores for the two courses*. My point being, the GW score gap between those courses is not as wide as many seem to infer from the difference in their rankings, as is also the case for CPC v the Trojan.


*GW's 2014 rankings do not publish scores for the second hundred so I took the score of the 104th-ranked course in the 2013 rankings.

I think you misinterpret the numbers in the GW rankings Mark.   The numbers in the golf week system, while not exactly the Doak scale, do follow a somewhat analogous pattern.  There are almost no 10s, a few 9's a few more 8's and lots of 7's.  LL would be in the 7 range (of which there are probably 100 courses fairly close to that number) and Crystal Downs would be closer to a 9 (of which there are very few) so the rankings differ very significantly  I would guess that LL is ranked more closely to the 500th ranked course than it is to Crystal Downs.

[Jim Sherma]

My personal assessment of playing a course is to ask myself if the course would still be special if it was maintained and accessible like an average or above average muni. There are many really nice private clubs that I have played that would be nothing more than a decent and fun muni given that criteria. Exclusivity and conditioning goes a long way in the way people rate courses. There also seems to be a branding effect that goes on once a course gets locked in the upper echelon.

[Ronald Montesano]

Troy I'm sure was docked 50 spots for historical inaccuracy, noting on their website that the place was designed by noted American architect Walter Travis, who of course was not American.

Tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure. Although Travis was Australian, he became a US citizen, right? That would make him an American.

[Lou_Duran]

In short, Cypress is a combination of great golf course architecture in an ideal setting for golf, but the ideal setting goes well beyond the aesthetics.  Some courses built in nice settings don't match it in terms of architecture.   Other courses with great architecture don't match it in terms of the ideal setting for golf.

As for your 5-5 split, if you find ever yourself in a position to pass up 5 rounds at CPC, please send them my way.   

I am in complete agreement.  Have never played CCoT, but I'd gladly take one round at CPC over five at the former (sorry, I've played a bunch of excellent courses and if I miss one more, my life is still pretty good; it would be a tragedy to miss one opportunity to play CPC, feeling strongly that the title "The Sistine Chapel of Golf" might understate its standing).

Inscribed on a plaque near the 17th tee is a quote from former member Clarke W. Bearden (died in 1998) "Gentlemen, I suggest that we pause for a moment, admire the beautiful view, count our blessings. Very few of us are privileged to pass this way.").  I've experienced several moments in my life which aroused these sentiments, but in golf, never stronger than at CPC.

As David articulates well, CPC is an ideal, so rare in that it was somehow executed.  It is a near-perfect club course, not of "championship" caliber necessarily as is PBGL nearby.  It is not nearly as "private" as many much lesser courses (some limited unaccompanied play is allowed, at least at one time) and doesn't seem to have the affectations or pretenses of any number of upscale clubs in the U.S.  In many regards it reminds me of some of the clubs around London, very comfortable in its own skin and welcoming of strangers who appreciate its special place.

BTW, I prefer 15 to 16, the latter which would be much improved IMO if the club would follow the USGA guidelines on marking boundaries.  The only weak hole in the course is #10; I have no issues with #18, the superb green complex on high ground by the clubhouse more than overcoming a restricted driving area (which can be negotiated with a long iron or fairway metal).

 

[Lou_Duran]

Mark

It doesn't matter as to Jason's point....I think.  We are all saying the same thing, there are 250 courses in top 100.

Ciao

200 of which were designed by Tom Fazio.

[Rich Goodale]

I've been interested in CC of Troy for some time as well, but definitely would take a round at CPC over it.  There are a ton of cool older courses, but CPC is epic

Why is it "epic?"

Respectfully,

Bogey

this isn't a slight on Troy at all, but CP is a perfect 10.  The terrain, the routing, the playability and then layer on the dramatic views with the cliffs and the ocean. 

I agree with the premise of your argument and think that had you picked a lesser course than CPC that the point would have been blurred a bit

Chris

Does a "10" have a 1st hole where you hit a blind shot over a hedge 50 yards in front of you, and a 17th and 18th where you drive into a forest of trees, and greens that are, on average, only average in terms of interest and quality?

Rich

PS--great experiences, though!

Rich

[David Davis]

I've also not played Country Club of Troy however, I would probably agree with David as well and on top of that add to what makes Cypress special.

1. Mackenzie's artistic hand.
2. Perfect ground and turf.
3. 3 distinctly different environments to work with. First 6 holes being forest/parkland type holes, second 6 being links (links like) running through the open dunes and last 6 being ocean or cliff courses.
4. 18 memorable holes all completely different, no two tee shots alike.
5. Historical significance.
6. Location, location, location.

I personally think there is a huge gap between the top courses and the rest. In most cases this does also have to do with things like turf, whether they had sand based ground to work with and settings. I also believe that architects probably feel the same way although there is always an exception to the rule. You don't often hear about Doak, Coore Crenshaw, etc all vying for that one course located in the midwest flatlands on a swampy site. They are holding out for the best properties where they can make the greatest impact. I don't really buy into it even being realistic to think anyone will ever judge 100% purely on architecture because the playing field will never be perfectly fair given the variation in quality of land to build on.

If we move this to include the world top rather than the US alone. My argument would be that 95% of all parkland, clay based ground courses would drop in the rankings below the Top 100 UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia etc courses build in the dunes on sand based ground. That would really turn everything upside down.

[John Foley]

greens that are, on average, only average in terms of interest and quality?


Rich

I always wanted to understand this - given the greatness of the course how great are the greens themselves? An if they are not - how much of a detractor is it?

A few of those at CC of T are out of this world.

In the end, the experience at CPC is tough to beat for any course let alone a little old CC in the rolling hills of upstate New Your on a glorious clear fall day!!

[Ronald Montesano]

Travis didn't do bunkers with an artistic flair. If you had given Travis the property on which CPC rests, we would not be talking about the bunkering. Likewise, if AlMac or Strantz had been given the CCT property, we would be talking about the bunkering.

This I will say about Troy, in a non-golf way: It has the best, serpentine entrance road I've ever seen. It is as extensive as Dunes Club (New Buffalo) is brief.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jason,

I realize your analysis is more than HTH but your margin of victory, in percentage terms, actually is wider than the gap between GW's scores for the two courses*. My point being, the GW score gap between those courses is not as wide as many seem to infer from the difference in their rankings, as is also the case for CPC v the Trojan.


*GW's 2014 rankings do not publish scores for the second hundred so I took the score of the 104th-ranked course in the 2013 rankings.

I think you misinterpret the numbers in the GW rankings Mark.   The numbers in the golf week system, while not exactly the Doak scale, do follow a somewhat analogous pattern.  There are almost no 10s, a few 9's a few more 8's and lots of 7's.  LL would be in the 7 range (of which there are probably 100 courses fairly close to that number) and Crystal Downs would be closer to a 9 (of which there are very few) so the rankings differ very significantly  I would guess that LL is ranked more closely to the 500th ranked course than it is to Crystal Downs.

Jason, just because there are fewer courses in one category than the next one(s) down does not mean the scale employed is nonlinear. Do you know if GW defines their scale as logarithmic or otherwise states that an 8, for example, is 3x or 10x or 100x etc better than a 7? If so, then you have a point.

If not, and I suspect this is the likely case, then the magazine is just "forcing" a statistical distribution of some kind onto the results. Simply because there are fewer 9s than 7s does not mean the scale is nonlinear. If this explanation is the correct one then one can compare scores directly without resorting to a transformation or an added interpretation.