Why doesn't Victoria National...

[Michael George]

I think "Fun" is one of the best arguments for a golf course.  It is the reason that I play the sport.  Not sure about anyone else.

[BCowan]

I agree.  Do you think describing what makes a course ''Fun'' on a Golf Course Arch website is asking too much?

[Jason Thurman]

Jim put the burden of proof on the Golfweek raters to explain why it ISN'T rated in the Top 100 Modern. Given the course's high praise from multiple sources, including Ran, along with its constant presence in the Golf Digest top 50, this is a fair request. It speaks volumes that this thread still hasn't offered a firsthand criticism any deeper than Nigel's acknowledgement that it can be penal in spots, while some of the most well-traveled posters on this site have called it their top Fazio.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm with Jason on this one.
 
Courses like ANGC, Pine Valley, Oakmont, etc are also very penal in spots, but that doesn't seem to be holding them back.  And from the pics I've seen of Vic Nat'l, it looks fantastic.

[Michael Moore]

Because it's not better than Gary Player's The Cliffs at Mountain Park. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

[Phil McDade]

Jim put the burden of proof on the Golfweek raters to explain why it ISN'T rated in the Top 100 Modern. Given the course's high praise from multiple sources, including Ran, along with its constant presence in the Golf Digest top 50, this is a fair request.

The Golf Digest one I'll give you, although I suspect that's GD's list of top 50 moderns; Jim in his initial post asked why it wasn't top 100, period, for GW -- with no definition of modern, or every course out there.


I think Cowan has the better argument here on burden of proof -- Jim's offered little in his defense of why VN should be so highly ranked. Difficult can be assessed in some broadly acceptable ways; fun and aesthetics .... not so much.


Ran's defense of this course should be taken with a grain of salt. Ran never posts a full course review of something he doesn't like, or detests, or finds extensive fault with (which, differs from a number of GCA posters, who regularly post course tours of places they find indifferent, or poorly done).

[Jason Thurman]

Jim put the burden of proof on the Golfweek raters to explain why it ISN'T rated in the Top 100 Modern. Given the course's high praise from multiple sources, including Ran, along with its constant presence in the Golf Digest top 50, this is a fair request.

The Golf Digest one I'll give you, although I suspect that's GD's list of top 50 moderns; Jim in his initial post asked why it wasn't top 100, period, for GW -- with no definition of modern, or every course out there.

You have this backwards. Golf Digest only rates America's Top 100 courses; they don't specify modern vs. classic. They rank Victoria National 45th currently, and it tends to fluctuate between 30th and 50th. Golfweek is the magazine that splits out classic vs. modern, and their most recent rankings list that included Victoria National was in 2012 when it was ranked 99th on the modern list. The Cliffs at Mountain Park opened in 2013. Michael Moore may be onto something.


As for the burden of proof, Jim started the thread so I respect the call for criticism that he set forth in the intial post. However, while he only asked for reasons why it isn't ranked in the Golfweek Top 100 Modern, there still have been a lot more people posting in agreement with him on the course's merits than not on this thread. I can read that it's:


* fun
* aesthetically pleasing
* awesome
* personal top 20 out of 800 played
* personal top 20 out of 1000 played
* favorite Fazio out of over 50 played
* preferable to Carnoustie, Butler, and Pikewood
* unappealing only to people who think hard=bad


I'm more compelled by the praise I have heard of Victoria National than by the criticism that I haven't, and this thread has done nothing to change that.

[John Mayhugh]

Many people have a hard time appreciating the design of Victoria National because they spend too much time worrying about losing balls.  This is partly due to the design - water is in play on 2/3 of the holes - and partly due to setup. I haven't played there in a few years, but remember a lot of impenetrable "native" rough areas.  The combination of water on one side of a fairway and native (lost ball) on the other makes you think more about survival than attaining the best angle of approach, especially if you are a crappy 9 like me.

When you look at the photos in Ran's tour, the native doesn't look nearly as bad as I remember.  I seem to recall reading on here that the club was trying to reduce the impact of the native somewhat - hopefully that has happened.

The finish is also pretty brutal.  After 15 holes at VN, I am thinking that it would be fun to go back out, despite losing a few balls along the way.  Walking off of 18, though, my desire for more holes has gone.

Looking at the Golfweek criteria, I think VN has challenges in the "tree and landscape management" and "walk in the park" categories. The bones are certainly better than the GW ranking reflects.

[Mac Plumart]

I haven't played Victoria National, so I can't give my opinions...but I have studied the rankings and the methodologies used.


As of right now, only Golf Digest ranks Victoria National as Top 100.  Golfweek does not and neither does Golf Magazine.  The main point of differentiation between Golf Digest and the others is Golf Digest's resistance to scoring. 


Could it be as simple as; The course is very difficult so it makes the Golf Digest list and since the other two major raters don't specifically recognize or equate difficulty with good, the course doesn't make their list?

[George Pazin]

* preferable to Carnoustie, Butler, and Pikewood
* unappealing only to people who think hard=bad


I'm more compelled by the praise I have heard of Victoria National than by the criticism that I haven't, and this thread has done nothing to change that.

It's unfortunate that you chose to characterize, or summarize, in the manner you did. I think that there are many who do not simply feel hard=bad (how do you explain the dominance of ultra hard courses in rankings? Simply history or herd mentality?)


For most who are swept into your characterization of hard=bad, it's not just hard, but HOW things are hard. I think you may want to reflect on that.


-----


Thanks for the responses to my questions about width and playability.

[Jason Thurman]

George, I was only pointing to arguments that supporters of the course had offered. See Mark's quote below:

If there isn't a place for Victoria National on a list of the 100 greatest modern courses in the country, then I think it should be made clear to the public that the list on offer is really the 100 greatest modern courses, which are dominated by a groupthink that believe hard equals bad. 

To bullet 1 in your quoted excerpt, Jim mentioned that he would rather play it than Carnoustie, Butler, or Pikewood.

[BCowan]

Many people have a hard time appreciating the design of Victoria National because they spend too much time worrying about losing balls.  This is partly due to the design - water is in play on 2/3 of the holes - and partly due to setup. I haven't played there in a few years, but remember a lot of impenetrable "native" rough areas.  The combination of water on one side of a fairway and native (lost ball) on the other makes you think more about survival than attaining the best angle of approach, especially if you are a crappy 9 like me.

When you look at the photos in Ran's tour, the native doesn't look nearly as bad as I remember.  I seem to recall reading on here that the club was trying to reduce the impact of the native somewhat - hopefully that has happened.

The finish is also pretty brutal.  After 15 holes at VN, I am thinking that it would be fun to go back out, despite losing a few balls along the way.  Walking off of 18, though, my desire for more holes has gone.

Looking at the Golfweek criteria, I think VN has challenges in the "tree and landscape management" and "walk in the park" categories. The bones are certainly better than the GW ranking reflects.

John,

  Great post, you as always give a fair and detailed post of a course.  You are one of the better posters on here. It's refreshing with some of the twitterclubatlas posts on here. 

[George Pazin]

George, I was only pointing to arguments that supporters of the course had offered. See Mark's quote below:

If there isn't a place for Victoria National on a list of the 100 greatest modern courses in the country, then I think it should be made clear to the public that the list on offer is really the 100 greatest modern courses, which are dominated by a groupthink that believe hard equals bad. 

To bullet 1 in your quoted excerpt, Jim mentioned that he would rather play it than Carnoustie, Butler, or Pikewood.

Well, if that's what you're hanging your hat on, I don't need to say anything else.

[ward peyronnin]

I regularly play VN and I can see both positions. It can be a very hard course for those who don't play it and have trouble seeing the "angles" required and therefore focusing in their mental preparation for each shot. And you really do have to focus out there but so do you on most links courses to produce the kind of shot you want. The difference being at Vic the shot  what you want is mostly an accurate one to your chosen target.

It is generous but visually intimidating as anyplace. I will play off of Nigel and Johns comments a bit. We do have a fair bit of higher hdcp members but have also lost many of those folks. The place is naturally stunningly beautiful, artfully detailed by Fazio and peaceful so there are other qualities than just fun that must do it for those people still there.

The course has softened considerably as it is now run for profit and mangmnt wants players to return. The new Supt has massively reduced the woody, wild margins of the course to native grass and this has opened and softened the place. What most peeps fail to mention is how hard up and downs are around the greens but if one is willing to seek out and learn the proper shots this can be adequately handled. It has forced me to step up my game and that is a good thing.

I haven't been much engaged with slicing and dicing ratings criteria but i do know that even when the course beats me up I am glad to be there and conversely it is also nice to go play a place like May River where I belong that is a more relaxing and a less harsh taskmistress.

At least it has the above going for it as opposed to  a place that is just boorishly hard. After attending the Walker Cup at Lytham my thoughts turned to playing that course made so hard and awkward by the repetetive appearance of 200+ plus nasty bad lie bunkers. It is not nearly as well turned as VC and imagine playing there 3plus times a week and suffering 8-to 10 impossible minimum one stroke penalty bunker shots week in and week out. I want to start a thread on this topic later.

Anyway I gave the pro a heads up that his rater liked the course and he offered up the following insight to how the initial GW inquisition handled the heresy of "too hard" and maybe it's lasting effects

"The simple answer to why we are not in Golf Weeks Top 100 Modern Golf Courses is that Brad Klein felt the golf course was way to penal and he and Terry Friedman did not see eye to eye on the difficulty of the golf course (Actually got into a heated argument) when Brad was here with a group of raters in the early years of the club. At that time we were in Golf Weeks Top 25 and tumbled out after that visit!"

[ward peyronnin]

Pro's comments that didn't copy

The simple answer to why we are not in Golf Weeks Top 100 Modern Golf Courses is that Brad Klein felt the golf course was way to penal and he and Terry Friedman did not see eye to eye on the difficulty of the golf course (Actually got into a heated argument) when Brad was here with a group of raters in the early years of the club. At that time we were in Golf Weeks Top 25 and tumbled out after that visit!

[Mark Sider]

I haven't been to VN. Two Fazio courses I like are Spring Hill and Shooting Star. SS is spectacular!   

[AChao]

I think it is a very hard course for a 15 handicap or above.  It's somewhat hard for lower handicaps.  For a Fazio course, it is a little out of character in terms of difficulty -- most are pleasant to look at and slightly on the easy side in my opinion.  VN is a pretty stern test relatively speaking.

[Ryan Bass]

I have played VN hundreds of times.  I won't bother repeating what others have said in support of the course.  My own unique points are:
1. It's any easy walk
2. Nice variety of long/short par fours.  2, 4 and 12 each present the player with a choice to use an iron, hybrid/wood or driver from the tee.  The layup is to a narrower portion of the fairway but brings more hazards into play.  The good strike with the driver is to a wider portion of the fairway and clear of trouble and, obviously, with a shorter approach.
3. There are over 100 tees.  There are options on every hole that allow a player with any handicap to enjoy his/her round by minimizing or eliminating forced carries or daunting par 3's. 
4. Nice variety of par fives with 3/4 having some quirk or a unique feature.  Only the 10th hole I would consider similar to any other par 5 I've ever played in my life. 
5. It's multi-dimensional in what it demands from me and what it offers to me.  When it hasn't rained recently, I can use my putter to approach three greens.  I've putted from over 100 yards on #'s 3, 9 and 12.  Overall, I use every club in the bag at least once per round.   
6. It'll a beautiful walk in the park.  Particularly, when the wind is down, the view from the 15th green back toward the 15th fairway,  over the glassy lake toward the14th tee in the distance with the 16th green in the foreground...just glorious.
7. I've played The Preserve, World Woods x 2, Shadow Creek, The Wynn.  Victoria is my favorite Fazio by far.  I believe it deserves consensus top 100 status across the ratings board. 

Cheers,

Ryan

[ward peyronnin]

I am trying to paste in the pro's comments but basically at the beginning Brad Klein and a band of rater got in a heated argument with Terry Freidman the founder and VN dropped out of the rating never to return

[/color]The simple answer to why we are not in Golf Weeks Top 100 Modern Golf Courses is that Brad Klein felt the golf course was way to penal and he and Terry Friedman did not see eye to eye on the difficulty of the golf course (Actually got into a heated argument) when Brad was here with a group of raters in the early years of the club. At that time we were in Golf Weeks Top 25 and tumbled out after that visit![/size]

[Jim Franklin]

Well said Ryan. It is a very easy walk and the scenery is spectacular. The greens have an assortment of internal contours and run fast and true. You most certainly want to be on the correct side of the hole to score well. You need to think your way around the course. It has plenty of variety. Long holes, short holes, holes that look long off the tee, but are deceptively short (#4 comes to mind). #15 reminds me of Pine Valley #15 in that it is a hard, tight par 5. PV is 50 yards longer though.

No question it is a challenging course, but it makes you think like a links course does. You need to miss in the right spots.

I did hear what Ward said about Brad. I did not want to bring that up.

So my thoughts remain, VN is not only top 20 modern for me ,but top 20 of the courses I have played. Loved it. Let me know, Ben, if you need to hear more.

[George Pazin]

George, I was only pointing to arguments that supporters of the course had offered. See Mark's quote below:

If there isn't a place for Victoria National on a list of the 100 greatest modern courses in the country, then I think it should be made clear to the public that the list on offer is really the 100 greatest modern courses, which are dominated by a groupthink that believe hard equals bad. 

To bullet 1 in your quoted excerpt, Jim mentioned that he would rather play it than Carnoustie, Butler, or Pikewood.

Jason,


Sorry for my grumpy response yesterday, it was a mix of bad mood and general frustration on here.


It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people summarize in what reads to me as a dismissive manner (which is exactly what I did, hence the apology).


-----


Ward and Ryan, thanks for the additional thoughts.

[Buck Wolter]

Maybe it just needs re-rated now that the fans are gone

[John Mayhugh]

In 2007, Victoria National was ranked 48th on Golfweek's modern list, with a score of 7.07.  Since 2007, Golfweek's list has added 16 (by my quick count) courses to the list with a score of 7.08 or above.  That same 7.07 score in 2015 would be good for 71st.  So added competition is one issue.

By 2012, VN's score was down to 6.87.  The Golfweek site doesn't show scores, but #100 is 6.94, and Victoria is down to #105, so the 2012 score is probably near the same.

In that same time period, Black Diamond Ranch went from 7.32 (34th) to #126.  Briggs Ranch dropped from #38 to #148.  In case you're thinking Golfweek instituted some sort of anti-Fazio (or anti-Victoria National) bias, C&C's Cuscowilla score dropped from 7.33 to 7.06, and Doak's Lost Dunes went from #50 to #111.

[Jim Franklin]

Thanks John for that input. I played each of the courses you mentioned and certainly liked VN better than those. Lost Dunes I liked a lot too but not as much as VN. Having Briggs Ranch or Black Diamond ahead of VN is silly, but that's what keeps the world revolving.

And Buck, there are plenty of courses that use fans to keep greens cool. So be it.

[Jud_T]

Nothing against VN, but doesn't Faz have a history of having courses debuting relatively high on the Modern list with a splash only to slowly fade?  Only a small subset seem to have clearly bucked that trend (Shadow Creek & Wade Hampton in particular).  Perhaps it's a wider phenomenon and only more glaring in his case as he's had so many courses open with a lot of hype.