ScoreGolf Top 100 in Canada

[Wayne_Kozun]

Cabot Cliffs debuts at #1.  http://scoregolf.com/top-100-2016/

Here is the top 10:
1. Cabot Cliffs
2. The National GC of Canada
3. Jasper
4. Cabot Links
5. St. George's
6. Hamilton
7. Cape Breton Highlands
8. Banff
9. Blackhawk
10. Capilano

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for posting this, Wayne.  It's interesting to me on two fronts:

1. The top 10 was traditionally the near-exclusive domain of Golden Age courses. But the power of Mike K's vision/approach seems to be unstoppable: both Cabot courses land in the top 10 (with the Cliffs taking the #1 spot on its first try), and Rod Whitman's other course comes along for the ride.

2. From 10-50, it is striking how many courses are by either McBroom or Carrick. Do any two other (modern) architects dominate their national landscapes as these two Canadians dominate ours?

Peter

[Jeff Bergeron]

I have played very few of these courses, but with a little TLC (tree removal, green recapture and better green surfaces) Weston could be top 10. Fantastic layout and great land. It's just tired. Should be top 10 with a modest investment..

[Greg Gilson]

I assume "Cape Breton Highlands" is the course I know of as "Highland Links"? If so, what is the correct name?

PS. Great list....must investigate National GC....is it really that good? Must be super to top CL.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've only played one Stanley Thompson course and found it delightful. This leaves little doubt in my mind that this list is flawed.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know if it's flawed or not, but it is roughly analogous to Sand Hills taking the #1 spot away from PV (or CP or Augusta) in, say, 1996. Quite a dramatic debut

[John Kavanaugh]

More like the Shadow Creek debut.

[Keith Phillips]

Capilano way low at #10

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if it's flawed or not, but it is roughly analogous to Sand Hills taking the #1 spot away from PV (or CP or Augusta) in, say, 1996.

Your analogy posits that The National Golf Club of Canada is equivalent to Pine Valey (or Cypress Point or Augusta).  That's a pretty weak analogy.  The National as a top-5 course in Canada has never made any sense to me, but that it's been #1 for years calls this magazine's rankings process/criteria into question.

[Wayne_Kozun]

1. The top 10 was traditionally the near-exclusive domain of Golden Age courses. But the power of Mike K's vision/approach seems to be unstoppable: both Cabot courses land in the top 10 (with the Cliffs taking the #1 spot on its first try), and Rod Whitman's other course comes along for the ride.

I don't know that I agree with that Peter.  If you look at past rankings the top 10 has generally had about half classic and half modern course.  The modern courses often in the top 10 in the pre-Cabot era would be:  The National, Royal Montreal Blue, Devil's Paintbrush, Beacon Hall and Shaughnessy with an occasional aberration like Crowbush or Glen Abbey (going back more than a decade).

I would argue that Canadians have tended to under-appreciate their classic era courses which is one of the reasons why your second point is very true - there are a ton of courses by Carrick or McBroom on the list.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The National as a top-5 course in Canada has never made any sense to me, but that it's been #1 for years calls this magazine's rankings process/criteria into question.

Or perhaps more the raters - it doesn't matter what the criteria if the raters are enamoured by a course of this type - an extremely difficult course that is very well maintained where even pros struggle to post a low score.  I think many of the raters do judge an extremely hard "US Open" style course as the ideal for a top ranked course and that certainly describes this course.

[John Kavanaugh]

Or maybe Canadians are so saturated by the beauty of nature that they are more impressed by juxtaposition than by interaction. There is some Canadian Digest guy that often posts his reviews here that time after time leaves me wondering. I can't recall his name…Teutonic Tony, or something like that.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I have played very few of these courses, but with a little TLC (tree removal, green recapture and better green surfaces) Weston could be top 10. Fantastic layout and great land. It's just tired. Should be top 10 with a modest investment..

I quite like Weston and have played there several times but I wouldn't say that it has top 10 potential.  I would say that it is like a bunch of other Golden Age clubs in Canada like Scarboro (full disclosure - I am a member), Summit, Mississauga, St. Thomas, Brantford, Rosedale, etc that probably belong in about the 20-40 range. 

I think many of these courses suffer from the fact that so many of the top courses in Canada are in southern Ontario and those from outside of this region either don't play these courses as they would rather play the very top courses when visiting Toronto, and I think raters from the ROC (outside of the GTA) don't like the rankings to be overly dominated by GTA courses, despite the fact that we have a wealth of riches.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Or maybe Canadians are so saturated by the beauty of nature that they are more impressed by juxtaposition than by interaction.

I don't know if you are referring to TD's post regarding the National as this would work against that course as it is in your typical suburban environment with McMansions lining many of the holes.  Certainly the natural beauty could be helping courses like Cabot, Jasper, Banff, Highlands Links, etc. which are all in or near National Parks.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I have played about 40 of the courses on this list but my courses skew to those in Ontario, plus those in the Maritimes.  Here are my personal opinions on the Canadian top 100 ratings:

Courses that don’t care about ratings are hurt more in Canada than in the US
Two courses that I believe should be ranked higher are Toronto and Mt Bruno.  It is my impression that these clubs are very exclusive, don’t care about ratings and don’t do much, if anything, to improve their ratings.  That seems to affect ratings in Canada more than it does ratings in the US as I am guessing that there are some top US courses like PV and SFGC that also don’t care about ratings but they still end up near the top.  Toronto GC should be in the top 10.

Desire for national representation
I also feel that there is an effort on the part of either the raters or the magazine to have a broad distribution of courses across the country.  I feel that this leads to fewer courses in Southern Ontario on the list compared to what there should be and leads to mediocre courses in other parts of the country to be on the list.  I haven’t played Riverside in Saskatoon but I am guessing that is why it is on the list.  I have played Le Manoir Richelieu and it doesn’t belong on the list.  Le Geant and Le Diable at Mt Tremblant – I haven’t played these courses but given what I have heard I doubt that they deserve to be on the list.

New Publics/Resorts way too high before settling down to rightful place
It is my perception that the Canadian rankings are unduly influenced by new public/resort courses that come along and often get rated much higher than they deserve (I am NOT referring to Cabot by this).  Could it be possible that they get on the list due to inducements that they offer to the raters?  How else would you explain this:
Taboo #11 in 2006 is now 83.
Nicklaus North #9 in 2000 now 52.
Crowbush - #6 in 2002, now #33 and wouldn’t make it to the list if it was in Toronto.
Copper Creek #23 in 2006 – currently #64 and shouldn’t make the Toronto top 100 list.
Tobiano #10 in 2012, now 38.
Le Geant #12 in 2002 now 67.
Deerhurst #12 in 1998 now 75.
Lake Joseph #8 in 2002 now 79.

Classic resort courses that were once forgotten
Conversely classic resort courses were previously shunned by raters but are now near the top of the list.  Examples of this include Banff which was #45 in 2000 and is now 8, Jasper which was #21 in 2000 and is now #3 and Highlands Links which was #36 in 1998 but which moved to #1 in 2000 and has been in the top 10 ever since.  I believe the Highland Links rocket to the top in 2000 was due to Lorne Rubenstein.

Getting much better ranking for hosting the Canadian Open
Glen Abbey was ranked in the top 10 until about 2002 – it is now 85.  Royal Montreal Blue was ranked at #4 in 2000 and is now 24.  Shaughnessy was up to #9 in 2006, it is now 15 (it hosted the Canadian Open in 2005).

Of the courses that I have played that are on the list the biggest shocker is Copper Creek.  It does not deserve to be on the list.  And Magna is way too high - its previous rating of 85 was about right.  Great service and clubhouse food should not count towards the ratings and the golf course alone does not deserve for it to be that high.

[Ronald Montesano]

Lookout at 74, Cherry at 108...Travis weeps.


Driven by advertising dollars?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Lookout at 74, Cherry at 108...Travis weeps.

Driven by advertising dollars?

I don't think so, I think it is more driven by the fact that few raters have played those courses as they aren't very well known.  I know a few of the raters and I am pretty sure that they haven't played those courses, nor have I to be honest.  The raters in Toronto probably don't bother to go down to Niagara very often so those courses are a bit out of the way for them - in the summer the traffic between Toronto and Niagara can be seriously bad.  And raters from the rest of the country would probably focus on the higher ranked courses in Toronto and wouldn't make it any farther than Hamilton.  But I will have to make an effort the next time I get to that area.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne - I know the Canadian golf scene only a little better than I do the American one (which is to say,  not well at all), but your post #14 seems a terrific one.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

New Publics/Resorts way too high before settling down to rightful place
It is my perception that the Canadian rankings are unduly influenced by new public/resort courses that come along and often get rated much higher than they deserve (I am NOT referring to Cabot by this).  Could it be possible that they get on the list due to inducements that they offer to the raters?  How else would you explain this:


Le Geant #12 in 2002 now 67.
Deerhurst #12 in 1998 now 75.
Lake Joseph #8 in 2002 now 79.

It is common in most of the rankings for a new course to be ranked highly and then fall back.  One reason is that the first panelists to see any new course are generally the ones who are already fans of that architect's work, so their average grade on it will be higher than the rest of the panelists when they eventually arrive.  However, those examples you gave are egregious ...