News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_F

Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2017, 10:06:05 PM »
because it has so many world-class holes including 3,5,8,11,14,16 and 18.


You have a spectacularly wide definition of world-class holes, Mike, if you classify 11 and 16 as that.


By that measure, Pen South has at least 7 world class holes too.  :)

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2017, 10:10:53 PM »
Are there other top tier courses with two architects on separate holes?


Dornoch with Ross (#1), Sutherland (#2) and Morrris (#4 and #5) immediately pops into my mind.
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2017, 10:15:47 PM »
Congrats to Ayodhya Links!
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2017, 10:30:15 PM »
Mark


I'd class as world class holes beautifully built on good bits of land and asking for both interesting and well-executed shots.
I think 11 is by far the most underrated hole on the course - maligned even. It's a terrific shot down to the green with a long club - offering both the chance to fly it all the way to the flag or land it 60 yards short and run it on.
For a flat piece of land 16 asks the perfect questions - it's certainly a world-class flat hole and there aren't so many of them.


Peninsula North might have a few pretty good holes-  as does the South IMO:)

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #54 on: September 08, 2017, 02:25:12 AM »
Some further opinions (most over-/under-rated, most fun, etc.)  from the panel of raters:

http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/2017/09/01/course-rater-confidential-what-our-raters-really-think-about-top-100-courses
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 02:26:52 AM by David_Tepper »

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #55 on: September 08, 2017, 06:58:02 AM »
David Davis,


How is it possible that Barnbougle Lost Farm is a lesser course than Ellerston when Lost Farm is a better course than Barnbougle Dunes?!


Being serious about it, I know absolutely no one who preferred BLF to BD on their first visit, but quite a few who've played 10-15 rounds at each course and have Lost Farm in front (myself included).


Ellerston is a lot of fun, a unique proposition and maintained very well, but it doesn't have a single hole that can rival 4, 5, 8 or 14 at Lost Farm. Nor does Lost Farm have a hole as pedestrian as 9-11 at Ellerston.


I suppose the rankings, by virtue of most raters being one-and-done, maybe two-and-done, at remote courses, will continue to mean courses like Lost Farm sit far lower than they deserve to.


Scott,


Touché, thanks for calling me out. Many of your points I really can't argue with. I agree that a great course just gets better with more plays. Personally as I think you know I only played 36 holes there, while I think that's better than 1 and done. I would absolutely love the opportunity to play another 10 rounds at each course to learn all the fine details etc. Yours is a such a luxury problem, no different than mine just on the opposite site of the spectrum. Living on the other side of the world just the opportunity to visit OZ and sample the great courses you guys have is such a honor but living there and being able to play 10-20 rounds on them to have a better understanding, appreciation and intimate knowledge well that's the stuff many of us dream of.


That being said, I like many others in my boat can only go on what we can learn in our limited plays. The one fair side to this is that all the courses are being judged in pretty much the same manner. Lost Farm, yes excellent course, I believe I agreed with you guys on this point. However, in my mind the best courses in the world need to have as many all world holes, spectacular holes and standout holes as possible. Just having excellent holes is not enough to stand among golf's elite. Now totally agree that opinions see all sides of the spectrum as to what satisfies these requirements. I can only speak from my own and based on my limited number of plays. Barnbougle, Cape Wickham, Tara Iti, NSW (this one thrown in for you ;-), Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, Ellerston all have absolutely tons of standout holes that literally take your breath away and leave unforgettable imprints on your memory. Lost Farm while excellent didn't leave me with any holes that had this effect. The land is far less interesting to me than Barbougle and the routing lacks this wow factor that makes the great courses standout for me.


You were specific in your points for example about Ellerston's 9-11 holes. 9 and 10 being in my opinion very strong risk reward par 5's that high reward strong tee shots but do have very interesting tee shots. I think the second shot on 9 may suffer slight from the encroachment of trees but do understand that this is essentially works well with the strategy of the hole in trying to make you take a clear choice of weather to go for it in two and risk not clearing the trees or carefully lay up and be face with a somewhat tricky second shot and an uneven down hill lie on the third. I see it as have a strong risk reward characteristic including a very interesting and challenging 2nd shot should you choose the safer layup option or perhaps are forced into it with a less than ideal drive.


10, another par 5 offers a completely different theme, choose which side of the fairway based on the centerline tree or for long hitters fly it over the trees on the right. The second shot is very interesting due to the left side being taken out of play. however the best line of approach to the green is most certainly from as close to the dry wash creek bed as possible. Play it safe to the right where there is tons of width and then be faced with a tricky approach to the very interesting and shallow green from that angle. I personally thing those two par 5's are strong than any par 5 at Lost Farm based on my 2 plays.


11 on the other hand is an excellent downhill par 4 with a risk reward element on the left hand side, take off as much as you dare and you will benefit from the kick down the hill. the approach to the well bunkered green requires either a shot you can fly into the green high or land well short and run on. Hardly what I would call pedestrian, in fact I honestly believe all 3 holes are excellent.


Anyone interested in following this discussion please take a look at this video that somebody posted. You can see the holes we are discussing in case you don't know them. https://vimeo.com/144553100


I have to run to a meeting but will come back to you on the Lost Farm part. I know very well that you and Mike and whoever else will see things differently and I totally respect that, also respect you guys have tremendous knowledge on the subject and that we likely won't agree on everything but I do find the discussion very interesting to say the least and one that offers a potentially very interesting learning experience into another way to look at Lost Farm that not only I am missing.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #56 on: September 08, 2017, 09:29:56 AM »
David
 
I tend to agree with Scott’s position regarding the weakness of one and done type appraisals. I don’t think you can rationally argue otherwise. To say that it is at least fair in that all courses are being judged in the same manner kind of misses the point and is also to a large degree inaccurate.
 
Tom Doak has often been quoted about having to play the Old Course a number of times before you begin to appreciate its merits (and perhaps demerits). Why shouldn’t other courses benefit from the same consideration ?
 
Clearly there are a hard core of courses that get numerous plays from a vast cross section of the panel while others, often for good reason be it travel logistics or access, don’t. If we are looking to be fair, would it not be a better idea to not include appraisals where the panellist hasn’t at least played the course a handful of times. New courses or little played courses that are well regarded could go on a separate list until such times as they get enough votes from panellists who have played them the requisite number of times.
 
I can’t imagine that’s going to happen for a variety of reason but if it did, I’d certainly take the list a lot more seriously.
 
Niall

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #57 on: September 08, 2017, 10:07:17 AM »
Niall and Scott, greetings.


While I can’t really fault your logic, multiple plays are never going to happen and that’s not such a terrible thing.
 
Most of the readers of these lists would be overjoyed to get one shot at each of these courses. So in practice they are hoping  to experience what the rater did. If the rater had a memorable time, then it’s quite likely they will too.
 
Possibly Tom Doak would think just as highly of TOC if it had less historical significance, but the average golfer/rater clearly wouldn’t. So in a very real way it doesn’t matter that it’s based on a one off visit, unless one really believes there can be a definitive list of the best 100 courses.
Let's make GCA grate again!

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2017, 10:10:04 AM »
All of the best courses get better with more experience, but at the end of the day, this is all still a matter of opinion. Scott's take that Lost Farm is better than Barnbougle after you play them a lot is his own; others would find it the other way around.  The lion's share of business at Barnbougle is repeat play, and neither course is lacking for admirers.


Niall's idea of putting more weight on the opinions of those who have seen a course many times, would not make as much difference as he imagines, in my opinion.  Putting a thumb on the scale of the courses that people have seen the most [as Golf Digest used to do] just reinforces conventional wisdom, and the last thing golf architecture needs is "more conventional wisdom".





Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2017, 11:02:07 AM »
It's a list much like any list in the big scheme of things. I am surprised to have played 33 courses on the list, yet the aspect of the variety of courses not really taken into account (I think) is the superior quality of grasses for links. I believe this vast difference in quality makes a huge difference in year round playability and hence the qualities of the designs being on proper display. This recent trip to Carolina only hammered home the point more so. I think big guns are given too much of a pass based on prime conditions which may truth be a fleeting reality. The bottom line for me is cool season courses are under represented.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2017, 12:20:39 PM »
Tony
 
In fairness I did acknowledge the impracticality of the idea but it doesn’t stop it being a way of achieving a better result IMO.
 
Tom
 
What I suggested was not putting more weight on opinions based on multiple plays but actually ignoring (for the main list) appraisals based on a limited number of plays, but I think you are correct, in the vast majority of instances it will make no difference at all. After all, most are classic courses that have been around for years and have made it to the top of the pile for good reason. That’s not to say things can’t change as courses maybe lose some of their strategic value for instance, due to advances in technology.
 
However where I think it might make a difference is with certain of the newer courses with lots of bling. It’s easy to get carried away with a new course the first time you see it, as I have done myself, only for the allure to fade after a few plays. I’m thinking of a certain course in the north of Scotland that has been spoken of highly on here. Nearly half a dozen plays later, you forget about the eye candy and start to think, “hang on, this is nice but not that nice !”
 
Basically there’s nothing wrong with applying the test of time IMO, and in this modern age of instant judgement I wouldn’t necessarily call that conventional wisdom. That’s not to say you ignore all the courses that have had glowing reports from the hit and runners but that you could have a separate list where these courses either sink or swim ie. graduate on to the main list, after a period of play. That I think would be a much more interesting list.
 
Anyway, it’s just all wishful thinking on my part.
 
Sean
 
You could well be right but there is always going to be an element of comparing apples to oranges with the different type of courses that you have.
 
Niall

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2017, 01:18:14 PM »
For the reasons many state above and those stated in numerous other threads, forced rankings will remain highly imperfect to say the least. However, in the digital world, the magazines/websites could do us an enormous service at very little cost: include an appendix that lists (no names) the rater's handicap, list of top 100 courses, and number of times he or she has played each. For those that use architects and golf pros, include that info. Without too much trouble, it then would be possible for each of us to assess whether particular courses are too high or low relative to our individual screens/preferences. A tough course that ranks highly but has not been played multiple times by a good number of raters is for me personally not going high on my list of places I would like to play.


Ira

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2017, 01:45:37 PM »
I have a question.  I have not played Sleepy Hollow, but the pictures look incredible and it seems to be loved by many on these strings.


Why isn't it top 100 by the magazine ratings?  Looks top 50 in pictures.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Eric LeFante

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2017, 01:51:53 PM »
I have a question.  I have not played Sleepy Hollow, but the pictures look incredible and it seems to be loved by many on these strings.


Why isn't it top 100 by the magazine ratings?  Looks top 50 in pictures.


It is now! 96 by Golf Magazine


http://www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/photo/2017/08/16/top-100-golf-courses-united-states-2017

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2017, 02:16:46 PM »
A lot of people hate rankings threads, but there is more meat via comparisons and analogies on this thread than many others.


It does prompt me to think, why do people seem to think deeper when asked to compare, than simply analyse? Apologies for the beard pulling...
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2017, 02:20:25 PM »
David
 
I tend to agree with Scott’s position regarding the weakness of one and done type appraisals. I don’t think you can rationally argue otherwise. To say that it is at least fair in that all courses are being judged in the same manner kind of misses the point and is also to a large degree inaccurate.
 
Tom Doak has often been quoted about having to play the Old Course a number of times before you begin to appreciate its merits (and perhaps demerits). Why shouldn’t other courses benefit from the same consideration ?
 
Clearly there are a hard core of courses that get numerous plays from a vast cross section of the panel while others, often for good reason be it travel logistics or access, don’t. If we are looking to be fair, would it not be a better idea to not include appraisals where the panellist hasn’t at least played the course a handful of times. New courses or little played courses that are well regarded could go on a separate list until such times as they get enough votes from panellists who have played them the requisite number of times.
 
I can’t imagine that’s going to happen for a variety of reason but if it did, I’d certainly take the list a lot more seriously.
 
Niall


Niall,


I was thinking of just becoming a member of all the Top 100 courses in the world playing average twice per day for the next 10 years and then seeing if I had enough intimate exposure to be able to say which course I personally like more than the others. Come on now, what you are suggesting is wonderful so perhaps one of the most unrealistic things I have read from you. How many times have you managed to play any other course other than your home club. Cost alone would prohibit this. I think as Tom mentions, he can go once and get a very good feeling for a course, the ground movement any spectacular holes, shaping, routing, green surrounds etc etc. I personally feel that if and when I can manage 2 or more plays then I'm getting as good a feeling for myself as can be expected. Especially when I live on the other side of the world from most courses. I take photos of every single hole for myself so I can go back and remember the routing for courses I forget partially. Usually I find there is a reason I forget certain holes and that's usually because they are less interesting to me or in my view don't add enough to the routing. The key here is in my view.


Scott and Mike earlier mentioned Lost Farm, I felt the entire course was just like this, played it twice paying as close of attention I can, photographed everything and still nothing stuck out as being special or as good in my opinion as the other C&C courses I love. I feel I've had an average cover of their well known courses to make this judgement to a level that personally satisfies my need to do so. That would include most of the courses we discuss regularly on GCA like Sand Hills (4x), Fryers Head (2x), Bandon Trails (4x), Streamsong (2x), Old Sandwich (2x), Cabot Cliffs (2x), Bandon Preserve (2x), Colorado Golf Club (1x + 1 more time in September), Lost Farm (2x), Shanqin Bay (2x), Dormie Club (2x) plus a few of their renovations - Old Town (2x), Pinehurst #2 (2x), Maidstone (2x), Riviera (1x) etc.


On top of that I love their work so am very interested by it and try to pay close attention as I already said. Lost Farm again is way down my list of their courses I've played. Playing it over and over again will most likely not make it improve on these others that I like more already if I also play them more. Perhaps you or Scott may argue that this will be the case, but it's not a realistic argument because I most likely will never be in a position to do this unfortunately.


For now beggars can't be choosers and that applies to me as well, my time is limited even though I'm fortunate to travel a lot for golf, is't still limited and I need to feel comfortable in the process I can manage and enjoy it the most I can. That's working so far.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Peter Pallotta

Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2017, 02:27:13 PM »
Tony M raises a very interesting (and for me brand new) idea:
If many of the courses are being ranked by self-assured and over-opinionated one-and-doners, the resulting list would actually be a wonderful guide for *this* over-opinionated one-and-doner to the courses I'd like best.
I mean, if they rank a course they've played once much lower than the afficiando who's played it a dozen times thinks it should be ranked, why would someone like me bother listening to the afficiando?
Sure, the course might *objectively* be better than the ranking suggests, but what does objectivity have to do with anything, ie with how much I'll enjoy the course?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 02:29:25 PM by Peter Pallotta »

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2017, 03:37:55 PM »
Tony M raises a very interesting (and for me brand new) idea:
If many of the courses are being ranked by self-assured and over-opinionated one-and-doners, the resulting list would actually be a wonderful guide for *this* over-opinionated one-and-doner to the courses I'd like best.
I mean, if they rank a course they've played once much lower than the afficiando who's played it a dozen times thinks it should be ranked, why would someone like me bother listening to the afficiando?
Sure, the course might *objectively* be better than the ranking suggests, but what does objectivity have to do with anything, ie with how much I'll enjoy the course?


This point is really a valid way to look at things for many of us who will only be realistically able to see a course 1 or 2 times in our lives. That Tony is a sharp fellow! Hope to run into him again soon, it's been too long.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2017, 03:47:04 PM »
...and the last thing golf architecture needs is "more conventional wisdom".


How certain are you of this?


My own guess is that golf needs more conventional wisdom and less of the alternative, but of course I'm not in the business, I'm just a golfer.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #69 on: September 08, 2017, 04:16:37 PM »
...and the last thing golf architecture needs is "more conventional wisdom".


How certain are you of this?


My own guess is that golf needs more conventional wisdom and less of the alternative, but of course I'm not in the business, I'm just a golfer.


George,


Not to speak for Tom on this one, but I suspect there are more "conventional wisdom" components that are detrimental to golf than benefits it...

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #70 on: September 08, 2017, 04:58:57 PM »
As in most things, I suppose it lies in how you define your terms. I personally see conventional wisdom as the wisdom that led to Oakmont, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, ANGC, Shinnecock, Merion, etc. I suppose other may see it as longer than long courses, waterfalls, water hazards, flat speedy greens and greener than green lush conditions.


I'd be curious to know what Tom views as conventional wisdom. And I'd love to hear from anyone in the industry as to what they consider conventional wisdom to be.


Thanks, I'll hang up and head home for the weekend...
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #71 on: September 08, 2017, 07:59:24 PM »
George:  There is a huge difference between conventional wisdom in the golf business, vs. common sense.


Conventional wisdom says:
Par 72 is important
7000 yards is critical for marketing
Long par 3's are unpopular
Long par-4's need to be 500 yds
Every course should be designed to appeal to every level of player
You've gotta have 5 tees (or 6)
Greens need to be flat
Greens need to be big
Greens need to stimp at 11
Everyone wants a cart
You need a big clubhouse
Etc.


That's conventional wisdom.  Barnbougle is 0-for-the above.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #72 on: September 08, 2017, 08:34:26 PM »
...and the last thing golf architecture needs is "more conventional wisdom".


How certain are you of this?


My own guess is that golf needs more conventional wisdom and less of the alternative, but of course I'm not in the business, I'm just a golfer.

Because conventional wisdom may be conventional, but it likely isn't wise.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #73 on: September 08, 2017, 08:42:39 PM »
George:  There is a huge difference between conventional wisdom in the golf business, vs. common sense.


Conventional wisdom says:
Par 72 is important
7000 yards is critical for marketing
Long par 3's are unpopular
Long par-4's need to be 500 yds
Every course should be designed to appeal to every level of player
You've gotta have 5 tees (or 6)
Greens need to be flat
Greens need to be big
Greens need to stimp at 11
Everyone wants a cart
You need a big clubhouse
Etc.


That's conventional wisdom.  Barnbougle is 0-for-the above.

How about fairways should have bunkers pinching the landing area, and greens have bunkers to punish misses.
If you don't have ponds, add artificial ones.
Artificial ponds beautify a course.
Etc.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Top 100 GM announced today
« Reply #74 on: September 08, 2017, 08:46:47 PM »
Tom,


Absolutely. And it's 6-4 either way in most people's book on the Barnbougle 10 Round Split. You can go there for a three-day trip (as my mates and i do each winter), play one twice and the other once and not feel robbed regardless of the mix.


Part of the fun of each visit is debating holes against their cousins across the river because the two courses match up so well, despite being quite different.


Personal preference will guide each person's opinion, but for any golfer to visit Barnbougle and walk away saying one course is top 30 or so in the world and the other is outside the top 100, that person missed something massive.


There are top 25 courses whose best five holes don't match 5, 8, 11 14, 18 at Lost Farm and its "weakest" holes are so because of their land, not the architecture, presentation or continuity with the other holes[size=78%].[/size]

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back