[MCirba]

Peter,

You're clearly confusing me with someone who has actual power. 

[Sean_A]

What we haven't talked about here is the use of the rather arbitrary definition of what a "classic" course is.  Golfweek is using anything pre-1960.  Is this the accepted definition?  I'm sure this is a rather subjective area for most of us.  If we are using dates I would think earlier, perhaps pre WWII.

Or others perhaps define it by architectural elements and discount year?  What are your thoughts?

I think a better cut-off period is the opening of Old Town or perhaps even Raleigh..call it 1945.  It makes sense in terms of the connection to the importation of the game to the US finally ended with Ross out of the game and a strong associate of Dr Mac, Maxwell, also finished in terms of new work.  1960 makes little sense in terms of design and lets face it, modern & classic evoke very dofferent images of design concepts. 

Ciao   

[Jud_T]

Sean,


It's a valid point, but the whole exercise is arbitrary.  Trying to jam apples (Old Elm, Shoreacres, Lawsonia) and Oranges (Bethpage, Baltusrol, Medinah #3) into one bowl, adding some pseudo-mathematical mayo and a few nuts and calling it Waldorf Salad is a vastly larger problem IMO.

[MCirba]

I think both lists are pretty darn good.   

If I were king I'd shift a few around and it seems that over time the Philly Flynn courses (besides Lancaster, which isn't really Philly) have dropped out sadly, despite some good restorations, but there are so, so many 7's out there that are pretty interchangeable in that 50-150 range.

[Kyle Harris]

I think both lists are pretty darn good.   

If I were king I'd shift a few around and it seems that over time the Philly Flynn courses (besides Lancaster, which isn't really Philly) have dropped out sadly, despite some good restorations, but there are so, so many 7's out there that are pretty interchangeable in that 50-150 range.

I've noticed this as well. Huntingdon Valley was always right around Mountain Lake. Mountain Lake has stayed in the same place and HVCC is out of the list? *shrug* So it goes.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Olympic #38? Why so low?

Bunker fiasco. Tree re-planting. New holes (7-8) that are out-of-character. other than that, this course is great.

How do Olympic members like the changes to 7 and 8? 

Also, were they really necessary from the standpoint of elite tournament golf (which I assume drove them)? 

7, btw, used to be one of my two favorite short par 4s in the world, even though I only saw it from the gallery.  (My other favorite -- 10 at Belfry -- I only saw on TV.)

I don't think the members like either hole. 8 could have been great if they restored it properly. A short Biarritz style green with great bunkering. Now it's long like 3 of the others.


7 is a mess. When they rebuilt the greens, somebody didn't know how to rebuild the 3 tier green to USGA spec.  As a result they pushed it back a few yards and built something they thought was artistic.

Joel, I don't disagree with any of this, most notable the fact that three of the par 3's are all long and typically require the same club. My take is, more often than not, other members I play with like the new 8th hole... unfortunately.

[Eric LeFante]

I think both lists are pretty darn good.   

If I were king I'd shift a few around and it seems that over time the Philly Flynn courses (besides Lancaster, which isn't really Philly) have dropped out sadly, despite some good restorations, but there are so, so many 7's out there that are pretty interchangeable in that 50-150 range.

I've noticed this as well. Huntingdon Valley was always right around Mountain Lake. Mountain Lake has stayed in the same place and HVCC is out of the list? *shrug* So it goes.

and Rolling Green?

[Sean_A]

and Rolling Green?

I would put Rolling Green in the same class as Franklin Hills and Yeamans Hall....I am a bit surprised it isn't listed.   

A course which I think is better than all three of the above is Orchard Lake...I reckon it must be close top top 100.

Ciao

[Tim Passalacqua]

Olympic #38? Why so low?

Bunker fiasco. Tree re-planting. New holes (7-8) that are out-of-character. other than that, this course is great.

How do Olympic members like the changes to 7 and 8? 

Also, were they really necessary from the standpoint of elite tournament golf (which I assume drove them)? 

7, btw, used to be one of my two favorite short par 4s in the world, even though I only saw it from the gallery.  (My other favorite -- 10 at Belfry -- I only saw on TV.)

I don't think the members like either hole. 8 could have been great if they restored it properly. A short Biarritz style green with great bunkering. Now it's long like 3 of the others.


7 is a mess. When they rebuilt the greens, somebody didn't know how to rebuild the 3 tier green to USGA spec.  As a result they pushed it back a few yards and built something they thought was artistic.

Joel, I don't disagree with any of this, most notable the fact that three of the par 3's are all long and typically require the same club. My take is, more often than not, other members I play with like the new 8th hole... unfortunately.

I think we are forgetting all the great things that have happened at Olympic over the past decade or so.  The tree removal combined with the underbrush removal has been great.  Extending all the long internal views of the course and showing off the big, hilly property.  This course will always have trees.  They have widened out the playing corridors a great deal.  The trees are somewhat of a defense.  There are no fairway bunkers and the rough is maintained at 1 inch.  The tree limbing has added for fun recovery shots.  All the tree removal and top dressing has helped the conditioning a ton, which gets better every year.  The silly mounds to the right of seven were removed.  The 15th (Weiskopf) green was returned to a consistent character with the course.  The new bunkers are growing on me with every play.  They don't look nearly as white and all of the rough was seeded to blend with the rough around the bunkers, so they don't stand out as much.  At least they are unique to the Lake course and don't look like a lot of other courses in the area with rugged bunkers.  And I don't think the course is difficult when played from the appropriate tees, it is actually a quick and enjoyable 18.  Most guys think they will play the blues at 6600, which might play 400 yards longer.  I think people would have a much better experience from the whites.  I think it is way underrated.  The Lake is magic.

[V_Halyard]

Palmetto not in the Top 100 classic

This surprises me...a ton.

Palmetto has never been ranked in any of the magazines.  It was off the radar entirely  years ago, due to its length and scruffy condition.  And it didn't get the bump others have gotten after it was restored.  I suppose part of that is that it has to compete with all the well-funded Hilton Head courses for its place in state, as opposed to say Cedar Rapids.


If only they'd made all their par-3 holes into templates, I'm sure it would be top 50! 😉

What are you trying to say... our Iowa Golf Rota and Cedar Rapids are conveniently on the way to everywhere in Iowa.

[Mike Treitler]

A couple questions I have for the posters on this board: 


1.  While I enjoyed my time at Rustic Canyon, I was not as impressed or as excited as I feel I should have been based on the praise on this site.  Amazing Pricing aside can someone explain why they love it?   I know pretty much everybody on GCA adores it so I am just curious to know what I am missing.  I don't mean mean this as a call out... just a genuine exercise in trying to figure out why everyone loves it so much so when I return, which I plan to, I can be on the look out for those things.


2. Dallas National at #39 seems high to me. Would also like to hear what people think of it and what I may have missed as this is another that I was a tad disappointed in.     


I played both of these courses in sub 50 degree temperatures so maybe the conditions effected my view of the course?  Who knows?


Love to see Kingsley, Lawsonia, and Old Elm continue to get respect.  I also echo the sentiment that Davenport CC is a gem.

[Tim Passalacqua]

A couple questions I have for the posters on this board: 


1.  While I enjoyed my time at Rustic Canyon, I was not as impressed or as excited as I feel I should have been based on the praise on this site.  Amazing Pricing aside can someone explain why they love it?   I know pretty much everybody on GCA adores it so I am just curious to know what I am missing.  I don't mean mean this as a call out... just a genuine exercise in trying to figure out why everyone loves it so much so when I return, which I plan to, I can be on the look out for those things.


2. Dallas National at #39 seems high to me. Would also like to hear what people think of it and what I may have missed as this is another that I was a tad disappointed in.     


I played both of these courses in sub 50 degree temperatures so maybe the conditions effected my view of the course?  Who knows?


Love to see Kingsley, Lawsonia, and Old Elm continue to get respect.  I also echo the sentiment that Davenport CC is a gem.

I love Rustic and tried to play it as much as I could when I lived in LA.  I think the thing that stands out the most is the variety.  Every hole is different.  Even with 5 par 5s and 3s, each one is different.  Short holes, long holes, medium holes.  A couple par 5s you can hit in 2.  A couple par 4s you can try to drive.  It is a nice walk.  The ground game is amazing with the short cut well off the putting surface.  The conditions are always firm.  Greens are diverse with all different shapes, sizes, and movement.  Sideboards, backboards.  Challenge the hazards, angles matter.  What is there not to love?!?!?!  As you can tell I am a huge fan!

[mike_malone]

Rolling Green will be back with a vengeance.

[Cal Seifert]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

[Pete Lavallee]

 just a genuine exercise in trying to figure out why everyone loves it so much so when I return, which I plan to, I can be on the look out for those things.

That’s just it, we can’t tell you what to look out for! Rustic makes you invent shots that you just don’t play at regular golf courses. Every round I’ve played there I’m forced to try something new or different. If firing stock 7 irons straight to to the pin is your idea of great golf then Rustic surely will disappoint.

[Ben Sims]

Random musings



-PV ahead of Cypress surprises me. Difficulty still holds sway a Golfweek.


-[size=78%]Palmetto is delightful and it's omission is glaring. I'll be interested to see if Fircrest cracks in once Jeff Mingay completes the resto/reno. That course may have the best bones in all of the Pac NW.[/size]


-I'll never understand why Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw's desert courses don't get more love. I think Talking Stick North and We-Ko-Pa Saguaro are tremendous work.


-Ballyneal two ahead of Sebonack makes me grin.


-St. George's on Long Island had a short run on the list. Too bad.

[Sean Leary]

Random musings



-PV ahead of Cypress surprises me. Difficulty still holds sway a Golfweek.


-[size=78%]Palmetto is delightful and it's omission is glaring. I'll be interested to see if Fircrest cracks in once Jeff Mingay completes the resto/reno. That course may have the best bones in all of the Pac NW.[/size]


-I'll never understand why Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw's desert courses don't get more love. I think Talking Stick North and We-Ko-Pa Saguaro are tremendous work.


-Ballyneal two ahead of Sebonack makes me grin.


-St. George's on Long Island had a short run on the list. Too bad.

Agreed on Fircrest, disagree on Cypress Point over Pine Valley. Yes it's harder, but it's also a good bit better, in my opinion. I find it hard to compare the two a bit, but I think Shinnecock is closer to PV than CPC is.

[MCirba]

Pine Valley is the best golf course I've ever seen and I've seen all of the others in contention including Cypress Point.


The fact that it could even get much better with additional tree clearing is just almost incomprehensible.

[Howard Riefs]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

Nice write-up on Sweetens (and Sewanee):


https://golfweek.com/2018/04/17/golfweek-best-tennessee-tiny-titans-sweetens-cove-sewanee-pace-volunteer-state/

[Joe Bausch]

Rolling Green will be back with a vengeance.

 

[Tommy Williamsen]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

To be honest having SC in the top 100 is a joke.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Even being a Golfweek rater, I do not agree with the allowing of 9 hole courses into the ranking.

[Jeff Schley]

Evening being a Golfweek rater, I do not agree with the allowing of 9 hole courses into the ranking.

I feel there is a niche in ranking 9 hole courses. Anthony Pioppi did a nice book, "The Finest Nines".  Is there any publication or source of ranking 9 hole courses?

I do think 9 hole courses will play a significant role in the future as golf is time intensive, short attention span of millennials, etc. Not necessarily executive par 3 courses, but 9 hole regulation par 35/36 courses.  Be nice to have such a system in place.

[astavrides]

Their top public courses by state list is now posted on their website.

[Jim Franklin]

The best thing about the Golfweek ratings is that Sweetens is in it.

To be honest having SC in the top 100 is a joke.

says the guy who belongs to the golf digest moneymaking scheme that sells annual memberships to raters to golf courses that they don't even own, a panel that has deemed 8 unwalkable cartball fiascos such as the alotian as among the us top 100...a magazine that prints a world list with typos & factual mistakes that is basically ignored by architecture enthusiasts


tommy, have you sent your check in this year?

Let me know what facts are incorrect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()