[Dan Kelly]

I’m a bit confused, and admittedly, I have not been following this closely enough. I thought the general consensus in the past was that “we” did not like lists and thought it was improper to rank golf courses.


But today the consensus seems to be this new list is a great list. So do “we” now like lists?

I don’t. Never will. Can’t speak for “us.”


I will stand by Tom Doak’s standing quotation at the bottom of my posts!

[Kevin_Reilly]

Dan, I also address this in my "signature"!


But then again, why are "we" participating in this thread?      Opposition research?

[Rob Marshall]

Peter:


I didn't write it in the article [there was a limit on words], but one of the things that makes, say, the 11th at Pine Valley "better" than any hole on your home course is all the trappings around it . . . the sandy wastes, the nasty native grasses, the sharp contours.  In other words, it's all of the things that make it less playable than any hole on your home course, that the designer of your home course didn't build for precisely that reason.


[Plus, all those features are expensive to maintain.  As the greenkeeper at PV explained to me the first time I was there, they spend way more on maintenance "off" the fairways than "on" them.]


But everyone you play with would quickly identify the 11th at Pine Valley as superior, because it is so much more exciting visually, and there are so many more opportunities to get in trouble.

So in a sense you are saying that harder makes it better?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Sean.
Your interest means much to me.
I'll keep holding on to that same 10%. It can't hurt anyone.
And if nothing else, it's a more 'intriguing' way to think and move through the world -- at least for me it is.
P

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks, Sean.
Your interest means much to me.
I'll keep holding on to that same 10%. It can't hurt anyone.
And if nothing else, it's a more 'intriguing' way to think and move through the world -- at least for me it is.
P

Peter:


I have never said that everyone's opinion deserves equal weight. 


I certainly think that there are a lot of ideas about golf architecture [or features on golf courses] that have proven over time to work better than other ideas / features.  I've spent the last forty years studying just that, and deciding for myself.


But other people would insist that "better" = more popular, and that's exactly the path that led to the designers of the last generation trying to expunge things like blind shots, difficult greens, and quirky features from golf courses.


And popularity, too, is a matter of opinion.  That the above features were not popular forty years ago, but are today [in some circles], is a direct result of changing the narrative of what people were told about golf architecture, and what the architects of the day were building.  That's one reason I've had a hand in both roles.

[Tom_Doak]

So in a sense you are saying that harder makes it better?

No, I'm saying harder [especially when presented in a starkly visual way] makes it "better" for a fair percentage of the golfing population.  But if they had to play 18 holes like Pine Valley every day, only a minority of good players would think that was ideal.

[Rob Marshall]

So in a sense you are saying that harder makes it better?

No, I'm saying harder [especially when presented in a starkly visual way] makes it "better" for a fair percentage of the golfing population.  But if they had to play 18 holes like Pine Valley every day, only a minority of good players would think that was ideal.

Isn't a "great" golf course one that everyone can find a way to attack or play each hole? Challenging to a good player but fair to a lesser player? I think I've only played one of your courses. (Streamsong Blue) With the exception of the pit of a bunker just left of the front of the 5th green that swallowed a good wedge shot, I found it to fit my description above. It was a good challenge that the higher handicaps I was playing found playable and fun. I don't think I would ever say that about BPB which comes in at 53.
I've never played PV but I assume as hard as it is there has to be some aspect of fun involved otherwise wouldn't it be a one and done for most?


 

[Edward Glidewell]

Ira, thanks
But I've gotten discouraged.
Look at TD's last post/response to mine.
Not only is he smarter than me, but he's trickier - you know, more slippy and subtle in his debating style.
My absolute best shot was the reference/analogy to the theory of relatively.
I was sure it was a knock out punch.   
But Tom ducked and weaved out of the way like it was nothing, and then threw an incisive jab: Ali in his prime up against an aging Sonny Liston.
P

Beyond that, as an irrelevant aside -- there's been a lot of push back on general relativity in the past decade or so. We're getting closer to the point where it is considered a theory that works to explain things on a general level (a la Newtonian physics), but one that has mistakes and isn't actually correct.

[William_G]

So in a sense you are saying that harder makes it better?

No, I'm saying harder [especially when presented in a starkly visual way] makes it "better" for a fair percentage of the golfing population.  But if they had to play 18 holes like Pine Valley every day, only a minority of good players would think that was ideal.

that is interesting!  nice article about PV, thank you


like a difficult ski run at a a beautiful mountain


yet, "they" may want to perfect/improve their technique and skills with repeated plays, improve their game with others at a special club


hard to say "minority" these days without political overtones in a negative context especially when used in a dismissive fashion


cheers

[Tim_Weiman]

Im sure panelists cant vote for their own courses if they have any and there are other chinese walls in place.  But to my larger point, every panel will have warts and issues and conflicts and none of these rankings should be taken without context, deemed superior or more noble to others.

Nice post from the "frank commentary" era. I would add two other thoughts:


1) GCA.com started out as the anti-rankings website. To Ran's credit, he kept it commercial free for years and years. With Ran's crossover to Golf.com, is GCA.com dead? As stated earlier, #148 Custodian has never been identified.


2) Andrew Green - He seems to the new "worker" of GCA Architects, working on many renovations. I have never met him but we seem to be ignoring his work on GCA.com and Golf.com.

Mike,


Wow! Your post and reference to GCA being the anti-ranking site is a blast from the past.


I think that avoiding rankings served GCA well for many years. We’ll just have to see if Ran’s new gig changes anything.


GCA is now very well established and perhaps it can preserve what distinguished it from the magazine rankings.


P.S. I still remember Tommy at Yale......”I’m gonna have to give you some tough love”.

[PCCraig]

I notice no Streamsong or Sand Valley course made the list?

No, but I don't think they had made the top 100 in the world previously.  Ocean frontage is at a premium on that list.  Streamsong Red and Sand Valley made the Next 50 list, so should be comfortably inside the top 100 in the USA next year.  We will have to wait and see about the others.

Is there a link to the Next 50 somewhere?

[Jeff Schley]

I notice no Streamsong or Sand Valley course made the list?

No, but I don't think they had made the top 100 in the world previously.  Ocean frontage is at a premium on that list.  Streamsong Red and Sand Valley made the Next 50 list, so should be comfortably inside the top 100 in the USA next year.  We will have to wait and see about the others.

Is there a link to the Next 50 somewhere?

I think it is only in the print mag.  However if something has it and willing to list it is appreciated, along with the names of the panelists.

[Mark Chaplin]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

[Jeff Schley]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

Mark what are the UK lists out of curiosity? Do they only list UK courses or world lists?

[Simon Holt]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

I've always wondered about that too, Mark - not specifically about Rye - but about many of the UK courses that feature in the World lists compared to their relative position back home.


What I would say about this list is that given the panel listed in the print version of the magazine, it's a pretty learned group with one obvious exception.  When you are asking Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Jim Urbina, Kye Goalby, Ian Andrew, Brian Curley, Mike Keiser, Don Mahaffey, DMK, Frank Pont, Dana Fry, Robin Hiseman and no doubt names I'm not remembering.....it's slightly different from asking Jack who sits at the bar at Normaltown GC in middle England who reckons he knows a thing or two about GCA because he's played the Belfry once before.  That's harsh on anyone who gives their time to the UK magazine lists as there are some very knowledgable golfers out there, but you know what I'm getting at.


There is probably close to 20% of the panel directly involved with the very best work in the golf course design industry - the rest are arguably amongst the best travelled golfers in the world.  It's hard to argue that it's not a good place to start when you've hit the refresh button on the panel.  If nothing else it has given a list that somewhat reflects the current trends in GCA and maintenance; championing a little more width and fun golf, rather than the tournament brutes such as Medinah, Balty and Oak Hill that were mainstays for so long.


Another thing to note is the lack of group think here.  Well, at least non directly applied.  The panel have free rein to vote on the courses they feel are the best without guidelines from the top that may channel the list in a particular direction. Then the courses score points from the buckets the raters place them in, the scores are averaged out and there you go.  In this particular iteration the panel didn't really have any idea of who the other raters were.

[Tom Birkert]

I was delighted when I read this list. It makes the most sense of any list I have seen (based on my travels) and seeing Sleepy Hollow and Yale rightly enter, with Cal Club climbing so highly along with North Berwick gives great faith in the process.


There will always be discussions, but clearly the new panel are heading in the right direction.


Being fortunate enough to know a couple of people who are contributors to the ranking list, I trust their judgement and with Ran at the helm I'm sure the list will continue to go from strength to strength.

[Sean_A]

Given there are about 30 GB&I courses making the list, I remain surprised that Deal didn't make the cut.  I think it is in the discussion for top 5 GB&I so very comfortably top 30. I know its not a pretty site relatively speaking, but is that really a legitimate reason not to give Deal its proper place?

Happy Hockey 

[John Mayhugh]

Wonder how the book club idea is going to work. Will people be asking to have pages of the selected book posted so they can read it for free? 

Anyone that wants can see all of the Golf Magazine Top 100 issue for the grand sum of $5. The accompanying articles are more interesting than the list. Doubtful that all of the content makes it on the website, and Golf's site is horrendous anyway.
https://www.zinio.com/golf-magazine-m5880

[Thomas Dai]

Should you be so inclined you can view the UK magazine National Club Golfers top-100 GB&l, Eng, Scot, Wal and Ire by following this link - https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com
Interesting to see some of the differences to where the same courses fit into the Golf Magazine Top World 100 list.
Local tastes and perceptions versus international ones?
Atb

[Jim Franklin]

Was thrilled to see Rock Creek Cattle break into World Top 100. Still think it deserves to be higher.

[Tom_Doak]

Should you be so inclined you can view the UK magazine National Club Golfers top-100 GB&l, Eng, Scot, Wal and Ire by following this link.
Interesting to see some of the differences to where the same courses fit into the Golf Magazine Top World 100 list.
Local tastes and perceptions versus international ones?
Atb

There is always a divergence between rankings produced locally vs nationally vs internationally.  A lot of the difference is a matter of perspective and scarcity.


For example, from a UK perspective, there are lots of heathland courses and plenty of par-68 gems, but only one parkland course that's hosted multiple Ryder Cups.  Looking from America, though, the first two categories are seen as much more rare and sexy, while overrated championship courses are a dime a dozen.

[Tom_Doak]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

Well, I hate to mention it, but can you think of a book where Rye and Swinley Forest and Cruden Bay and Machrihanish were singled out as special, and Deal was passed over?  (Or where Augusta and Pebble Beach are in the second tier and not the first?)


I had to lol at Simon's post about the lack of groupthink in this ranking, because it's pretty obvious that my book from 20 years ago has had an impact on many panelists' thinking, or perhaps on the range of acceptable discourse.  (For that matter, I have worked with the first seven names he listed, though I had no idea they had been chosen as panelists, or how they voted.)


It's not groupthink, exactly, because no one got together to discuss how we should vote.  It's selection bias.  Unfortunately, I think that Ran's decision of who would be a good addition to the panel had something to do with knowing which courses they liked, instead of just how much they'd seen.  That's why I have said earlier in this thread and on other related threads that the panel needs more diversity:  more great players, especially, and maybe a few more guys who haven't read my book.

[Bart Bradley]

I notice no Streamsong or Sand Valley course made the list?

No, but I don't think they had made the top 100 in the world previously.  Ocean frontage is at a premium on that list.  Streamsong Red and Sand Valley made the Next 50 list, so should be comfortably inside the top 100 in the USA next year.  We will have to wait and see about the others.

Is there a link to the Next 50 somewhere?

https://www.golf.com/top-one-hundred/courses/2019/11/22/top-100-courses-ranking-next-best-50/

[John Kavanaugh]

Wonder how the book club idea is going to work. Will people be asking to have pages of the selected book posted so they can read it for free? 

Anyone that wants can see all of the Golf Magazine Top 100 issue for the grand sum of $5. The accompanying articles are more interesting than the list. Doubtful that all of the content makes it on the website, and Golf's site is horrendous anyway.
https://www.zinio.com/golf-magazine-m5880

How long have you been waiting to beat me to the punch?

[Cliff Hamm]

Just read the next 50.  Streamsong Red is listed, but not Streamsong Blue.  This highlights the absurdity of rankings. I would say the subjectivity, but I think few would argue that Blue and Red are far apart in quality. So, I ask how can you list one and not the other?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()