Golf Magazine US Top 100

[William_G]

A lot of the questions about the list so far (new courses and restorations) boil down to certain favored architects being infallible in the eyes of some panelists.  That's too bad, and unfortunately the process is just reinforcing those biases, as you can see when a brand new course is lamented for being "only" #80 in America before it had its feet wet.

Tom,

I think we're saying the same thing here re: some architects with favored nation status, but also to Peter's point that courses often make a splash high up the list on first blush only to fall either gradually or precipitously over time.   Given the popularity of C&C's architecture, the cliff-top site, and the lack of much else new to talk about this year I would have expected to see their version of Sheep Ranch at least in the Top 50 if not Top 30 for it's initial foray onto the listing.   #80 doesn't give much room for the probably inevitable descent once the shine wears off and I'm trying to understand from those who have played it their overall impressions.   All I've read to date is the magazine(s) hype.

well typed, but go play Sheep Ranch and make it your #60 played on the list, then type about it, geez are you a rater?

[William_G]

A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.

I wonder if anyone has gone to NGLA in the morning and scoffed at the idea of yet more templates in the afternoon at Southampton, West Hampton, Piping Rock or Creek Club?

hahaha

[JC Jones]

A couple of things come to mind:


1.  They are good and some are great
2.  They are almost all very private and very exclusive so one gets a rush just being inside the gates
3.  It’s easier to compare redan A to redan B to redan C than it is to evaluate the unique.  Kind of Architecture 101 for the newly initiated.

I got to talking Raynor with a few guys at this year's Mashie, and item 2 was definitely mentioned with an addendum: they're also almost all kept in superb condition.


It's hard to have a bad day on a Raynor course. I'm not sure how to rate his body of work given the staunch lack of creativity, but the templates didn't become templates because they're bad concepts. You're going to face a lot of interesting shots.

Exactly.  I love The Palm as a steakhouse.  And it always fun to argue whether the Palm in Vegas is better than the Palm in Dc.

[JESII]

I don't count myself a steak or restaurant expert, nor am I a MacRaynor expert...but it would not shock me at all if 5 or 6 of The Palm's locations made a Top 100 list of US steakhouses...with 1 or 2 in the top 20.


The concept CBM ran with; that there are certain ideal holes and they can be replicated to create good/great golf is valid to me. Sure, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Sand Hills are be unique golf courses and rightly occupy the very top spots but there is a place at the table for acknowledged cool template holes.

[Tim Martin]

The concept CBM ran with; that there are certain ideal holes and they can be replicated to create good/great golf is valid to me. Sure, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Sand Hills are be unique golf courses and rightly occupy the very top spots but there is a place at the table for acknowledged cool template holes.

+1

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Here are the seventeen courses that fell off the list along with their previous rank.


51.  Medinah
54.  Spyglass
55.  Yale
70.  East Lake
74.  Erin Hills
75.  Interlachen
77.  Congressional
79.  Scioto
81.  Fox Chapel
86.  Cricket-Wissahickon
87.  Torrey Pines
88.  Boston Golf
92.  Colonial
93.  Hazeltine
98.  Chambers Bay
99.  Mountain Lake
100.  Blackwolf Run

thank you

I'd bet money that Congressional and Fox Chapel will back on the next list based on pictures of the work being done currently

[Dan_Callahan]

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.

Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.

[Kalen Braley]

I recommend watching "The Price of Everything", a documentary about the art world and its vagaries.  More than a few similarities to Golf Course Ratings with what's hot and not...

[Dan Boerger]

Thanks Kalen, I will check that out. In a similar vein, I recall reading an article many years ago in the "New Yorker" on a Rembrandt painting called "The Polish Rider." Scholars could not determine if he painted it alone, with his student(s) or if his student(s) did it. The painting has not changed in hundreds of years but this report from the experts would determine if it's worth $40,000 or $4 Million. What does this have to do with Golf Course ratings? We probably don't say it enough: Enjoy the course and you are your own best rater.

[Tim Martin]

Thanks Kalen, I will check that out. In a similar vein, I recall reading an article many years ago in the "New Yorker" on a Rembrandt painting called "The Polish Rider." Scholars could not determine if he painted it alone, with his student(s) or if his student(s) did it. The painting has not changed in hundreds of years but this report from the experts would determine if it's worth $40,000 or $4 Million. What does this have to do with Golf Course ratings? We probably don't say it enough: Enjoy the course and you are your own best rater.

Dan-That’s on the money. For all the derision that Tom Fazio gets on this site there are legions of loyal followers. Play what you like!!!

[Ira Fishman]

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.

Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.

I had a History Professor who used to quip that anything that occurred after the Civil War was current events. But he was making the point that it can take a long time for something to receive focus and analysis.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

[Joe Zucker]

Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times. 

[Adam Lawrence]

Thanks Kalen, I will check that out. In a similar vein, I recall reading an article many years ago in the "New Yorker" on a Rembrandt painting called "The Polish Rider." Scholars could not determine if he painted it alone, with his student(s) or if his student(s) did it. The painting has not changed in hundreds of years but this report from the experts would determine if it's worth $40,000 or $4 Million. What does this have to do with Golf Course ratings? We probably don't say it enough: Enjoy the course and you are your own best rater.

Yeah but that’s not a subjective issue. Rembrandt either painted it or he didn’t. Whether we can be certain or not is a separate question

[Bernie Bell]

Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.

I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox. 

[Eric LeFante]

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.

Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.

Somerset Hills did not need a lot of work to improve significantly. The 7th hole, a long par 4, is a good example: prior to Doak's work the right side of the green had rough and pine trees that were not there originally. By clearing out that area and maintaining the turf properly, a bump and run shot from short right of that green that navigates the slope that Tillinghast incorporated is one of the most rewarding shots on the course.


Somerset was added to the Golf Digest list top 100 list in 1985. Bringing back a handful of features like the 7th to Tillinghast's intent makes the course much better than it was. Presentation and conditioning matter. You lose points if you cannot play the course the way the architect intended. You could not have asked a rater in 1985 to completely ignore presentation and conditioning and only rate the course on the way it should be presented. Somerset was not as enjoyable to play back then as it is today.   

[Tom_Doak]

But it's basically the same course that it was in 1980 when it wasn't in any top 100 list and practically nobody was arguing for it, and the main difference on the ground is just the money they spend to get the greens fast and the golf course pretty.  And that's why I question the whole exercise.  We haven't done anything there that should be making the golf course climb the list so dramatically, either it should have been up there all along, or someone is getting carried away.

Vincent van Gogh didn't become a better artist after he died. His paintings didn't "improve" like wine. And yet his standing in the art world increased exponentially post-demise. The same is true for Edgar Allen Poe's influence and appreciation as a writer. Emily Dickinson as a poet.

All I'm saying is I don't think there is anything inherently wrong or flawed in a course not making a top 100 list years ago and suddenly rising to a place of prominence today despite very little change to the design/architecture itself. Sometimes, collective tastes change, and that change would be reflected in rankings like these.

OK, I could agree with all of that.  But the post just before yours implied that Congressional and Fox Chapel will be back in the lists AFTER THEY SPEND $$$ TO RESTORE THEIR GOLF COURSES.

[William_G]

The concept CBM ran with; that there are certain ideal holes and they can be replicated to create good/great golf is valid to me. Sure, Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Sand Hills are be unique golf courses and rightly occupy the very top spots but there is a place at the table for acknowledged cool template holes.

+1

yes

[Joe Zucker]

Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.

I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.

Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.

[Kalen Braley]

Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.

I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.

Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.

I think it depends on what you're applying it to.  Religious ideas, yes far more dogmatic in the 20s.

But GCA was the Wild Wild west with little or no regulations and/or "right" way to do it...

[Joe Zucker]

Ira - your post had me thinking that it took us a hundred years to realize how much freer / less constrained / more liberal & diverse architects and golf architecture were circa 1920 than they are today, and how much broader and more accommodating and accepting were golfers' tastes back then. I'd say there was less 'dogma' a hundred years ago, golf-wise, than there is today -- which I know sounds (and maybe is) an outlandish thing to suggest on a thread so focused on Macdonald and MacRaynors and templates, but I suggest it anyway.

Really interesting thought Peter.  Especially when you consider that society in general was far more dogmatic and orthodox.  Was taste-making harder to do when media was slower?  Perhaps newer and different art or golf courses were judged individually because they did not have to fit into magazines.  I wonder if the wider acceptance was conscious or just a result of the times.

I think of the The Roaring Twenties as the opposite of dogmatic and orthodox.

Really? I guess it depends how you define it, but the world is far more accepting of different cultures and personal decisions than the roaring 20s.

I think it depends on what you're applying it to.  Religious ideas, yes far more dogmatic in the 20s.

But GCA was the Wild Wild west with little or no regulations and/or "right" way to do it...

100% agree Kalen.  I know very little about art, but is that a normal trend that artistic fields run opposite societal trends? When society is more open, does art get less wild and interesting?  Or is this relationship not on any type of solid footing.

[Jim Hoak]

This discussion in the last several posts is among the best and most important I have read on GCA in some time.
The Golf Magazine Top 100 list--and the discussion here--brings up what I think is the most dangerous thing on this chatroom--the danger of "group think."  We have a tendency toward that in many instances: Knowing we are right and dismissing other opinions.
I happen to agree personally with the general thinking on here--the need for more fun in golf and course design, the dislike of "manufactured" architecture, the bias toward the original style of architecture, etc.  But I think that sometimes we overdo it--and I see some of that in the Top 100 list.  When 17 courses are added and 17 dropped, without a really good discussion of new, changed criteria, something is wrong.
How does Spyglass go from 50-something to out of the Top 100 without anything new happening there?  What changed?
Similarly, I have played Wolf Point in Texas, I found it very well done and charming, and I wish the new owner great success.  But to say it is the best course in Texas--in fact the only one on the list--is just plain silly.  The course shows a simplicity in style that is fascinating.  But to say that it can come from nowhere to Top 100 is not realistic.  It's like a totally new list is being created with a totally new set of criteria, and there is no recognition to what was being done in the past.
Ran has done a great job at Golf Magazine, and I am of course totally appreciative of what he has created in GCA.  But I'd caution him against moving too fast, recognizing only one set of criteria, and being too sure that other viewpoints than his do not have areas of credibility that need to be recognized.  I thought his Guardians of the Game list was creative, but I worried that it wasn't clear enough that it was based on only his set of personal criteria, with which I agreed on some points and disagreed on others.  But it was certainly his right to use any criteria he wanted, so long as he identified them clearly.  With the magazine list the need for full disclosure is even more important.
My first reaction to this new Top 100 list was appreciation and agreement, but my second reaction is some dismay at what I think is overly dogmatic thinking.  As someone wrote above, the best criteria may simply be to play whatever you find most compelling based on your own set of criteria.  There is no universal standard of criteria that is absolutely right and others that are equally clearly and totally wrong.  Let's keep our minds open.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents -
I think you note just about all the factors/dynamics involved, then vs now; I'd only add golfers to the mix. I think we're the main  'drivers of change' for how golf architecture is seen and appreciated and rated/ranked. It seems to me golfers a hundred years ago expected to accommodate their golf-their games to whatever golf course they happened to be playing that day, whereas today we expect/demand that golf courses be built to accommodate us -- our own golf-game, on every and all courses we might play, on any and every day. Except for Pine Valley, Shinnecock etc -- those are too old and too respected for us to do anything but praise them unreservedly, and honour them as 'true tests' of the actual quality of our games.

[Dan Boerger]

Adam - That's the point. It was hardly black or white. "Experts" could not agree on who painted the painting so a majority rule decided based up loads of subjective interpretation ... brush stroke length, use of certain colors, etc. But decide they did and it made the painting -- again, which had not been altered in hundreds of years -- more/less valuable. Quite the academic chase.

[Bernie Bell]

Adam - That's the point. It was hardly black or white. "Experts" could not agree on who painted the painting so a majority rule decided based up loads of subjective interpretation ... brush stroke length, use of certain colors, etc. But decide they did and it made the painting -- again, which had not been altered in hundreds of years -- more/less valuable. Quite the academic chase.

Do you like the painting or not?  Its worth at auction doesn't touch that.  The same people who would pay $$$ to watch Joshua Bell play the violin as a headliner on stage at Kennedy Center passed him by without stopping when he was busking in DC Metro stations.  Certain names on a golf course can command a higher green fee, and it would seem that those names change over time.