Golf Magazine US Top 100

[Ira Fishman]

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.

Ran is the Harold Bloom of golf course architecture. Mostly that is for the better, but Jim's post is a good caution that it is not unqualifiedly for the better.


Ira

[Tim Leahy]

Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless. 

[JC Jones]

Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless. 

Put a fence around pebble and it would be in the top 3.

[Mark Kiely]

Pebble at #10 tells you everything you need to know about how ridiculous this list is. Any list that doesn't have Pebble in the top 3 and Olympic in the top 20 is worthless. 

Put a fence around pebble and it would be in the top 3.

Conversely, put a 20-foot tall wall around Pebble and where does it rank?

[Dan_Callahan]

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.

Fair enough. Two separate issues.

If you had a Van Gogh that was muddled by a giant shit stain, its value would appreciate considerably after it was cleaned up.

In the case of a Dickinson poem, the "greatness" was there the moment it was written. But it took a change in societal taste and, more likely, the advocacy of an influential critic, to bring it to prominence.

In our world, something is only great when an important and influential person says it's great.

[Steve Lapper]

 So many good, and questionable, posts here.


 It's easy for everyone to take a shot at what placed where and infer or insinuate that some quasi-sinister "social engineering" or "closed feedback loop," "dogma," or "palace intrigue" was at work.


 As someone who participated in the list's creation, I'm terribly sorry to bore and disappoint you all, but none of the above occurred on Ran's watch. He simply encouraged all of us to get out and see EVERYTHING we thought should be seen.....as far and wide as we could.*


Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!

Instead of arguing with anyone over specifics (although I don't think Pebble or Olympic are as good as some of you folks do   ) I remind everyone that all lists are flawed and this one is no exception. There are some hits, some misses, and some surprises in this one. IMO, it was a stellar first try. It was also GM's very first wholly-unique US Top 100.

Furthermore, I'm sorry that the GM Panelists had limited time, resources, and weren't part of some great financial scheme to enrich the publication, and thus did not canvas every course in every state in the country (PS....That's solely Paul Rudovsky's job :~).

*Clearly, it was a year that so much previously-scheduled and well-planned travel had to be canceled or seriously curtailed. The pandemic forced so many clubs--understandably--to restrict or even eliminate measures of guest play before the ballot was due. When the virus is gone, I'd expect many foreign-based panelists to find their way over the pond.

[David Wuthrich]

Well said Steve

[Steve Lang]

    Surprised that Ballyneal wasn't placed above Inverness, then the Ross folks could could argue about whether Oakland Hills or Inverness 65 miles to the south were truly ranked correctly...

[Ira Fishman]

So many good, and questionable, posts here.


 It's easy for everyone to take a shot at what placed where and infer or insinuate that some quasi-sinister "social engineering" or "closed feedback loop," "dogma," or "palace intrigue" was at work.


 As someone who participated in the list's creation, I'm terribly sorry to bore and disappoint you all, but none of the above occurred on Ran's watch. He simply encouraged all of us to get out and see EVERYTHING we thought should be seen.....as far and wide as we could.*


Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!

Instead of arguing with anyone over specifics (although I don't think Pebble or Olympic are as good as some of you folks do   ) I remind everyone that all lists are flawed and this one is no exception. There are some hits, some misses, and some surprises in this one. IMO, it was a stellar first try. It was also GM's very first wholly-unique US Top 100.

Furthermore, I'm sorry that the GM Panelists had limited time, resources, and weren't part of some great financial scheme to enrich the publication, and thus did not canvas every course in every state in the country (PS....That's solely Paul Rudovsky's job :~).

*Clearly, it was a year that so much previously-scheduled and well-planned travel had to be canceled or seriously curtailed. The pandemic forced so many clubs--understandably--to restrict or even eliminate measures of guest play before the ballot was due. When the virus is gone, I'd expect many foreign-based panelists to find their way over the pond.

A wee bit defensive. Most of the courses are not accessible to me, but of the ones that I have played, it strikes me as a fine list. But to assert that it does not reflect a particular philosophy (with which I generally but not wholeheartedly agree) is to not acknowledge that biases exist.


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

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.

It is not to do with society. Anything new is wild and free at the beginning. Over time, as more people get involved / interested, more rules are added and generally accepted outcomes converge in to a much smaller field of tolerance.... The move towards homogenisation... This move is due to the closed minds of the customer (everyday golfer) and architects should be fighting against it wherever possible.

[Mike Sweeney]

Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!

Yes, I am a fan of 147 Custodians:


https://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/


and I am still waiting for #148 to be posted after the 2019 Open Championship!! Oops, Ran sold us out to Golf.com!!


I also like this list, now lost in the archives:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/matthew-hunt-another-take-on-a-world-top-100-ranking/


The new US list is fine, but there is clearly a bias to Northeast private course renovations with over the top green speeds.


I am happy that Ran pulled Yale from the Golf list, the ultimate in "be careful in what you wish for", as they went to #83 on the Ran/Golf Magazine World list in November 2019 to off the Ran/Golf USA list October 2020. Maybe it will be a wakeup call, and you can't have 14 Stimp greens at Yale!! 


Here is Masa's compilation of the Golf list, now dated:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/nishijima-masa-golf-magazine-top-100-1983-2011/

[Steve Lapper]

Let me ask all of you a simple question. Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture?

If so, do me a favor and SHOW me!

Yes, I am a fan of 147 Custodians:


https://golfclubatlas.com/147-custodians-of-the-game-year1/


and I am still waiting for #148 to be posted after the 2019 Open Championship!! Oops, Ran sold us out to Golf.com!!


I also like this list, now lost in the archives:


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/matthew-hunt-another-take-on-a-world-top-100-ranking/


The new US list is fine, but there is clearly a bias to Northeast private course renovations with over the top green speeds.


I am happy that Ran pulled Yale from the Golf list, the ultimate in "be careful in what you wish for", as they went to #83 on the Ran/Golf Magazine World list in November 2019 to off the Ran/Golf USA list October 2020. Maybe it will be a wakeup call, and you can't have 14 Stimp greens at Yale!! 

Mike,


   You need to get out more. The skew towards "Northeast private course renovations" is, as Tom Doak said; "precisely because there are so many fine courses out there." 


  Your claim/blame on "over the top green speeds" is just ludicrous. I don't know of a single course in the Northeast where highly-stimped green speeds mattered even an iota. For example, a few of us played one specific course over a period of time when the weather prohibited swift speeds, yet it was near unanimous how good the architecture was and how well it had been revealed over the last decade.


Lastly, The 147 Guardian list is absolutely great for what it sets out to accomplish and highlight. It isn't a US Top 100 list whatsoever and like comparing Kiwis to Apples. You don't do that with your client companies...why do it here??


Ira,


  While the list results may fit into a descriptive philosophy, it certainly wasn't conceived or even remotely guided that way. Surely, every human walking this planet has their biases. No qualitative list can ever be drawn without them.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Steve,


Would you not say it is guided that way through its choice of panellists?


After that, fully understand that there is no directive. But when everyone likes the same kind of thing, they end up convincing each other that they are right.

[JC Jones]

Steve,


Would you not say it is guided that way through its choice of panellists?


After that, fully understand that there is no directive. But when everyone likes the same kind of thing, they end up convincing each other that they are right.

A closed feedback loop, if you will.


I quite enjoy the comedy of starting a post with "you need to get out more", that is defending having such a huge % of a Top 100 list being in the Northeast.

[William_G]

Steve,


Would you not say it is guided that way through its choice of panellists?


After that, fully understand that there is no directive. But when everyone likes the same kind of thing, they end up convincing each other that they are right.

A closed feedback loop, if you will.


I quite enjoy the comedy of starting a post with "you need to get out more", that is defending having such a huge % of a Top 100 list being in the Northeast.

+1, it is entertaining and also sadly misplaced to be defending a list as if was his own, LOL.
It's always strange to me how "seasonal" these great courses of the NE actually play.
love me some Mountain Lake

[Michael Moore]

I played Worcester Country Club for the first time this month. It was designed 105 years ago by a guy from Scotland on a piece of land that he personally selected. They have recently cut down almost all of the trees, and you spend the afternoon looking over acre after acre of fairway, native area, and fescue tumbling all over the perfect topography. The stone walls, bunkers, and green sites are of course just so, and the third and sixth holes are world class. It's everything you could ever want. Count me in on the Northeast private renovations, and I hope that they proliferate.

[JC Jones]

I played Worcester Country Club for the first time this month. It was designed 105 years ago by a guy from Scotland on a piece of land that he personally selected. They have recently cut down almost all of the trees, and you spend the afternoon looking over acre after acre of fairway, native area, and fescue tumbling all over the perfect topography. The stone walls, bunkers, and green sites are of course just so, and the third and sixth holes are world class. It's everything you could ever want. Count me in on the Northeast private renovations, and I hope that they proliferate.

I have heard great things about Worcester Country Club.

[Jim Franklin]

Where's Whippoorwill? Davenport?

[William_G]

Where's Whippoorwill?

not that good

[Mike Sweeney]

Lastly, The 147 Guardian list is absolutely great for what it sets out to accomplish and highlight. It isn't a US Top 100 list whatsoever and like comparing Kiwis to Apples. You don't do that with your client companies...why do it here??

Not a big deal, I was answering your question, which had no reference to US Top 100. I get it, Top 100 US was implied by the topic on this thread. Just some internet confusion:


Is there a better list published ANYWHERE that better reflects the affirmative (sporty, fun, adventurous, simultaneously charming and testing) values of golf course architecture? If so, dome a favor and SHOW me!

[PCCraig]

Well - whatever I say is biased as I was personally thrilled to see WBYC on the list at #76.


Generally speaking, this list is more in line with what I personally enjoy to play. The Custodians List is still my favorite but for overall quality of the list this one is pretty good.


Other than Mammoth Dunes making the list I didn't have any moments of "really?!" other than maybe Bandon Trails being in the Top 40 courses in the entire country?


Loved seeing Lawsonia on the list. Much deserved.


As with any list, there tends to be too much emphasis on where they exactly land on the list.


Anyone know when the issue is going to be officially released? It's not on my iPad app.

[Jim Franklin]

Where's Whippoorwill?

not that good

Personal experience? I loved it.

[Jeff Schley]

One aspect of this list (when seen) is the high bar they use in GCA attribution. I like keeping the original GCA unless a significant redesign is done. They use this as a bar.  From what I can see in the last 20 years the only ones who are listed as GCA for a redesign are:

• Cal Club - 2007 Kyle Philips
• Inverness - 2017 Andrew Green
• Sleep Hollow - 2017 Gil Hanse
• Oak Hill East - 2020 Andrew Green
• Monterey Peninsula Shore - 2004 Mike Stranz
• Monterey Peninsula Dunes - 2015 Jackson/Kahn
• Pinehurst no. 4 - 2017 Gil Hanse

Much prefer this high bar than lumping in restorations with 5 different GCA's in a line next to a course. I hope that GM can start this trend and stay true to it as an independent entity that helps put a fence around what is/isn't design credit from an integrity standpoint. I know there are GCA's on the panel and if they are living it has a propensity for conflict of interest, but based on what I see it is a very objective standard and it is appreciated.

[Carl Nichols]

To Roman's point:


I played Sand Valley and Mammoth Dunes for the first time last month. I already can't wait to go back to the resort - they're really good. But I certainly think there's room to ask questions about their Top 100 validity.


I found Mammoth big, bold, and spectacular. It's fun as hell. I'm just not convinced that it's quite as discerning as a great course should be. On my play, it felt like the fine line between a good result and a poor result for an average shot might be just a little too skewed toward good results. It might be a little short on teeth. Then again, I really loved playing it!


Does Sand Valley have the great holes to truly cement its standing on this list? I love the ethos, I love the setting, and I think it's a good, strong golf course. Well worth an 8+ hour drive for me every couple years. But do you play one of the twenty best golf holes in Wisconsin when you play it? I'm asking genuinely - I think I need another play or two to really firm up my own thoughts on it.

I spent 3 days at Sand Valley earlier this year.  We had a terrific time, and I too hope to return soon.  Jason's thoughts on the courses are practically identical to mine. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

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.

Glad you enjoyed Wolf Point. "Come from nowhere" is not an accurate statement.
While Al was alive I required and got every visitor to agree to not submit a review to a major magazine.
We never solicited reviews, but obviously a number of people on the Golf panel visited over the years and decided it should be included.
Cheers