Golf Magazine US Top 100

[Ally Mcintosh]

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.

Also, too many holes with significant  features, particularly of the built/created variety, can really make a course feel just a bit contrived.

Give me the great holes on subtle ground with one defining natural feature any day of the week. Mix this in with toned down holes on more exuberant land and an excellent routing and you have me won over.

I’ll be judging Doak and crew on St Patricks on routing, flow and whether they’ve done too much. The very good to great holes will fall in to place if they’ve done that right.

Ally,

Wouldn't you say Carne is a poster child for what you're saying? Among the 27 holes on the property, almost all are spectacular. But the routing detracted from the experience. Better-integrating the new 9 with the older layout takes the experience to a much higher level.

Dan, the absolute number one and two priority at Carne was walkability and playability... Jim Engh’s initial routing was a cart course... There were spectacular holes, many of which could have ended up great, but it would have been a very difficult walk... it still is but it’s about as easy as we could have made it and flows better once new 9 and back 9 are intertwined. That said, there are still a couple of areas that we need to work on to improve and lessen green to tee walks. A site that had huge advantages and some pretty big disadvantages.


Sean, when you put it like that, I can see how a hole to hole matchup can help as an indicator to elevate courses that don’t sometimes get considered as great / excellent.

[jeffwarne]

I would suggest that those who do not think routing and flow are important for evaluating a golf course should go to Australia to play Ellerston ...


and each hole feels like it is in a "perfect" setting.  But the walks from green to tee must average at least 150-200 yards, and almost all must take a motorized cart (given the remoteness of the site caddies are generally not available...it also gets an unbelievably low amount of play).  And remember Mackenzie's 13 Principles of Course Design...as I recall #3 was short walk from green to next tee.


To me, Ellerston is the post child for why flow and routing are so important.  On a hole by hole match (no matter what the rules) it has to be in my world top 5 or 10...but in my overall evaluation I have it in the 76-100 grouping.  One person's opinion!

I'm generally very good at remembering each hole of a course I play once. but the ones I struggle with (or lose track of a hole or two) are those which have the poor transitions between holes or a cart required. That's not to say a long walk is a dealbreaker for memory(example-Bandon Trails or Highland Links) it's just that when I get turned around and lose my orientation via a winding, long or heavily treed long ride to the next hole that it all kind've runs together)
Somehow my memory is tied to to how the next hole is tied to the previous.I felt  little bit of this(despite walking ) at Bandon Dunes with the routing crossovers.


18 "separate" and/or "signature" holes on a website or marketing material pretty much makes me less inclined to want to visit.
I'd rather walk and play an awkward/quirky hole,en route a great sequence of holes, then walk/ride around the challenge all day to get to all "great" holes. Interestingly, sometimes the walk makes the next hole MORE memorable such as the walk to 16 at Friars Head or 5 at Barnbougle. Maybe it's the fact that on both courses you're on foot(more likely the fact that the walk is in a memorable/spectacular setting)
So yes, I'm clearly a walking contradiction.(who often can be found in a cart)

[Mark_Fine]

C&C’s Plantation course sits on over 750 acres and is stunning. It is one of if not my favorite course in Hawaii though Nanea is right there with it and sits on even more acreage.  I also love Wannmoisett which sits on less than 100 acres.  The beauty of golf.  So much variety in the playing fields.   

[Rob Marshall]

Is the Doak scale located anywhere in the discussion board?

[Kevin_Reilly]

It is on the site, but a google search brings up many results.  Here is one:


https://golfcoursegurus.com/rankings/doakscale.php

[Mike Bodo]

Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?

I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.

[Brian Finn]

Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?

I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.

Mike,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.

[Tim Martin]

Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?

I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.

Mike,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.

Not to thread jack but I wonder how Green’s work has been generally received as far as reclaiming the lost Ross features at Oak Hill East? Anybody that has played since the reopening can chime in. Thanks.

[Mike Bodo]

I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.

Outside of the aforementioned greens, the course feels cohesive. Andrew Green did a good job in that regard. However, it's more polished and manicured now and less the tight, rustic beast it used to be. There's more room for error, which is great from a playability standpoint, but less from a strategic one, as you can get away with more. Having attended the Open there in 1979, it's a totally different course now than then. That course had teeth. This version of Inverness does as well, but less of them.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Brian,
We all know courses change regardless if we leave well enough alone.  But the aging process does positively impact many classic designs and sometimes after a major renovation (even a good one) the courses can look almost sterile/too refined.  How many of those courses on the lists like this that have been “restored/renovated” still retain that patina or has it been cleansed away?

I'd argue Inverness Club epitomizes your statement. Having played it last June it barely feels like a Ross course following the Andrew Green renovation. His new greens on 2, 3 and 4 are large and flattish in comparison to the smaller, more steeply sloped back to front Ross greens on the property and there's arguably too much room to play. It's still a beautiful, challenging layout but it's lost some of the "rough edges" that made it distinctly Inverness. I hope the renovation at Oakland Hills doesn't result in the same type refinement, but we'll know more about that next spring.

Mike,
I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.

Not to thread jack but I wonder how Green’s work has been generally received as far as reclaiming the lost Ross features at Oak Hill East? Anybody that has played since the reopening can chime in. Thanks.

Via social media, it's been very well received, heralded, in fact.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I haven't had the good fortune to play Inverness, but I'm curious to hear more about the Andrew Green work from you.  Would you say it is less cohesive with the portions of the course you say are truly "Ross" when compared to what Fazio had previously done?  Everything I have read suggests Green's work brought the course much closer to a complete Ross, not further.

Outside of the aforementioned greens, the course feels cohesive. Andrew Green did a good job in that regard. However, it's more polished and manicured now and less the tight, rustic beast it used to be. There's more room for error, which is great from a playability standpoint, but less from a strategic one, as you can get away with more. Having attended the Open there in 1979, it's a totally different course now than then. That course had teeth. This version of Inverness does as well, but less of them.

But aren't all these restored courses going towards width & being lauded by golf fans, especially from the GCA group? I think a combination of a renovated golf course, new Superintendent & desire to host national events, its inevitable that it will be more manicured.

[Mike Bodo]

But aren't all these restored courses going towards width & being lauded by golf fans, especially from the GCA group? I think a combination of a renovated golf course, new Superintendent & desire to host national events, its inevitable that it will be more manicured.

That's the trend, for sure. I'm more of a throwback guy who cut his teeth on tight Ross courses with small greens. The question was posed does it still feel Rossian to me and I'd argue it doesn't. Inverness plays more like an open links style course minus the water. The broadening of the fairways and tree removal they did are primarily responsible for that. That said, the course is still tremendous in its own right. But it's a completely different course, in my mind.


I played Columbus Country Club a few weeks ago and Denison just outside of Columbus - both Ross courses. Columbus had a major resto-vation done there several years ago. Denison, I can't speak to. However, i hated the three holes on the back nine of that course that were built in place of Ross' original holes, but the Ross holes that are still intact are fantastic! In any event, both courses felt more Rossian to me than Inverness. Unless you've been on the grounds of Inverness over the decades to compare then to now, it's a night and day transformation. The majority of people (the membership, most importantly) love it and that's great. I'm simply not a big fan.


I played another Toledo course, Sylvania CC, for the first time ever last week. I fell in love with the place. The course felt true to the original Willie Park Jr. design. It hasn't been tinkered with nearly as much over the years as Inverness and thus felt more authentic. I can't say the same for Inverness in its current iteration and that's no criticism to Andrew Green. He simply made changes to the course based on the approval of the membership there. However, if the objective was to make it feel more like the original Ross layout, then I'd argue they fell short of the mark for the reasons stated above and those prior.

[Brian Finn]

I'm more of a throwback guy who cut his teeth on tight Ross courses with small greens. The question was posed does it still feel Rossian to me and I'd argue it doesn't. Inverness plays more like an open links style course minus the water. The broadening of the fairways and tree removal they did are primarily responsible for that.

How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general?  What features would / wouldn't you expect to see? 

I've played a healthy number of Ross courses, and have never felt there was a "typical" Ross style.  In my experience, his courses varied based on where they were located, the terrain, the soil, the budget, and many other factors, I am sure.  In reading about the hundreds of his courses I have not played, there seems to be even more variety.  Among the gca crowd, I'm hardly well-educated on Ross, but feel comfortable in asserting a few basic ideas.

I don't view tight, tree-lined courses with small greens as typical of Ross at all.  If anything, those courses are likely a product of tree planting that occurred at courses across the country in the 60s-80s, and green shrinkage due to years of sub-optimal course maintenance practices.  In studying numerous Ross courses, particularly when viewing original plans and pre-1940 aerial photos, I can't recall too many heavily treed courses. 

FWIW, the gca archives (1030 pages w/ ~25 topics per page) include a treasure trove of information on Ross, his courses, and everything you could ever imagine related to them.  There are too many to cite, but I have found this one especially informative.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html

[Mike Bodo]

How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general?  What features would / wouldn't you expect to see? 

I've played a healthy number of Ross courses, and have never felt there was a "typical" Ross style.  In my experience, his courses varied based on where they were located, the terrain, the soil, the budget, and many other factors, I am sure.  In reading about the hundreds of his courses I have not played, there seems to be even more variety.  Among the gca crowd, I'm hardly well-educated on Ross, but feel comfortable in asserting a few basic ideas.

I don't view tight, tree-lined courses with small greens as typical of Ross at all.  If anything, those courses are likely a product of tree planting that occurred at courses across the country in the 60s-80s, and green shrinkage due to years of sub-optimal course maintenance practices.  In studying numerous Ross courses, particularly when viewing original plans and pre-1940 aerial photos, I can't recall too many heavily treed courses. 

FWIW, the gca archives (1030 pages w/ ~25 topics per page) include a treasure trove of information on Ross, his courses, and everything you could ever imagine related to them.  There are too many to cite, but I have found this one especially informative.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html

The majority of Ross Courses I've played or caddied on, i.e. Oakland Hills, Barton Hills, Western, Grosse Isle, Muskegon, Detroit Golf Club, Columbus Country Club, Manakiki, Dennison, etc. - primarily, Midwest Ross are by and large tightly compacted courses with small to medium sized greens sloped sharply from back to front with drop-off's on the back. Are there exceptions? Of course. The question posed was why I thought Inverness in its current iteration no longer felt like a Ross course? I gave my reasons why. Anyone is welcome to disagree and I'm sure I'm in the minority in my opinion. My statements, however, were specific to my experience on Midwest Ross courses and past visits to Inverness. They weren't intended to paint all of Ross work with a broad brush. I've yet to have the privilege or good fortune to play his courses out east, in addition to those in the Carolina's or Florida to see how they contrast and vary. Those are on the bucket list.


Bottom line: Ross courses in Michigan and Ohio share a lot of commonalities and traits - Inverness included. Sure, there are differences that set each course apart and distinguish them from other Ross works in the area. That's the beauty of Ross. However, Inverness to me no longer feels like it did in the 70's and 80's, when it looked and felt more like Ross' other courses in the area. That's all I'm saying. Again, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Inverness and hope to go back and play it again. The layouts great, but it feels less Ross to me than it did before this last renovation is all I'm saying.

[Brian Finn]

How would you characterize a "Rossian" feeling course, in general?  What features would / wouldn't you expect to see? 

I've played a healthy number of Ross courses, and have never felt there was a "typical" Ross style.  In my experience, his courses varied based on where they were located, the terrain, the soil, the budget, and many other factors, I am sure.  In reading about the hundreds of his courses I have not played, there seems to be even more variety.  Among the gca crowd, I'm hardly well-educated on Ross, but feel comfortable in asserting a few basic ideas.

I don't view tight, tree-lined courses with small greens as typical of Ross at all.  If anything, those courses are likely a product of tree planting that occurred at courses across the country in the 60s-80s, and green shrinkage due to years of sub-optimal course maintenance practices.  In studying numerous Ross courses, particularly when viewing original plans and pre-1940 aerial photos, I can't recall too many heavily treed courses. 

FWIW, the gca archives (1030 pages w/ ~25 topics per page) include a treasure trove of information on Ross, his courses, and everything you could ever imagine related to them.  There are too many to cite, but I have found this one especially informative.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65481.0.html

The majority of Ross Courses I've played or caddied on, i.e. Oakland Hills, Barton Hills, Western, Grosse Isle, Muskegon, Detroit Golf Club, Columbus Country Club, Manakiki, Dennison, etc. - primarily, Midwest Ross are by and large tightly compacted courses with small to medium sized greens sloped sharply from back to front with drop-off's on the back. Are there exceptions? Of course. The question posed was why I thought Inverness in its current iteration no longer felt like a Ross course? I gave my reasons why. Anyone is welcome to disagree and I'm sure I'm in the minority in my opinion. My statements, however, were specific to my experience on Midwest Ross courses and past visits to Inverness. They weren't intended to paint all of Ross work with a broad brush. I've yet to have the privilege or good fortune to play his courses out east, in addition to those in the Carolina's or Florida to see how they contrast and vary. Those are on the bucket list.

Bottom line: Ross courses in Michigan and Ohio share a lot of commonalities and traits - Inverness included. Sure, there are differences that set each course apart and distinguish them from other Ross works in the area. That's the beauty of Ross. However, Inverness to me no longer feels like it did in the 70's and 80's, when it looked and felt more like Ross' other courses in the area. That's all I'm saying. Again, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Inverness and hope to go back and play it again. The layouts great, but it feels less Ross to me than it did before this last renovation is all I'm saying.

I understand.  To be a bit more direct about it, one of the points I was trying to make is that the things that you consider typical of a Midwest Ross course (tight, tree-lined, small greens) mostly did not come about until well after his time.  Those are things that happened to Ross courses, not features of Ross designed courses.

I've played my fair share of Midwest Ross.  Brookside CC in Canton, Oakland Hills, Scioto, Hyde Park, Columbus CC, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Granville (Denison), Congress Lake, Miami Valley, Detroit GC, Broadmoor, Ravisloe, plus a bunch more.  In doing research (or more accurately, reading other people's excellent research), few, if any of these courses were designed to play through trees to small greens.  That's all. 

[Mike Bodo]

To be a bit more direct about it, one of the points I was trying to make is that the things that you consider typical of a Midwest Ross course (tight, tree-lined, small greens) mostly did not come about until well after his time.  Those are things that happened to Ross courses, not features of Ross designed courses.

I've played my fair share of Midwest Ross.  Brookside CC in Canton, Oakland Hills, Scioto, Hyde Park, Columbus CC, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Granville (Denison), Congress Lake, Miami Valley, Detroit GC, Broadmoor, Ravisloe, plus a bunch more.  In doing research (or more accurately, reading other people's excellent research), few, if any of these courses were designed to play through trees to small greens.  That's all.

I understand and appreciate that. Unfortunately, I wasn't alive in the 20's, 30's and 40's to play Ross' courses as he intended them. Thus, I can only base my comments of what I've actually experienced, not hypotheticals. That said, a lot of private Ross courses have implemented tree removal programs the past decade and have undertaken green restoration in an attempt to return those courses as close to their original design as conceivably possible. As such, you're starting to get a better feel for how some of his courses were intended to be played, which I applaud and hope more Ross courses undergo. I thought Columbus did a great job with their tree removal program and really exposed that property for the beautiful expanse Ross saw it for. I hope more of his courses in the Midwest follow suit.

[Brian Finn]

To be a bit more direct about it, one of the points I was trying to make is that the things that you consider typical of a Midwest Ross course (tight, tree-lined, small greens) mostly did not come about until well after his time.  Those are things that happened to Ross courses, not features of Ross designed courses.

I've played my fair share of Midwest Ross.  Brookside CC in Canton, Oakland Hills, Scioto, Hyde Park, Columbus CC, Shaker Heights, Springfield, Granville (Denison), Congress Lake, Miami Valley, Detroit GC, Broadmoor, Ravisloe, plus a bunch more.  In doing research (or more accurately, reading other people's excellent research), few, if any of these courses were designed to play through trees to small greens.  That's all.

I understand and appreciate that. Unfortunately, I wasn't alive in the 20's, 30's and 40's to play Ross' courses as he intended them. Thus, I can only base my comments of what I've actually experienced, not hypotheticals. That said, a lot of private Ross courses have implemented tree removal programs the past decade and have undertaken green restoration in an attempt to return those courses as close to their original design as conceivably possible. As such, you're starting to get a better feel for how some of his courses were intended to be played, which I applaud and hope more Ross courses undergo. I thought Columbus did a great job with their tree removal program and really exposed that property for the beautiful expanse Ross saw it for. I hope more of his courses in the Midwest follow suit.

Couldn't agree more.  Beautiful views across the course, better turf health, and generally more playable (at least tee to green) for hacks like me!  I hope to see the latest work at Columbus CC soon.  I played it many times (thanks to a gca member invite), but all before the work, and the handful of pictures I have seen look really solid.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You can have both. But the courses that have holes that move around a site seamlessly - as Tom once put it so perfectly “in the way you would naturally go for a walk if there was no golf course there” - are the ones that tend to live up to repeat plays best.

I don't know if this makes much sense. If you set me down on the first tee at Augusta National before there was a course there, I think many of us might wander over to 10, or down 18, or over to 9 and go up that way, and wander back that direction.

Who would wander across a turnpike at Oakmont?

I'm glad others are expressing doubt about the idea of a "routing" meaning that much. I've never understood what it meant AFTER the golf course is there. I understand its importance in designing the course, and using the best land possible, and solving problems, but AFTER that's done… I'm with the recent dissenters.

As an attempt to add an uneducated opinion here, I think that a "routing" from the playing perspective might only be "bad" or "unnoticed." The bad routings with long walks or drives do take away a bit from the experience, but I don't know that I've had too many "good" experiences where I thought to myself "man, that walk really added to my enjoyment of the course!" Another example might be back-to-back par threes, which many might see as a negative.

So maybe a routing (walking/driving) is only something worth considering if it's a negative? (Again, post-construction and from a playing standpoint only).

[Andrew Harvie]

Perhaps if you only notice a routing if it's poorly done you shouldn't be a rater

[Lou_Duran]

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

Speaking from experience as a member of three panels at different times over the last 20 years (GOLF not among them), to be reviewed, i.e. for a vote or ballot to be submitted, the golf course had to be a candidate for the rankings.  Wolf Point was never one and very few golfers knew of its existence.  How it popped as Texas' only Top 100 course four years after Al's passing when the course was mostly closed is puzzling to me.  Perhaps Ran is trying to stir things up and generate more interest?  It would be interesting for those who care about these things to understand the criteria used to arrive at these judgments.

[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

Speaking from experience as a member of three panels at different times over the last 20 years (GOLF not among them), to be reviewed, i.e. for a vote or ballot to be submitted, the golf course had to be a candidate for the rankings.  Wolf Point was never one and very few golfers knew of its existence.  How it popped as Texas' only Top 100 course four years after Al's passing when the course was mostly closed is puzzling to me.  Perhaps Ran is trying to stir things up and generate more interest?  It would be interesting for those who care about these things to understand the criteria used to arrive at these judgments.

Lou!
I don't know how many panelists from each magazine came by, I would have lost count if I tried. There were many.
I don't know the panel rules, but I know they can play where they are invited or pay, it doesn't need to be on a list to enjoy. When a rater wanted to play, and I knew they were a rater I required they not submit a review.
The only review I ever heard that was submitted was one to Golfweek and I was disappointed because someone broke their promise.
Ron W. asked if he could put it on the panel long ago, I said no, per Al's wishes.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike!


When I played WP in 2008 it was during my wilderness years in SoCal.  I was not a member of any panel at that time.  I have no idea how a GW panelist could have submitted a review on WP as ballots are submitted online on a template populated in the system for specific candidate courses.  I am unaware of an option for a rater to create such a template and vote for a course not on the candidate list, though, for many years now,  I have only kept up with the GW process through infrequent discussions with mates on that panel.


Of course raters are allowed to play anywhere they desire.  At GD at least, the panelists are just not allowed to use their GD credentials to gain access on courses not on the candidate list.  I know very little about GOLF's process or governance.

[Kevin Pallier]

Did a quick review by some architects

C&C
7 Original Designs (OD) + 2 Redesign or Restoration (RR)
1 Top 10 = Sand Hills

Doak
6 OD  + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes

Mackenzie
7 courses re: input
2 Top10 = Cypress Point & Augusta


Tillinghast
13 courses re: input
1 Top20 =Winged Foot (West)


Ross
12 courses re: input
2 Top20 = Pinehurst & Seminole

[Bill Brightly]

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!

As I was reading through the list and saw the big risers and fallers, I thought that this group of raters obviously valued FUN courses, and knocked down HARD ones.


I'm good with that!

[Kevin Pallier]

Macdonald
6 courses re: input
1 Top10 = NGLA


Raynor
10 courses re: input
1 Top10 = Fishers Island


Dye
6 OD
No Top20


Fazio
6 courses re: input
No Top20