Top Ten Golf Courses of All Time

[Ronald Montesano]

No better way to conclude this debate. Have a glance.


10. It is
9. impossible
8. to rank them
7. because
6. golf course architecture
5. is subjective and
4. everyone has
3. different
2. tastes


1. Cypress Point


Hope this gives you a Monday laugh.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

No better way to conclude this debate. Have a glance.


10. It is
9. impossible
8. to rank them
7. because
6. golf course architecture
5. is subjective and
4. everyone has
3. different
2. tastes


1. Cypress Point

1. The Lido


Hope this gives you a Monday laugh.

Love it


But I fixed it for you

[Tommy Williamsen]

Anyone who has been a member of this site knows that the best golf course of all time is Foulpointe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

For many gca's, the all time best golf course resides in their heads, not yet built.

[Tom_Doak]

For many gca's, the all time best golf course resides in their heads, not yet built.

And for a few, it resides somewhere out there on the Earth, not yet found.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'd rather pitch a tent in Mike Young's head.

[Jeff_Brauer]

For many gca's, the all time best golf course resides in their heads, not yet built.

And for a few, it resides somewhere out there on the Earth, not yet found.

I'm guessing since it would be fantasy, that the "perfect" site would include disparate and impossible combos of land features as opposed to being a real site. 

[Jeff Schley]

The real fantasy would be in no planning commission/government approvals. Deep dreaming would involve no environmental studies or restrictions.  Wouldn't that be great?  Pre WWII turn back the clock.

[Tom_Doak]

For many gca's, the all time best golf course resides in their heads, not yet built.

And for a few, it resides somewhere out there on the Earth, not yet found.

I'm guessing since it would be fantasy, that the "perfect" site would include disparate and impossible combos of land features as opposed to being a real site.

You should spend more time actually looking around at the Earth, or, less time trying to plot out "ideals".

[Tom_Doak]

The real fantasy would be in no planning commission/government approvals. Deep dreaming would involve no environmental studies or restrictions.  Wouldn't that be great?  Pre WWII turn back the clock.

There is no need to turn back the clock, unless you work in something like the fossil fuel industry.

[John Kavanaugh]

The real fantasy would be in no planning commission/government approvals. Deep dreaming would involve no environmental studies or restrictions.  Wouldn't that be great?  Pre WWII turn back the clock.

There is no need to turn back the clock, unless you work in something like the fossil fuel industry.

Hurtful.

[Ira Fishman]

I'd rather pitch a tent in Mike Young's head.

You know that interview question often asked to writers, etc: if you had a dinner party for four, who would you invite? If I did a Gca one, Mike Young definitely would be one of the invitees.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

The real fantasy would be in no planning commission/government approvals. Deep dreaming would involve no environmental studies or restrictions.  Wouldn't that be great?  Pre WWII turn back the clock.

There is no need to turn back the clock, unless you work in something like the fossil fuel industry.

Let's get those no good SOB's!!!!!

[mike_beene]

Does anyone remember A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy? At the end the planet designer says something like “Norway was my design. Won a nice award for it.”
Made me think of you guys scouring the earth. Not sure why I related the two and no, I am not high or drunk. This post just makes it seem that way.

[Peter Pallotta]

For some odd reason, this thread has me longing for yet another Top 10 list -- the old fashioned kind, where people pretend it's 'subjective' but then argue as if talking about Truth! Here's one:
1. Shinnecock
2. Augusta National
3. Prairie Dunes
4. Cypress Point
5. Ballyneal
6. Fishers Island
7. Pine Valley
8. NGLA
9. Friar's Head
10. Pebble Beach

Now, if I myself had actually played any of these courses, I'd have to admit that this list would be 'subjective', ie literally, based on one 'subject's' experience. So, since I *haven't* actually played these courses, the Top 10 must be the very opposite, ie completely 'objective' -- without a hint of my own personal bias involved!

[Thomas Dai]

Number 1 - Himalayas at St Andrews.
Number's 2 - 10 etc - n/a
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

For many gca's, the all time best golf course resides in their heads, not yet built.

And for a few, it resides somewhere out there on the Earth, not yet found.

I'm guessing since it would be fantasy, that the "perfect" site would include disparate and impossible combos of land features as opposed to being a real site.

You should spend more time actually looking around at the Earth, or, less time trying to plot out "ideals".

I said many gca's, didn't say it was my ideal.  This comes from hearing many laments about gca X not getting a certain job, or how much better they would have done with a site, etc. etc. etc.


Although, I know your schtick involves never admitting you have a design thought before you get on site, but most GCA's, starting with CBM have written about their ideal holes, sequences, etc., providing the site gives it, which except for flat sites, never does.


So, conceptually, which heavyweight is right?  TD or CBM? I've never been against pre-thinking concepts and ideals, and some think that the end result is "forcing" an idea onto land that doesn't support it but I never have felt constrained to implement any ideal where the site doesn't allow it, just because I think it's cool.

[John Kavanaugh]

For some odd reason, this thread has me longing for yet another Top 10 list -- the old fashioned kind, where people pretend it's 'subjective' but then argue as if talking about Truth! Here's one:
1. Shinnecock
2. Augusta National
3. Prairie Dunes
4. Cypress Point
5. Ballyneal
6. Fishers Island
7. Pine Valley
8. NGLA
9. Friar's Head
10. Pebble Beach

Now, if I myself had actually played any of these courses, I'd have to admit that this list would be 'subjective', ie literally, based on one 'subject's' experience. So, since I *haven't* actually played these courses, the Top 10 must be the very opposite, ie completely 'objective' -- without a hint of my own personal bias involved!

You’ll think subjective when you see Dr. Gene and Huck pull into your driveway.

[Tom_Doak]

So, conceptually, which heavyweight is right?  TD or CBM? I've never been against pre-thinking concepts and ideals, and some think that the end result is "forcing" an idea onto land that doesn't support it but I never have felt constrained to implement any ideal where the site doesn't allow it, just because I think it's cool.

J.B.:


Hopefully, we will find out next year, after I am done faithfully re-creating CBM's ideal golf course, in Wisconsin.  It's all part of my plan to prove I'm better after all. 


When you have a swamp to start with [as with the original Lido, or the TPC at Sawgrass], there is no other option but to come up with some concepts and ideals, and take a run at it from there.  I understand that.  Then I look at The Old Course, and Pine Valley, and Cypress Point, and Sand Hills, and I think, that is not how those courses came to be.


But I know the best courses are a mix of the two.  Even at Sand Hills, with its fourteen [by my count] untouched green complexes, two of the most admired [the 2nd and 8th]  WERE NOT THERE to start with, those are entirely figments of Ben's and Bill's imaginations.  So, really, what I'm saying is that most architects have too many ideas going into a job, and I am just trying to suppress mine until I can really take stock of what is on the ground.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


As usual, we mostly agree. 


That said, CBM wrote of his ideal links in his book, and not about how it specifically came to be ideal, although, in context, I think he thought NGLA came pretty close.


It's always a mix, including PV, where Tilly brought his pre-existing design favorite of the great hazard to the job, and Crump used it.


And, I agree most of us take more ideas into a project than there are holes, i.e., more than 18 (or 27, or 36)  and it is easy to overthink and try to combine them, messing up the works, LOL.  It seems to me that we all think some ideas are better than others, so having some kind of hip pocket list of ideals helps narrow the ideas down a bit.  I may be wrong of course, but I don't think waiting until on site is really suppressing excess ideas, but its hard to get inside someone else's head.


To me, that is the essence of my argument in favor of pre-thinking design concepts, and then applying them ONLY where applicable.  For instance, I don't think a Redan on a back to front sloping site is a great idea, so I wouldn't use it.  There are gray areas, of course.  Even a Cape Hole, which I think is great downwind (increases hope and temptation) can be used in other winds, except, IMHO< when the prevailing wind forces an aim out over water, which is uncomfortable and temptation reducing.  So, even faced with a perfect Cape Hole by land, with that crosswind, I might not use it, etc.


My guess is that you have certain preferences that you look for when you reach a site (or do a routing on plan) and that you like to vary the details any time you use those preferences on a project to make it unique to the site, and more importantly, the best possible fit to the site.

But, it does raise the question of whether "all ideas are as valid as others" which I don't think is true.  In your comments, it seems you want to reserve that judgement until the last possible moment, whereas I have, over the years, tried and/or not, and dismissed ideas that just don't seem likely to yield any benefit, no matter what the site says.  Sort of like my opinion of chocolate sauce on roast beef....I feel no need to try that one out in the real world!

[Tom_Doak]

My guess is that you have certain preferences that you look for when you reach a site (or do a routing on plan) and that you like to vary the details any time you use those preferences on a project to make it unique to the site, and more importantly, the best possible fit to the site.

But, it does raise the question of whether "all ideas are as valid as others" which I don't think is true.  In your comments, it seems you want to reserve that judgement until the last possible moment, whereas I have, over the years, tried and/or not, and dismissed ideas that just don't seem likely to yield any benefit, no matter what the site says.  Sort of like my opinion of chocolate sauce on roast beef....I feel no need to try that one out in the real world!

Jeff:


I don't know where you would get the idea that I think "all ideas are as valid as others".  There is a load of crap golf out there and I am not getting anywhere near those ideas.*


My goal is to do a routing that explores the property well, and leaves me with a majority of holes where I don't have to manipulate the fairway in order to make them work.  If I've got that, then I feel like I have hundreds of possibilities to make interesting holes, and I can't really go wrong unless I lose my sense of taste.  But I still dream of creating unique holes [I've succeeded a few times, at least in my own mind], and it's really hard to do that if you start with a concept, so I try not to start with that where I can.




* My associates will all tell you that one pet peeve of mine is a bunker aligned front center of the green [the Lion's Mouth].  I really hate symmetry in all forms because it is unnatural, so I will put a bunker right-center [Eden] or left-center, but I will resist like hell the idea that a bunker dead center is the best solution.  It probably wouldn't kill me to do it somewhere, once, but it hasn't cost me much to avoid it so far!

[Matt_Cohn]

For many gca's, the all time best golf course resides in their heads, not yet built.

And for a few, it resides somewhere out there on the Earth, not yet found.

I'm guessing since it would be fantasy, that the "perfect" site would include disparate and impossible combos of land features as opposed to being a real site.

I believe this exact site appeared in most of our sixth grade science textbooks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


Of course not....but if you previously dismiss ideas before seeing the site, aren't you pre-thinking something?    


I think most clients want architects to use their knowledge gained beforehand (including self mistakes) to guide their designs.  I mean, I don't want a pilot to announce over the intercom, "Fasten your seatbelts folks, I want to try something new."  And, very few owners give that kind of leash to designers of golf courses either, LOL.  Thus, while you (and I) have hundreds of possibilities for good holes after routings, I find it helps to sort of narrow down the field a bit, LOL.  That is part of design, too, winnowing out the unnecessary to get down to the best possible option.


Generally agree on no center front bunkers, but then again, because of that, and a need/desire for variety, I may allow myself to break that "rule" once per course.  After all, that design idea is no SO BAD that it should never be used, but it isn't practical for public play, hurts average golfers a lot, good players not at all (although the narrowness may catch some)  Not to mention, if we scoured the earth looking for great golf landscapes, I suspect in at least one spot (but probably only one) we would find nature having some perfectly symmetrical feature, if only by chance.  But, I digress.


I think this board has, over the years, seen a dichotomy in thinking, i.e., Doak routes so there is almost no fw earthmoving, and Fazio routes anywhere and fixes bad routings with earthmoving.  In truth, most of us (including Faz in most cases) look for natural holes.  One test of natural holes is the total CY of earthmoving, and I have a lot of courses there with no more than 100K CY, which is pretty good.  I rarely get into that 400-700K earthmoving type of project and have a few pet peeves for those who do grade everywhere. 


For one example, even when we need to grade everywhere to establish drainage, I would explode if I saw one of the associates drawing a catch basin on a former high point, rather than following the natural grades, and putting it in a low point, even if we had to raise that to make the plan work.  I even made one guy do the cut and fill on his plan, redraw it following the more natural flow of the land, and redo the cut and fill to prove that his plan had another few thousand yards of earthmoving for no particular reason at all.  (insert voice of Forrest Gump on that last sentence)

[Tom_Doak]

I think this board has, over the years, seen a dichotomy in thinking, i.e., Doak routes so there is almost no fw earthmoving, and Fazio routes anywhere and fixes bad routings with earthmoving.  In truth, most of us (including Faz in most cases) look for natural holes.  One test of natural holes is the total CY of earthmoving, and I have a lot of courses there with no more than 100K CY, which is pretty good.  I rarely get into that 400-700K earthmoving type of project and have a few pet peeves for those who do grade everywhere. 

If you don't count shaping or sand-capping as "earthmoving", I think I have only moved 100,000 cubic yards of earth a half-dozen times out of 40 courses:  The Legends, Charlotte, The Rawls Course, Tumble Creek [which had five dead flat holes at the end], Stone Eagle, and Simapo Island in China.  But, as you know, that's a function of where you work; if either of us worked in Florida, we would starve on that program.


Your defense of Tom Fazio is nice, and I don't think that he or any of the big names are as bad as they are sometimes made out to be.  But in my observation, there were several of them who stopped caring about any of the natural contour too much [if they ever did] once sand-capping became the norm for them.  When Jack Nicklaus looked at my routing for Sebonack, he described how he probably would have done way more earthmoving, except that might not get permitted in the Hamptons [which was what the client had told him to get him to consider my routing instead].


I've actually had quite a few clients who gave me wide latitude to build what I wanted, but the three that probably gave me the least input wound up with Barnbougle Dunes, Ballyneal, and Tara Iti.  You can draw your own conclusions from that list.  The last of the three was kind of a byproduct of the deal -- the client wanted to make some of the fee contingent on delivering a top-50 golf course, and I pointed out that if I agreed, he would have to let me build whatever I wanted to!  His only request during the process was to make the 17th hole tougher, which I did.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


No doubt my best projects have had owner's or owner's reps that gave broad, general instructions, and then let me run with it.  And, working with someone who is synergistic with your style helps a lot, too.


I agree that it became the norm to move earth everywhere, whether it needed it or not, which gave birth to the counter movement to move almost nothing, i.e., minimalism if you will.  I never got to that point, and always felt a good routing would have at least about 14 holes where no earthmoving except greens, tees, and bunkers, would be required. 


I recall building a course with Wadsworth, and putting notes all over the plan to NOT move earth in the second fw, as I liked the subtle contours (a ridge where an old barb wire fence let soil blow in around it made a nice dogleg turn hazard in my eyes) only to go out there and find that Wadsworth standard policy had become to strip the entire hole, because, in their experience, the gca eventually came in and wanted to do more fw shaping.  So, hard to disagree that the trend was definitely away from leaving things natural, for a host of reasons we have discussed.


Not sure it was even related to sand capping, but just the idea of when you start shaping a fw, where do you stop?  I know I don't visually mind just a fill bank to support a bunker, or whatever, but a lot of folks think that you need to shape an entire fw or it doesn't "look right."  To each his own.