Big $$$ renovation/restoration = big jump in rankings

[Don Mahaffey]

In the recent Golf mag World Top 100 we saw some old classics go from unranked to very high in the rankings immediately after undergoing major work. 
Same land, same greens for the most part. New bunkering, trees thinned out, new turf, irrigation and drainage.  I’m sure there is more to it then just what I mention above, but this is a World top 100. The absolute best of the best golf courses in the world. 
Am I the only one that finds these huge jumps after “restoration” a little perplexing.  I know the work is very good.  No questioning that. But the land, site, routing is unchanged.  Can someone help me understand?

[Jim Sherma]

It’s a question of what’s getting rated. If it’s architecture then Mt Pleasant is top three in Baltimore, maybe top 2. Given that rankings involve exclusivity, conditioning, expectations of others, etc… it’s probably 15th or worse given any of the panels that get talked about.


Big money restorations check all of those other boxes.


If every course we’re maintained similarly, and raters could truly do “blind tests” it would be interesting to see what the lists would look like.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Don, it is a question I asked myself this summer. I had played both Oakland Hills South and Baltusrol Lower before their work was done. I didn't much like OH and liked Baltusrol some. I played both of them in September and went away loving both of them. Both were much more fun, the fairways widened, the greens enlarged, and the bunkering was very different.


I know Baltusrol better so I will comment on it. Number two has restored bunkers on the left side of the fairway that make the tee shot more visually intimidating and interesting. The bunkers at the green are a bit different and the green has been enlarged. The fifth hole now has cross bunkers of the tee. You can go left, right, short, or over them. There are new bunkers short of the green. The fairway was widened to give you some better angles to play with.


Number seven was a boring shortish par five with just a straight and narrow fairway. Hanse turned the fairway, widened it, and repositioned the bunkers to give it a lot more interest. Fifteen might be my new favorite hole on the course. The drive requires thought and execution to miss the fairway bunkers and the green has more slope. It is beauty. The  par three sixteenth has better bunkering and a larger green. Hanse move the cross bunkers down the fairway thirty yards or so. The second shot is much more difficult. The bunkering at the green, which was enlarged. On eighteen the fairway was moved and and bunkers on the right removed. He also removed a bunker in front of the green and left a ramp up to the green.


Most of the fairways were widened and the greens enlarged with new pin placements. The new sub air on the greens made for firm conditions. It is really good now. For me personally, both made a leap forward in my respect for them.

[Don Mahaffey]

Thanks Tommy. I talked to a member on Monday and he loves the changes.
But here is my question, and it is not rhetorical; it had to still be very good, like top 125 in the world before the changes to jump to 50 ish in world after?. Didn't it?

[Michael Chadwick]

Don, couldn't an analogy to your question of whether restorations aren't drastically impactful because "the land, site, routing is unchanged," be asking a homeowner who'd just spent a year remodeling if they thought the finished result wasn't any different because the square footage remained the same? I don't think that homeowner would be too pleased to hear a question like that.

I'd like to think that architecture, the quality of the greens, and the routing are still the most important factors for top 100, especially Golf Magazine's, but clubs can (rightfully) lose their rankings on account of not being considerate custodians of their property and their original architect's work. What these restorations have done, especially at Oakland Hills, Baltusrol, Inverness, and Oak Hill, showcase just how sound their course's earliest iterations were, and in hindsight demonstrates just how much clubs can miss the mark by not taking proper care of them.

[Don Mahaffey]

Michael,
Keep in mind I'm acknowledging that the work done is excellent. If I understand your premise, most courses from that era that were once top 100 in the world can recapture that status if they perform the same type of work? is that what you're saying?

[Michael Chadwick]

Michael,
Keep in mind I'm acknowledging that the work done is excellent. If I understand your premise, most courses from that era that were once top 100 in the world can recapture that status if they perform the same type of work? is that what you're saying?

Yes, that's in line with my thinking. Take Yale for instance. It fell off the list, but will catapult ahead in coming years after it's restored. Raters are rewarding clubs that undergo big restorations, yes, but I don't think they are rewarding them solely because money is spent. It's about how and why the money is spent. Perhaps Golf Digest's current iteration may reward total money spent a la the rankings places like Shadow Creek, Gozzer Ranch, Alotian, and others enjoy, but thankfully GM doesn't appear to make the same mistake as egregiously. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Don, what Tommy noted about two renovations could be said of most others: fairways are wider, greens are larger, and bunkers are different -- the golden trifecta of the modern age.

The trifecta that not only makes a good course better, but that -- in today's world -- is the very definition & defining characteristic of 'great golf course architecture' as Ran et al understand it.

I'm not saying he's wrong, but when the tail wags the dog and the cart comes before the horse (i.e., when the rules/guidelines for what produces great golf architecture are so firmly and undoubtedly fixed in place beforehand), should anything really surprise us?

[Sean_A]

In the recent Golf mag World Top 100 we saw some old classics go from unranked to very high in the rankings immediately after undergoing major work. 
Same land, same greens for the most part. New bunkering, trees thinned out, new turf, irrigation and drainage.  I’m sure there is more to it then just what I mention above, but this is a World top 100. The absolute best of the best golf courses in the world. 
Am I the only one that finds these huge jumps after “restoration” a little perplexing.  I know the work is very good.  No questioning that. But the land, site, routing is unchanged.  Can someone help me understand?

Don

I haven't seen any of the courses in question, but I suspect playability is the bottom line goal. For me, it's hard to overestimate the concept of playability because of the direct connection to fun. I have seen plenty of courses which are muted due to their presentation. The bones may be excellent, but when left shrouded in trees, long rough and narrow fairways the fun factor is dialed way back and that means I have little interest in returning. In the UK it seems many clubs are doing as you seem to be suggesting, cosmetic changes which don't impact playability nearly as much as could be the case. Famous courses are even making changes to the bones which to some degree miss the mark or even achieve less than that. For mine, maximising course potential is important regardless of ranking because it usually means I want to play the course more often. In fact, if work is being done to improve rankings that truly is allowing the tail to wag the dog.

So far as I can tell, the only course in the UK which is undergoing anything like one of these mega US course clean up jobs is Addington. I strongly suspect we are going to see a true rebirth of a long abused architectural gem. Give it another 3 years and if all goes well... watch this space.

Incidentally, Woodhall Spa has been dramatically cleared out and beautified. Let's say the bones have been more fully revealed. Yes, Woodhall is an extremely handsome course, but I am far from convinced it belongs on a world top 100 list.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Michael,
Keep in mind I'm acknowledging that the work done is excellent. If I understand your premise, most courses from that era that were once top 100 in the world can recapture that status if they perform the same type of work? is that what you're saying?

Yes, that's in line with my thinking. Take Yale for instance. It fell off the list, but will catapult ahead in coming years after it's restored. Raters are rewarding clubs that undergo big restorations, yes, but I don't think they are rewarding them solely because money is spent. It's about how and why the money is spent. Perhaps Golf Digest's current iteration may reward total money spent a la the rankings places like Shadow Creek, Gozzer Ranch, Alotian, and others enjoy, but thankfully GM doesn't appear to make the same mistake as egregiously.

I think what Don’s getting at is that if all the old ODG courses are restored in this fashion and are worthy of big jumps in to the Top-100, then something else is going to have to give.


For instance, I would expect a list that in the future either knocks out almost all of the “new” courses from TD or C&C….


…Or I would expect a list in the future that effectively tells us that the US Top 100 is the World Top 100 as there’s no room for rest of the world courses that haven’t been renovated in such a fashion.


That latter point alludes a little to the fall of GB&I courses this time round which may be partially due to what Sean refers to above. But - to Sean’s point - I’ll remind him that Golden Age architecture in America (the kind we think is getting restored) was never the same as similar era architecture in the UK (whether on the heathland or the links). Granted, the heaths had less trees and generally wider playing corridors but it was different design. You could “restore” a lot of the UK courses with a few mower widths and not much else. The US courses have a whole aesthetic getting restored / changed back, primarily because their aesthetic has been butchered previously.


Perceptions, perceptions. Flavour of the day, flavour of the panel make-up.

[Sean_A]

Ally

Sure, some UK courses could be so called restored with 15 yards of fairway added. IMO, to achieve the added width on a large percentage of these courses requires significant tree removal. It seems folks in the UK are much more hesitant to really get after trees like some of the high profile US examples. I am not sure UK memberships have really bought into serious tree removal yet. It seems like the UK is lagging 10 years behind the US. I suspect Addington will be a very serious eye opener about what can be achieved when trees are properly tackled.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A slight aside to this is what are the clubs/courses who have undertaken restorations etc planning to do so that they don't need to undertake another expensive/course closing restoration in a few years/decades time?
atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

Sure, some UK courses could be so called restored with 15 yards of fairway added. IMO, to achieve the added width on a large percentage of these courses requires significant tree removal. It seems folks in the UK are much more hesitant to really get after trees like some of the high profile US examples. I am not sure UK memberships have really bought into serious tree removal yet. It seems like the UK is lagging 10 years behind the US. I suspect Addington will be a very serious eye opener about what can be achieved when trees are properly tackled.

Ciao

Sean, no doubt I agree with what you are saying above. But I’m also sure you get my point. Trees can’t be removed on our classic links courses for instance. It shouldn’t be all about trees and an extra 15 yards of fairway.


Let me put it in a less subtle way. In no time in our history, has ranking / rating golf courses been more about aesthetics than it is now. It’s just that with an architecturally knowledgeable panel like Golf Magazine, those influential aesthetics are more to do with the architecture and “cool” looking features of the golf hole rather than the off-site framing of a hole (although there’s some of that as well).

[Adam Lawrence]

If these projects are truly restorative then it could be argued that the 'jumps' are actually returning the courses to their rightful place, from which they have slipped because of a lack of TLC.


I don't necessarily buy into this in all cases, but seeing it in that light, the courses were _out of place_ at 100+ in the world and are now getting back to where they should be if they hadn't been abused.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If these projects are truly restorative then it could be argued that the 'jumps' are actually returning the courses to their rightful place, from which they have slipped because of a lack of TLC.


I don't necessarily buy into this in all cases, but seeing it in that light, the courses were _out of place_ at 100+ in the world and are now getting back to where they should be if they hadn't been abused.

That’s my point, Adam - there ain’t enough space for them all unless we are going to say that all the Golden Age American “designed” courses trumped the links, heath and sand belt courses in the first place…. There are a number of less well known Golden Age classics that are jumping up on the back of modern day restorations. Were they always thought of so highly or is it just that a certain type of course (restored, renovated or new) is the type that gets everyone excited in our current times?


Give us a 20’s course designed by a celebrated Golden Age architect and recently restored / renovated by a modern day darling with a certain aesthetic and you have a guaranteed Top-100 world course? To hell with the soil, land and to a certain extent the course itself?


I am being a little facetious, simplistic and unfair to a lot of very intelligent and discerning modern day critics… but perhaps you see where I’m coming from, even if it is a little cartoonish?


(Another - perhaps more charitable - way of looking at is that maybe the current crop of architect / builders are just way ahead of the Golden Age guys when it comes to detailing, building and landscape architecture).

[Sean_A]

Ally

Sure, some UK courses could be so called restored with 15 yards of fairway added. IMO, to achieve the added width on a large percentage of these courses requires significant tree removal. It seems folks in the UK are much more hesitant to really get after trees like some of the high profile US examples. I am not sure UK memberships have really bought into serious tree removal yet. It seems like the UK is lagging 10 years behind the US. I suspect Addington will be a very serious eye opener about what can be achieved when trees are properly tackled.

Ciao

Sean, no doubt I agree with what you are saying above. But I’m also sure you get my point. Trees can’t be removed on our classic links courses for instance. It shouldn’t be all about trees and an extra 15 yards of fairway.

Let me put it in a less subtle way. In no time in our history, has ranking / rating golf courses been more about aesthetics than it is now. It’s just that with an architecturally knowledgeable panel like Golf Magazine, those aesthetics are more to do with the architecture and “cool” looking features of the golf hole rather than the off-site framing of a hole (although there’s some of that as well).

Sure, I am a member of two links clubs whose fairways are too narrow... and obviously so...for playability and aesthetic reasons. While I appreciate this thread is about top 100, there are relatively few links in GB&I.

I agree, aesthetics have become an increasingly important driving force for rankings. I don't mind this trend that much because I know the things I care about are generally part of the package. Indeed, quite a bit about aesthetics so far as I am concerned is simply a bi product of tree removal, fairway and green expansion. I am often least impressed by bunker work even if it may be an improvement. But I have to keen reminding myself that the cookie cutter style so often employed is more of an issue only because I see the courses. Back in the day I suspect there were many courses with cookie cutter bunkers, only golfers were far less travelled.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

Don,


I think others have noted it, either here or elsewhere, but I would put the big jumps mainly down to the voting system. With a small pool of panellists, if a course even jumps one category (from 76-100 to 50-75) for a handful of raters, that can make a significant difference - especially when they courses are bunched together. Also, as you'll know, with GOLF some courses have rating parameters (since 2021), which in effect throws out any votes for the 'old' version, which may have dragged it down.


I think there are positives with this approach - it means courses (esp those have done work) are likely to be rated on what's there now, vs 30 years ago. And from a £££ perspective, the more big jumps, the bigger the headlines. The downside is that most put too much stock in the difference between 90 and 50, when in reality, both are world class golf courses

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


You are definitely right that people put too much stock in big jumps (as a percentage of 24,000 world wide courses, any jump is miniscule).


But I think trends are relevant, either in the “type” of course that is moving in any given year, or the cumulative movement of a single course over 8-10 years.


Ally

[V_Halyard]

Fair Question
Spent a fair amount of time at Oakland Hills on course and with historians for a documentary so I will add some perspective at least on this one.
Recognition of Oakland Hills goes far deeper than tree removal and bunkering. Scale was much better matched to the land features where the previous version drastically occluded the land effect on gameplay. This version actively undoes decades of active obfuscation. It was necessary to reclaim historical roots.

The result ultimately celebrates and utilizes the enormity of the natural scale. And yes they spent a ton of money with an eye to big events, but that is nothing new. Also, it is fair to say that much of the expense is hydro mechanical, underground, out of sight, focused on managing extreme tournament conditions and has no bearing on the ratings.  Re their investment in their course, they’ve been spending that way since Ross was alive and accellerated after he passed away .

[V_Halyard]

Michael,
Keep in mind I'm acknowledging that the work done is excellent. If I understand your premise, most courses from that era that were once top 100 in the world can recapture that status if they perform the same type of work? is that what you're saying?

Yes, that's in line with my thinking. Take Yale for instance. It fell off the list, but will catapult ahead in coming years after it's restored. Raters are rewarding clubs that undergo big restorations, yes, but I don't think they are rewarding them solely because money is spent. It's about how and why the money is spent. Perhaps Golf Digest's current iteration may reward total money spent a la the rankings places like Shadow Creek, Gozzer Ranch, Alotian, and others enjoy, but thankfully GM doesn't appear to make the same mistake as egregiously.

I think what Don’s getting at is that if all the old ODG courses are restored in this fashion and are worthy of big jumps in to the Top-100, then something else is going to have to give.


For instance, I would expect a list that in the future either knocks out almost all of the “new” courses from TD or C&C….


…Or I would expect a list in the future that effectively tells us that the US Top 100 is the World Top 100 as there’s no room for rest of the world courses that haven’t been renovated in such a fashion.


That latter point alludes a little to the fall of GB&I courses this time round which may be partially due to what Sean refers to above. But - to Sean’s point - I’ll remind him that Golden Age architecture in America (the kind we think is getting restored) was never the same as similar era architecture in the UK (whether on the heathland or the links). Granted, the heaths had less trees and generally wider playing corridors but it was different design. You could “restore” a lot of the UK courses with a few mower widths and not much else. The US courses have a whole aesthetic getting restored / changed back, primarily because their aesthetic has been butchered previously.


Perceptions, perceptions. Flavour of the day, flavour of the panel make-up.

I mentioned on the other thread the GB&I golden age courses didn’t suffer as much gca carnage  as the US.  Given the lists have been fairly US based since inception, Closer to the US=Closer to destructive desires to toughen course to make a “Top100 Hardest” list.

The gca crime scenes and rescues are more prolific, dramatic, and numerous in the US. Thankfully the “Top 100 Hardest” era has ended but the mags, lists and panels remain stocked with an abundance of US things.

And remember travel sucked, the GB&I closed while the US Binged on golf.
You will see this list continue to improve and push onto more globally representative ground. 

[Jaeger Kovich]

Fair Question
Spent a fair amount of time at Oakland Hills on course and with historians for a documentary so I will add some perspective at least on this one.
Recognition of Oakland Hills goes far deeper than tree removal and bunkering. Scale was much better matched to the land features where the previous version drastically occluded the land effect on gameplay. This version actively undoes decades of active obfuscation. It was necessary to reclaim historical roots.

The result ultimately celebrates and utilizes the enormity of the natural scale. And yes they spent a ton of money with an eye to big events, but that is nothing new. Also, it is fair to say that much of the expense is hydro mechanical, underground, out of sight, focused on managing extreme tournament conditions and has no bearing on the ratings.  Re their investment in their course, they’ve been spending that way since Ross was alive and accellerated after he passed away .

Scale is not what makes Oakland Hills great... It's the best/second best set of greens that Ross built that makes it greater than his other works. And that generally is what justifies its high ranking to me... Not sure I'd say that Balty Lower's greens are in Tilly's top 5, so thats the one big jump that has me scratching my head. Maybe its that new car smell that the raters like so much!

[Tommy Williamsen]

Fair Question
Spent a fair amount of time at Oakland Hills on course and with historians for a documentary so I will add some perspective at least on this one.
Recognition of Oakland Hills goes far deeper than tree removal and bunkering. Scale was much better matched to the land features where the previous version drastically occluded the land effect on gameplay. This version actively undoes decades of active obfuscation. It was necessary to reclaim historical roots.

The result ultimately celebrates and utilizes the enormity of the natural scale. And yes they spent a ton of money with an eye to big events, but that is nothing new. Also, it is fair to say that much of the expense is hydro mechanical, underground, out of sight, focused on managing extreme tournament conditions and has no bearing on the ratings.  Re their investment in their course, they’ve been spending that way since Ross was alive and accellerated after he passed away .

Scale is not what makes Oakland Hills great... It's the best/second best set of greens that Ross built that makes it greater than his other works. And that generally is what justifies its high ranking to me... Not sure I'd say that Balty Lower's greens are in Tilly's top 5, so thats the one big jump that has me scratching my head. Maybe its that new car smell that the raters like so much!

I'd also argue that OH has great terrain and the routing uses it brilliantly. The middle holes at BL are on some flatish land. The greens at OH are definitely some of Ross' best. They can make you look silly. The greens are BL are excellent but not quite in the same league as WFW. Balt Upper, Five Farms, or even Somerset Hills.

[Michael Chadwick]

Let me put it in a less subtle way. In no time in our history, has ranking / rating golf courses been more about aesthetics than it is now. It’s just that with an architecturally knowledgeable panel like Golf Magazine, those influential aesthetics are more to do with the architecture and “cool” looking features of the golf hole rather than the off-site framing of a hole (although there’s some of that as well).

Ally, your primary criticism to me seems structural, not aesthetic. That because Golf Magazine's panel is 75% or so American, the World 100 list unduly reflects a similar disproportionality. I would agree with you on that point. At the same time I recognize the business reasons for a magazine to publish a World list, but that isn't to say it's going to be fairly representative of the world. What I'd like, especially with a US based magazine such as GM, is to do rankings similar to a President's Cup: US only, then a separate World list comprised of everything but US courses. Digest has begun doing this, though I'm not sure if they've given up on creating a composite world list.


I disagree, however, about your point on aesthetics. Rankings have always been concerned about aesthetics. It's the combinative factors that go into defining aesthetics that change decade to decade, if not list to list. I for one very much appreciate what Ran's trying to accomplish, with the leadership of his panel, by honing in on a working definition of aesthetic value predicated not by the hue of turf and water features but on strategy, playability, width and angles, short grass, and so forth.

[Kalen Braley]

Same person.  Different presentations. I can see having a vastly different feeling/opinion here:

[V_Halyard]

Fair Question
Spent a fair amount of time at Oakland Hills on course and with historians for a documentary so I will add some perspective at least on this one.
Recognition of Oakland Hills goes far deeper than tree removal and bunkering. Scale was much better matched to the land features where the previous version drastically occluded the land effect on gameplay. This version actively undoes decades of active obfuscation. It was necessary to reclaim historical roots.

The result ultimately celebrates and utilizes the enormity of the natural scale. And yes they spent a ton of money with an eye to big events, but that is nothing new. Also, it is fair to say that much of the expense is hydro mechanical, underground, out of sight, focused on managing extreme tournament conditions and has no bearing on the ratings.  Re their investment in their course, they’ve been spending that way since Ross was alive and accellerated after he passed away .

Scale is not what makes Oakland Hills great... It's the best/second best set of greens that Ross built that makes it greater than his other works. And that generally is what justifies its high ranking to me... Not sure I'd say that Balty Lower's greens are in Tilly's top 5, so thats the one big jump that has me scratching my head. Maybe its that new car smell that the raters like so much!

Absolutely great greens, but  playing target golf through trees and ponds had diminished the greatness of the course in its entirety. Great greens alone do not made for a great course.
The reestablishment of scale, reestablished the greatness of Ross’ intent. I’m taking the entire course into consideration, not just greens.