[mike_beene]

Are we moving toward a time where 1000 golf courses are of a quality to make a top 100 ranking done in 1960? All subjective, but it seems the quality of top courses is now deep and numerous.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Fazio once stated that there is one course he feels is #1 and he could name 200 more that could be #2.  For sure there are hundreds and hundreds of courses that could be in the “Top 100”.

[Kyle Harris]

Are we moving toward a time where 1000 golf courses are of a quality to make a top 100 ranking done in 1960? All subjective, but it seems the quality of top courses is not deep and numerous.

We’ve been here since around 1925, I’d venture.

[Mike_Young]

Once you get outside of the 4.25 inch cup everything else is opinion and it always will be.  Problem is most can't justify their opinions based on architecture and confuse it with maintenance conditions.  And for most of the golfers out there...good greens make them want to play golf...JMO

[Tom_Doak]

Someone did a book on the top 1000 a few years ago (sponsored by Rolex).  You just wind up with a whole bunch more Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus expensively-maintained, generic designs.


There are certainly more than 1000 courses in the world worth playing.  They are not all equally interesting.

[Thomas Dai]

Forget the top 1,000. Reckon I might quite like the ‘bottom-1,000’. Bet there’s likely to be some fun golf hidden away in that level.
Fun vrs conditioning. Now there’s a topic for a thread.

Atb

[Ira Fishman]

Tom Fazio once stated that there is one course he feels is #1 and he could name 200 more that could be #2.  For sure there are hundreds and hundreds of courses that could be in the “Top 100”.

I do not agree. There are many courses that I would enjoy playing every day. Brora, Golspie, Elie, Kilspindie, Broadmoor East, Southern Pines, Sheep Ranch, Dooks, Century, Knollwood (IL), Hog Neck to name a few. Really good courses, but not Top 100. Top 100 is an artificial construct; rankings are wholly subjective; but that does not mean that there are not courses that are better than others.


Ira

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Fazio once stated that there is one course he feels is #1 and he could name 200 more that could be #2.  For sure there are hundreds and hundreds of courses that could be in the “Top 100”.

I do not agree. There are many courses that I would enjoy playing every day. Brora, Golspie, Elie, Kilspindie, Broadmoor East, Southern Pines, Sheep Ranch, Dooks, Century, Knollwood (IL), Hog Neck to name a few. Really good courses, but not Top 100. Top 100 is an artificial construct; rankings are wholly subjective; but that does not mean that there are not courses that are better than others.


Ira

Well stated!

[Mark_Fine]

Ira
What don’t you agree with?  We all know the “Top 100” is very subjective.


In all the courses I have ever played, I put Pine Valley as #1 even though it is not my own personal favorite.  Design-wise, I have no idea what is #2. 

[Kyle Casella]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.


Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.


Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.


Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.


Table Wine: everything else.

[Adam Lawrence]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.

Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.

Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.

Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.

Table Wine: everything else.

This is just another presentation of the Michelin three star system, a variant of which Sean Arble uses to rate courses. IMO it is by far the best system available, but because it doesn't provide a ranking order, it doesn't get traction among those who just have to argue whether such and such course is number 17 or number 19.

Adam

[Will Spivey]

Tom Fazio once stated that there is one course he feels is #1 and he could name 200 more that could be #2.  For sure there are hundreds and hundreds of courses that could be in the “Top 100”.

As we used to say in business school, "we are one of 25 Top 10 Business Schools!"

[Kalen Braley]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.

Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.

Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.

Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.

Table Wine: everything else.

This is just another presentation of the Michelin three star system, a variant of which Sean Arble uses to rate courses. IMO it is by far the best system available, but because it doesn't provide a ranking order, it doesn't get traction among those who just have to argue whether such and such course is number 17 or number 19.

Adam

Adam,

I'm curious if that is really true.  If the big mags changed up their system where it listed 4 groups say, #1-25 in alphabetical order and called it something like the platinum group, then #26-50 as gold, etc, etc...would people really stop buying them?  And would raters stop pursing them or owners stop trying to be listed in them?

I think it could easily be done, its only a matter if...

[Jim_Coleman]

As we used to say in business school, "we are one of 25 Top 10 Business Schools “


     There’s a guy at my club in the financial game who, it is said, has predicted 10 of the last 2 recessions.

[Tom_Doak]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.


Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.


Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.


Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.


Table Wine: everything else.

If you want to reduce the numbers, that's fine, but you've got the numbers wrong.  I'm pretty sure there are more than 300 courses that got a 7 on the Doak Scale, so that's your Grand Cru cutoff.  And the next level down is probably all 6's, or maybe some 5's if you are feeling generous.


[I can't bring myself to call something "Cru Bourgeois," that's much too snobbish.

[Sean_A]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.

Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.

Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.

Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.

Table Wine: everything else.

This is just another presentation of the Michelin three star system, a variant of which Sean Arble uses to rate courses. IMO it is by far the best system available, but because it doesn't provide a ranking order, it doesn't get traction among those who just have to argue whether such and such course is number 17 or number 19.

Adam

Yes, I rip off Michelin ratings, but it's partially based on worth the effort of time and travel.

3* (only a few so far) = do what it takes to play if the opportunity arises

2* = (still rare) plan a serious trip around this course

1* = worth an overnight stay to play

R = worth a day trip of 5ish hours in the car (roughly equal to the time takes to play and have drinks)

r = good trip filler or if nearby

NR = not worth either the time, effort or cost.

I usually let the reader read between the lines if R, r or NR applies and assign a rating for starred courses.

Ciao

[Matt_Cohn]

Well, what courses were at the end of the top hundred ranking in 1960?

[Paul Jones]

I have many number 1s:


Overall Favorite: Cypress Point
Best Tournament: Shinnecock Hills
Most Difficult: Oakmont
Most Fun: North Berwick
Best Experience: Augusta National, National Golf Links
Best 18 Holes: Pine Valley
Best Resort: Bandon Dunes


Funny how I have no desire to play two of the above again.


Paul

[Michael Felton]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.

Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.

Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.

Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.

Table Wine: everything else.

This is just another presentation of the Michelin three star system, a variant of which Sean Arble uses to rate courses. IMO it is by far the best system available, but because it doesn't provide a ranking order, it doesn't get traction among those who just have to argue whether such and such course is number 17 or number 19.

Adam

Yes, I rip off Michelin ratings, but it's partially based on worth the effort of time and travel.

3* (only a few so far) = do what it takes to play if the opportunity arises

2* = (still rare) plan a serious trip around this course

1* = worth an overnight stay to play

R = worth a day trip of 5ish hours in the car (roughly equal to the time takes to play and have drinks)

r = good trip filler or if nearby

NR = not worth either the time, effort or cost.

I usually let the reader read between the lines if R, r or NR applies and assign a rating for starred courses.

Ciao

Right - but then you take 100 people's list of courses marked exactly like this and you find that there are some courses that are more frequently highly rated than others. Then you compile that list and award some number of points to each course based on how many of your 100 people rated it 3* or 2* or 1* and etc. and then you have a ranking list, which will look pretty similar to the ones that the magazines throw together.


It certainly seems to me that the rankings are a popularity contest. Some courses will appeal to some people more than others, but there will be some that appeal to the most and it seems pretty reasonable to me that those courses are ranked more highly.

[Sean_A]

I heard David Normoyle talk about a classification system once that makes a lot of sense. He compared it to wine classification. I might totally botch this but it's directionally accurate.

Premier Cru: about 30 +/- courses in the world that serve as reference points for architecture. There is certainly some ambiguity here but these are the courses you have to see at least once in your life. I'd think of these as Doak 9s and 10s.

Grand Cru: 300 +/- courses in the world. These are all very good to great golf courses that are architecturally interesting but for various reasons, might not crack the top 30ish. I'd think of these as Doak 7s and 8s and some 6s.

Cru Bourgeois: ~1000 courses in the world (truth be told, I can't remember). Solid and interesting courses worthy of play. I'd think of these as Doak 4s and 5s and some 6s.

Table Wine: everything else.

This is just another presentation of the Michelin three star system, a variant of which Sean Arble uses to rate courses. IMO it is by far the best system available, but because it doesn't provide a ranking order, it doesn't get traction among those who just have to argue whether such and such course is number 17 or number 19.

Adam

Yes, I rip off Michelin ratings, but it's partially based on worth the effort of time and travel.

3* (only a few so far) = do what it takes to play if the opportunity arises

2* = (still rare) plan a serious trip around this course

1* = worth an overnight stay to play

R = worth a day trip of 5ish hours in the car (roughly equal to the time takes to play and have drinks)

r = good trip filler or if nearby

NR = not worth either the time, effort or cost.

I usually let the reader read between the lines if R, r or NR applies and assign a rating for starred courses.

Ciao

Right - but then you take 100 people's list of courses marked exactly like this and you find that there are some courses that are more frequently highly rated than others. Then you compile that list and award some number of points to each course based on how many of your 100 people rated it 3* or 2* or 1* and etc. and then you have a ranking list, which will look pretty similar to the ones that the magazines throw together.


It certainly seems to me that the rankings are a popularity contest. Some courses will appeal to some people more than others, but there will be some that appeal to the most and it seems pretty reasonable to me that those courses are ranked more highly.

A few things to note.

My system produces groupings rather than ordinal rankings.

My system is a way to recommend courses as a wholistic place to visit. Folks should ignore me if their goal is to see the very best courses.

Combining 100 raters using my system would produce a list which misses the point of an individual asssment. It would be a bit different if my goal was to identify the best courses, but that isn't the goal.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()