Consensus in Rankings

[Paul Jones]

Following up on Tom's post Consensus vs Groupthink... I thought I would start a thread where people can voice their consensus in golf course rankings.


I will go first...


I do not like Oakmont.  It is too hard, no strategy off the tee since most holes have trouble on both sides (quite a few equal distance), greens are too fast and the disjoined walked across the highway.  I have played it twice and enjoyed hanging out and learning about the history in the clubhouse more than I did getting my nuts kicked on the golf course.

[Michael Morandi]

Oakmont is hard but does it reward good shots?  I think it does, though I only played it twice. One of those times I couldn’t get a 30 foot putt anywhere near the hole, often hitting it 8 feet by.  In frustration, I asked my caddy to give it a go. He putted to 6 inches.  I guess it comes down to experience and adaptability. Not sure I’d want it as a regular diet, nor would I want Shinny, Chicago or PV. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t great and enjoyable with the right perspective.

[Sean_A]

Following up on Tom's post Consensus vs Groupthink... I thought I would start a thread where people can voice their consensus in golf course rankings.


I will go first...


I do not like Oakmont.  It is too hard, no strategy off the tee since most holes have trouble on both sides (quite a few equal distance), greens are too fast and the disjoined walked across the highway.  I have played it twice and enjoyed hanging out and learning about the history in the clubhouse more than I did getting my nuts kicked on the golf course.

I used to think the same about Oakland Hills, but my feelings about the course tee to green never reconciled with the outstanding greens. In any case, I think there is a place for these tough as old boots courses which still manage to squeeze out a smile or two from the non believers. It’s probably down to locality, but I would like to see the new Oakland Hills whereas Oakmont doesn’t excite me. A trip to western PA is not strong pull for me.

Ciao

[Paul Jones]

I do not want this thread to be a discussion about Oakmont, but a place people can post courses they like (that most do not) or vice versa.

[MCirba]

With all respect to my friend Paul Jones, any course where I can stand on the 8th tee at +1, having missed a 4-foot birdie putt on #6, is not too tough.   


The wind picked up and I managed to finish par, par, bogey, for an 80 that left me joyful.  I had only one 3-putt and one of the best ball-striking rounds of my life but there isn't a hole out there I'd say is unfair or even drastic although a few like #3 are audacious which I loved.


I did mention a few courses on the other thread that I think are way overrated (Muirfield Village perhaps the poster child) and a few underrated so hopefully now that I've balanced out Paul's blasphemy  we can move on to losing access at some other courses. 

[Adam Lawrence]

With all respect to my friend Paul Jones, any course where I can stand on the 8th tee at +1, having missed a 4-foot birdie putt on #6, is not too tough.   

The wind picked up and I managed to finish par, par, bogey, for an 80 that left me joyful.  I had only one 3-putt and one of the best ball-striking rounds of my life but there isn't a hole out there I'd say is unfair or even drastic although a few like #3 are audacious which I loved.

I did mention a few courses on the other thread that I think are way overrated (Muirfield Village perhaps the poster child) and a few underrated so hopefully now that I've balanced out Paul's blasphemy  we can move on to losing access at some other courses.

Not to pick on you Mike, but the interesting part of Paul's post is not the question of whether or not Oakmont is too difficult, which depends entirely on the individual golfer, the tees he chooses, the condition of the course and of his game on the day, which side he got out of bed, etc, etc, but his comment that it doesn't have strategy because it is so heavily bunkered.

I haven't seen Oakmont except on telly, so I have no dog in the fight, but it appears to me there are a number of possibilities.

1. Paul is wrong and Oakmont does have strategy, in which case I would be interested to hear from those who love it in what ways iit is manifested.

2. Paul is right, and Oakmont is purely penal, with no strategy, and this makes it less of a golf course than it is commonly ranked.

3. Paul is half right and Oakmont is purely penal, but this doesn't matter because its terrain, greens, routing etc, are good enough still to make it a great golf course, albeit an outlier given the prevailing belief that strategy is what makes courses great.

4. We should all deregister from gca.com and go eat donuts.

Adam

[Mark Pearce]

In the spirit of the thread, I'll give you one of each:


Kingsbarns - it's OK but there's a load of eye candy and not much strategy and it has clearly been designed to flatter visiting golfers.  I played OK but not particularly well and was one over at the turn.  I'm sure that makes some people very happy but it's not what I want from a golf course.  In terms of golfing bang for bucks, I think I actually prefer Gil Hanse's Craighead course at Crail, just down the road, which a visitor can play three and a bit times for the price of a Kingsbarns green fee.


Craigielaw - I've been called out on this on a WhatsApp by Whitty, but the consensus seems to be that this is a faux links abomination.  I've played it several times and have always enjoyed it.  It may not be great.  It may not be a genuine links.  It's a reasonably enjoyable place to play.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I wonder if anyone has offered for golf the service Real Clear Politics offers - they don’t do any polling; they “poll the polls” and produce the definitive and often cited poll average.
   I guess there aren’t nearly the number of golf course rankings as there are political polls. But a quality algorithm and AI might make it doable and interesting..

[Ben Sims]

I do not personally align with the consensus on Pine Valley. I only played it once. But I remember then and I still think now that it’s clearly *in* the pack and not ahead of it. I can name ten courses that sit alongside of it and perhaps another 5 or so that I think are clearly better courses. The idea that it has no peer never really clicked with me. At the time I felt like its tee shots were disproportionately penal vs the greatness of the greens. The speed of the greens felt excessive for existing slope. The routing wasn’t as elegant as I’d been led to believe. None of that qualifies as something bad. It’s just another course that’s one of the best that has a flaw or three.


On the reverse side, I don’t understand how Bandon Trails AND Old Macdonald are so universally underrated. At any other resort either could be the star attraction. I think I personally would rate both just a bare smidgen below Pac Dunes. Which easily puts them among the best 12-15 or so courses I’ve ever seen. To me they are clearly 9’s with a punchers chance at being a 10.

[Joe Zucker]

Two Doak courses always come to my mind on this topic.  On the high end, I always find Pac Dunes to be "overrated".  I think it's a tough course and I just have more fun on Bandon Dunes, Trails, Old Mac.  On the other side, St. Andrew's Beach is phenomenal.  I honestly don't see a ton of daylight between the highly ranked Doak courses (Pac Dunes and Ballyneal) and St. Andrews Beach. It has the rugged and natural feel of Ballyneal, as well as a plethora of great holes and shots.

[Andrew Harvie]

Oakmont is an interesting case for me. In contrast to, say, Cypress Point or Shinnecock, which truly feel like someone's magnum opus where everything is firing on all cylinders, there's a whiff of amateur-ism in it? By no means is that a bad thing (in fact I'd say it produces some of the most captivating moments). But there's a variety of bunker styles (church pews, grass down, small, pot bunker-esque vs massive sandy areas), the greens uniquely lack cohesion (but are full of interest) and they're big and spacious on-grade like the 8th or the 7th with its perched back pad a la Donald Ross, and the routing is somewhat rudimentary in contrast to something else in the top 10-20 in the US. To me, it really feels like an amateur throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks (which is exactly what was happening)—it just happens to be a really awesome golf course, so it's safe to assume that a bunch of stuff did stick.


With that said, I don't quite see it as the 5th best golf course in the United States, per the consensus of Golf Magazine/Top 100/Golf Digest. I'd take LACC or Pinehurst over it, and Merion is comfortably a better golf course in my eyes. I do think some of the criticisms in OP are fair, but there's not 15 (12?) golf courses in America better in my eyes and it really is cherry picking one of the world's best.


To answer OP's question though (and to avoid this being an Oakmont thread), Bethpage Black is what jumps out immediately, because nearly every ranking that comes out I'm shocked to see it as high as it is. The routing is good and from a tee-to-green perspective it is also great, but there's just too much wrong with it for it to be a top 30-50 golf course in America. On nearly every tee shot, the ideal line over the bunkers is just pure rough, and the greens are as flat as advertised. I get that they can't be so severe given the extreme nature of Bethpage's layout, but some interest—any interest—would be an improvement. On the other end of the spectrum, I'm not a Mammoth Dunes guy at all—to me, it's superfluous and lacking any true substance. I found that the choices off the tee were either a: set up a clear visual, or b: semi-obstructed visual into a catchers mitt contour, so I didn't really get much out of it. I much prefer Gamble Sands of that similar genre, there's a bit more strategy and drama IMO.


To make it an even 2 & 2 public/private, I really enjoyed Yeamans Hall but I never quite understood the World Top 100 placement. The green complexes are very good and the club is exceptional, but there are better inclusions for such an exclusive list.

[Ira Fishman]

Joe,


I agree completely re St Andrews Beach. It did not strike me as an easy site to route given the land/elevation changes, and the quality and variety of the holes is striking.


There is some recency bias here because our trip was only last month, but Royal Melbourne East is underrated. I thought it every bit as good as West which may also mean that West is a tad overrated.


Re the other Doak courses you mention, I think Ballyneal is the best one I have played followed just by a nose by Cape Kidnappers. I have played Pac Dunes three times and think that there are a high number of great holes, but for some reason the whole seemed less than the sum of its parts. I did not find it too difficult though. SS Blue also is in the underrated category—12-18 is a brilliant stretch in particular.

I disagree re Bandon Dunes—if it were not on the ocean, it would be lower in the rankings. But I agree re how good Bandon Trails is and that it sometimes is undervalued.

Ira

[Tim Martin]

I disagree re Bandon Dunes—if it were not on the ocean, it would be lower in the rankings. But I agree re how good Bandon Trails is and that it sometimes is undervalued.

Ira

Ira-Do you think Trails is undervalued because it is not on the water?

[Ira Fishman]

I disagree re Bandon Dunes—if it were not on the ocean, it would be lower in the rankings. But I agree re how good Bandon Trails is and that it sometimes is undervalued.

Ira

Ira-Do you think Trails is undervalued because it is not on the water?

Tim, in part yes, and in part because Pac Dunes is the consensus number 1 at the resort, there is less room for Trails.

[Ben Sims]

I disagree re Bandon Dunes—if it were not on the ocean, it would be lower in the rankings. But I agree re how good Bandon Trails is and that it sometimes is undervalued.

Ira

Ira-Do you think Trails is undervalued because it is not on the water?

I think Trails is undervalued mostly because Pac Dunes is up the block. And yeah, the ocean thing.


At some point we need to give Pac Dunes her flowers for being as important to what’s happened the last 30 years as Sand Hills has been.

[Andrew Harvie]

I disagree re Bandon Dunes—if it were not on the ocean, it would be lower in the rankings. But I agree re how good Bandon Trails is and that it sometimes is undervalued.

Ira

Ira-Do you think Trails is undervalued because it is not on the water?

I think Trails is undervalued mostly because Pac Dunes is up the block. And yeah, the ocean thing.


At some point we need to give Pac Dunes her flowers for being as important to what’s happened the last 30 years as Sand Hills has been.

I'd argue that we would not be in the current golf architecture climate we find ourselves in without Pacific Dunes. Sand Hills is private, whereas Pacific is public and the second at the resort—so it became more than a curiosity, to quote Mr. Keiser. That can't be undervalued in the history books and we needed both to shift the tide.

[Ira Fishman]

I have only a slightly different take on the importance of Pac Dunes. It propelled T Doak into the first rank which led to him getting to work on some great sites where he worked some magic as discussed above.


Re other posits for the thread:


I know it is sacrilege but Ballybunion Old and Royal Dornoch are overrated. There was a very good thread about RD not too long ago so I won’t repeat the arguments on either side. Re Ballybunion Old, 1-5 and 16-18 underwhelmed from an architecture standpoint which balances out the excellent use of the topography in between.


Mark Pearce captures it well re Kingsbarns. The same critique holds true for Castle Stuart.


One I struggle with is Cruden Bay. A special place, but 10-12 and 17-18 deflated. Perhaps playing Fraserburgh (underrated) and Royal Aberdeen (underappreciated) right after CB colors my lack of unbridled enthusiasm for CB.


One category I suggest thinking about is courses that probably are properly rated, but deserve more attention that they may not get because they are highly rated but not underrated. St. George’s Hill and Somerset Hills come to mind as do Gleneagles Kings and Queens.

[Sean_A]

I have only a slightly different take on the importance of Pac Dunes. It propelled T Doak into the first rank which led to him getting to work on some great sites where he worked some magic as discussed above.


Re other posits for the thread:


I know it is sacrilege but Ballybunion Old and Royal Dornoch are overrated. There was a very good thread about RD not too long ago so I won’t repeat the arguments on either side. Re Ballybunion Old, 1-5 and 16-18 underwhelmed from an architecture standpoint which balances out the excellent use of the topography in between.


Mark Pearce captures it well re Kingsbarns. The same critique holds true for Castle Stuart.


One I struggle with is Cruden Bay. A special place, but 10-12 and 17-18 deflated. Perhaps playing Fraserburgh (underrated) and Royal Aberdeen (underappreciated) right after CB colors my lack of unbridled enthusiasm for CB.


One category I suggest thinking about is courses that probably are properly rated, but deserve more attention that they may not get because they are highly rated but not underrated. St. George’s Hill and Somerset Hills come to mind as do Gleneagles Kings and Queens.

I am surprised you cite 1-5 and 17-18 at Ballybunion as reasons to cut it to size. I too think Bally bunion is a bit over rated, but not because most of these holes. I like the opener. 2 is very good, if very difficult. But the main hole I take issue with is the third…a great long par 3. Maybe the least heralded great home in Ireland. 17 and 18 are fine holes as well.

As much as I like Fraserburgh, I don’t think it’s in the class of CB. To site 11 and 17 at CB as issues is completely bewildering to me.

That said, I strongly disagree with your takes on Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart as well so we probably are looking for things in architecture.

Ciao

[cary lichtenstein]

Isn't the real point of all this, is that "there is no consensus", beauty is in the eye of the the individual person and each is entilted to their own opinion.


Pine Valley is my all time favorite and Oakmont was just too penal for me. Why anyone would want a constant diet of that is beyond me, but that does not make me right, its just my own opinion.


Pebble is great and depending on conditions, you can score. Torrey Pines on TV this weekend will kill you if you hit it in the rough, us morals are too weak.

[John Kavanaugh]

When Trails opened it was the best. Then they “fixed” the 14th because an influential golfer cried, and shuttled everyone up the hill because one dude died. You can’t survive at the top when you compromise.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I love Oakmont, it's one of my favorite courses.   You can't "fake it" around Oakmont.   It exposes your weaknesses and demands well executed golf shots.   It's particularly demanding with your approach shots into the greens as they must not only be played to the proper sections but also with the proper spin.   Irons that aren't well struck will rarely hold those greens.   It's certainly demanding but so rewarding when you do play well there.   Oakmont makes you want to become a better player.

[Mark Pearce]

One I struggle with is Cruden Bay. A special place, but 10-12 and 17-18 deflated. Perhaps playing Fraserburgh (underrated) and Royal Aberdeen (underappreciated) right after CB colors my lack of unbridled enthusiasm for CB.

Cruden Bay 2-8 is one of the greatest string of holes in golf.  But the back 9 is really not strong.  Plenty of quirk but there are better (probably less extreme) versions of 14 to be found and 16 is just a bad golf hole.  I don't find anything wrong with 17 and 18 but nor are they particularly good holes.  It's a great place and those holes on the front 9 are magical but like you I think it's over-rated. It's clearly not in the same class as Royal Aberdeen.

[Tommy Williamsen]

If this little exercise demonstrates anything, agreement is almost impossible. If we can’t agree on Oakmont, Ballybunion, Dornoch, et al, then the similarities of the various magazine rankings are nothing short of amazing.[/font]

[Simon Barrington]

If this little exercise demonstrates anything, agreement is almost impossible. If we can’t agree on Oakmont, Ballybunion, Dornoch, et al, then the similarities of the various magazine rankings are nothing short of amazing.

One person's (especially a knowledgable and/or opinionated one) "Groupthink" is merely a ranking system's averaging of multiple ranking scores from a larger group of participants. Statistically that coalesces around the mean average of many raters. It is by definition the centre of agreement (i.e. consensus, or the thinking of a group!)...


I'd be interested not just in the mean average score (i.e. eventual ranking) of the courses, but also in those that had the widest disparity in scores (the "Marmite" courses as it we might term them over here) that is where the debate should occur...and would be most interesting.

[Kyle Harris]

I think the term "Dark Ages" was a rhetorical device to have critics draw a line in the sand to explain what was happening in the early 90s with golf architecture.

It is certainly no fault of the golf architects that Post-WW2 golf was largely driven by consumer-minded clients who had to manage budgets in a post-war economic situation. Even the so-called Golden Age courses weren't immune to the economic drivers.

Did the rankings, early on, reflect this?

Why would someone rank a golf course that was renovated by a Dick Wilson or Robert Trent Jones, Sr. for (reasons) ahead of their original work?

[Tags:]

Tags: