The Consensus Problem: Classic vs Modern

[Mark_Fine]

Let’s hope GD and GM never decide to publish the correct Top 100 list because we would have nothing to debate about.  Maybe these incorrect lists do serve a valuable purpose after all 

[Ben Sims]

Don,


For many years I’ve had to defend my desire to “understand” golf courses and I’m just over it. I’ve been around too long and care too much to be chastised for wanting to analyze. The point I’m desperately trying to make in these threads is that over time we have gained something between subjective and objective. We’ve batted around these subjects with too much detail and analysis for it all to be wistfully brushed aside as trivial and what really matters is what the individual “likes.” I agree with you that we shouldn’t care what one person thinks is better but I’d also argue we shouldn’t care what person necessarily likes either. I think we should instead try to better drill into the WHAT and WHY. I enjoy what Blister Review does in the outdoor space. They have perfected near unbiased reviews of outdoor gear, primarily snow sports, without the need to rank anything. They are absolute geniuses at comparing and contrasting without assigning merit. We don’t have that in the golf architecture world. But magazine lists provide a decent starting point for us to try.


Kalen,


I see what you’re asking. My subjective opinion is that modern courses are underrepresented in many of the rankings. But I was trying to use objective numbers to show that under representation using the GM Top 100 America list. My opinions *are* crappy. As are many opinions. The lists are important for the reasons I’ve stated (and others I haven’t) and I still think it’s clear, objectively, that modern courses aren’t represented accurately.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben,
Why should I care which courses you think are "better". 
You have me interested if you talk about courses you like. Courses that stir your soul. Those courses that bring you to a different emotional state.
Tell me if you want to go back, or join and why. Better?  There's been 1000s of posts here with this vs that or why this or that. Most of them are just people trying to empirically describe why they like something.  Lets get past that and talk about why we are willing to drop everything on a moments notice and drive 5 hours for the chance to play a course that brings a feeling you don't get anywhere else.
To me, the greats are the ones that suck me in and make me NOT want to analyze what makes them special.

I don’t disagree with this, but only a very few people in the world are in the business of trying to create such places.  And I think that’s part of the problem with this whole discussion — if that is such a small subset of the business, should it be what the rankings and the discussion are about?  It’s really irrelevant even for the vast majority of the new courses being built.


And for those in the minority who do get to work on such projects, how much of it is golf course architecture, and how much is setting or attitude or things that are independent of us?


Everything I think about is what will make a course special, not about what will make it good or great.

[Will Thrasher]

BLUF: Modern courses are getting screwed.


TL;DR: Using Golf Magazine’s Top 100 in the US list (someone please feel free to do this with other lists and across other regions or worldwide), by my count, only 1 of the top 10 were built in the last 40 years. 4 of the top 30. 25 of the top 100.


Were the ODG’s just THAT much better? Or is consensus too hard to break? Or are a lot of those classic courses that are still great precisely because a lot of the new good guys have worked extensively on them?


Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

All rating systems deal with "consensus" bias to a degree, but if trends and history are any indication, the Golden Age has rightly earned its recognition. The Golf Digest ratings from '77 are JARRING! Look at the number of courses ranked above Chicago GC. If anything, I would say recency bias tends to be stronger. Will courses like Old Barnwell (which I haven't played but am fairly sure I would love) age like some of the Dick Wilson and RTJ courses in terms of ranking over time? Only time will tell, but I doubt the trends will ever conclude that the top tanked classics are overrated.

https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg

[MCirba]

The gods gave Prometheus permission to provide humans with "fire" in the form of unlimited earth-moving capabilities, digital measuring techniques and applications, budgets meant to be busted, and virtually free advertising on social media.


In way too many cases sterility, homogenization, and tedium have been the result.

[Mark_Fine]

Will,
Not sure how you can say that 1977 list is JARRING?  No question there are a few courses on there we might beg to differ about but most every one of them are pretty good tracks (only two or three I haven’t seen or played).  Forget the order they are in as that is a impossible task; the fact that they are on the list is really all the matters when you are talking about the top 100 out of literally thousands and thousands of designs. 

[Tom_Doak]

Will:  I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981.  They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill).  It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.

[Will Thrasher]

Will,
Not sure how you can say that 1977 list is JARRING?  No question there are a few courses on there we might beg to differ about but most every one of them are pretty good tracks (only two or three I haven’t seen or played).  Forget the order they are in as that is a impossible task; the fact that they are on the list is really all the matters when you are talking about the top 100 out of literally thousands and thousands of designs.

I see your point, but respectfully I do think the order matters on some level. A world where Firestone South is a top 30 course with many below it that almost everyone on this discussion board would agree should be above it is notable. Disney Palms is another that is hard for me to believe was ever seen as a top 100 as I found it to be relatively unremarkable.


My larger point is simply that I do not think modern courses are getting shafted in the rankings, as historically they tend to be overrated and then fall off over time while the classics have much more staying power. The exceptions to this rule (Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, etc) are already solidly in the top 100.

[Will Thrasher]

Will:  I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981.  They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill).  It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.

Tom, appreciate that context. I confess I wasn't around in '81 so that would be a blind spot for me  . With that being said, I still try to limit how much course conditioning impacts my rating when I see a course. If a course has obviously good bones (or generationally good bones in this case) and is a bit scruffy, it will still beat pristine courses with uninspiring architecture. Of course, there are limits to this.

[Mark_Fine]

Here is the other challenge we are dealing with and there is no right or wrong answer.  I have played Oakmont before and after all the tree removal.  It might be the most dramatic before and after difference out there.  And I have talked to well traveled knowledgeable golfers/critics that are diametrically opposed as to which version is better!!! So when you have personal opinions that are that different, how could we ever agree on what golf courses are “the best”?  It’s all good fun and other than when it was all about trying to match Augusta’s conditioning (we are beyond that now at least GD is) they have been mostly good for the game as they promote dialogue about golf course design.

[Chris Hughes]

Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

All rating systems deal with "consensus" bias to a degree, but if trends and history are any indication, the Golden Age has rightly earned its recognition. The Golf Digest ratings from '77 are JARRING

https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg

WOW!  That's amazing!!


Champions GC jumps out at me....Cypress Creek listed at #22 and Jackrabbit in the top-100.


I looped in the 1993 US Am there.  Justin the defending champ (nice win last week!), was hitting the miniscule 7* Pittsburgh Persimmon with the gold/boron shaft, wear spot the size of a nickel right in the middle of the face.  Notah was there with a Bullseye putting left-breakers righty, and right-breakers lefty (gold loop earring in both ears).  His future Stanford teammate was there and had crowds 20X+++ following him vs. any other player (not an exaggeration) -- he lost to an Englishman named Paul Page in round 2, but won the next 3 US Am's.  We were paired with Miller Barber's step-son, he was a beast.  Brian Gay was there, did any player ever max-out their talent more than him? 🙌 A forty-something guy won the tourney, turns out he was one of the baddest and most under-the-radar great athletes in history, All-American in hockey (NCAA Champion) and golf (Big-10 individual & team Champion). Lumpy was there pining for a matchup with Notah's future teammate, suggesting he was going to show the youngster "what bigtime amateur golf is all about"...     Jay Sigel and Justin (30yrs age difference) sat at the 4-top next to us for dinner at a great Mexcican joint one night.  Mr. Burke was omnipresent -- a man's man that fella was!!
👊

Sorry for the stream of consciousness...  That said, I sure would like to get back down there and fish those lakes!

[Tommy Williamsen]

BLUF: Modern courses are getting screwed.


TL;DR: Using Golf Magazine’s Top 100 in the US list (someone please feel free to do this with other lists and across other regions or worldwide), by my count, only 1 of the top 10 were built in the last 40 years. 4 of the top 30. 25 of the top 100.


Were the ODG’s just THAT much better? Or is consensus too hard to break? Or are a lot of those classic courses that are still great precisely because a lot of the new good guys have worked extensively on them?


Philosophically, it just doesn’t add up to me. I’ll go one further. I think overall that the top modern courses are distinctly better than their classic counterparts.

All rating systems deal with "consensus" bias to a degree, but if trends and history are any indication, the Golden Age has rightly earned its recognition. The Golf Digest ratings from '77 are JARRING! Look at the number of courses ranked above Chicago GC. If anything, I would say recency bias tends to be stronger. Will courses like Old Barnwell (which I haven't played but am fairly sure I would love) age like some of the Dick Wilson and RTJ courses in terms of ranking over time? Only time will tell, but I doubt the trends will ever conclude that the top tanked classics are overrated.

https://golfdigest.sports.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/golfdigest/fullset/2024/americas-100-1977.jpeg.rend.hgtvcom.1280.960.suffix/1720711307695.jpeg

We must remember that the courses are ranked as they were in 1977, not 2025. I dare say the Chicago Golf was not the course that it is today.

[Ira Fishman]

Will:  I played Chicago golf Club for the first time in the spring of 1981.  They had shaggy bluegrass fairways with only quick couplers for fairway irrigation - because they only had 105 members and they couldn’t afford to keep up with Medinah (or even Cog Hill).  It’s surprising to me it was in the GOLF DIGEST list at all, apart from history.

I may have skimmed the list too quickly, but I think Chicago GC is the only MacDonald or Raynor course on the list.

[Tags:]

Tags: