The Tradition top 100

[Jeff_Lewis]

Again, my apologies if I inputted anything wrong, but here is the order of the GD 100 purely on Tradition. I put the Tradition-less list on the Pine Valley....again thread.

1      Oakmont      
2      Merion      
3      Country Club      
4      Oakland Hills      
5      Pebble      
6      Augusta      
7      Inverness      
8      Baltusrol      
9      Cherry Hills      
10      WFW      
11      Pinehurst      
12      Riviera      
13      Cypress      
14      Oak Hill      
15      Southern Hills      
16      Olympic      
17      Olympia Fields      
18      Colonial      
19      Medinah      
20      Pine Valley      
21      Canterbury      
22      Garden City      
23      Interlachen      
24      Shinnecock      
25      Scioto      
26      Homestead      
27      Wannamoisett      
28      Chicago      
29      Seminole      
30      Baltimore      
31      LACC      
32      Plainfield      
33      QR      
34      Salem      
35      San Francisco      
36      Aronimink      
37      NGLA      
38      Congressional      
39      Kittansett      
40      Hazeltine      
41      Prairie Dunes      
42      Maidstone      
43      Spyglass      
44      Harbour Town      
45      WFE      
46      Peachtree      
47      Muirfield Village      
48      Point o Woods      
49      Bellerive      
50      Laurel Valley      
51      Somerset      
52      East Lake      
53      Cog Hill      
54      Milwaukee      
55      Dunes      
56      Desert Forest      
57      Crooked Stick      
58      NCR      
59      Butler National      
60      Crystal Downs      
61      Atlanta      
62      Old Warson      
63      Pine Tree      
64      TPC      
65      TGC      
66      Stanwich      
67      Jupiter Hills      
68      Pasatiempo      
69      Bethpage      
70      Camargo      
71      Mauna Kea      
72      Shoal Creek      
73      Fishers      
74      Sahalee      
75      Eugene      
76      Shoreacres      
77      Greenville      
78      Castle Pines      
79      Honors      
80      Long Cove      
81      Grandfather      
82      Valhalla      
83      Blackwolf Run      
84      Forest Highlands      
85      Prince      
86      Shadow Creek      
87      Black Diamond      
88      Ocean Forest      
89      Wade Hampton      
90      Sycamore Hills      
91      Double Eagle      
92      Sand Hills      
93      Ocean      
94      Estancia      
95      Quarry      
96      Whistling Straits      
97      Victoria      
98      Bandon      
99      Rich Harvest      
100      Pac Dunes      

[Mike_Cirba]

Why of course any true student of the game's history can tell you that Stanwich is more traditional than Pasatiempo, Jeff.

Ditto for Old Warson over Bethpage and Fisher's Island.

Must be the word "Old" in the name that threw 'em.    

[THuckaby2]

Mike - if I didn't love you, I'd hate you.  

Please everyone go read the definitions and how this is compiled.  It really isn't that ridiculous as you guys think....

In the case of Pasa, Mike, it's a very tough walk.  That alone would be enough to put it below some others, although it has wonderful ambiance and a decent tournament history.

Argue the worth of these definitions - that is a good argument and people will treat it many ways.  But nit-picking the results is silly.

TH

[Jeff_Lewis]

Tom, I recognize the nit-picky aspect here, but you can't argue with the dramatic impact that this one apparently highly subjective category has on the overall rankings.  

Again, to credit Digest, several years ago I wrote a letter to the editor after the rankings came out and pointed out this very issue and they printed it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Don't even get me started on Canterbury BURYING Shinnecock, Chicago, Seminole, San Francisco, NGLA, Maidstone, Prairie Dunes, and a host of others in this category.    

I love you too, Tom, but sheesh oh man...some things gotta be able to stand up to a reasonability test, even a tongue in cheek, ass-bustin' one!

Hey, I'm not holding you responsible for these lists any more than you hold me responsible for mine.  If I had my way, you'd get 50 votes for every one of the other low-handicap people contributing to these rankings!  

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:  sure, it might differ dramatically with how YOU or anyone else would do this... it differs with how I would assess these points also, as I say... but one way or the other, the results aren't outrageous or anything... it's just another opinion from another group of people.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Mike - I appreciate the sentiment most definitely!

I just find a lot less "wrong" here than you do, maybe because of my inherent BIAS (love to use that word), maybe because I'm damn familiar with the definitions.  For example, I've never been to Canterbury, but I do know it has a pretty rich tournament history, more so than most of the others you find it outrageously over... and given walkability also factors into this, and ambiance (as that is defined)... well... I don't find any of this outrageous or unreasonable at all... Canterbury could rule the world in ambiance (as defined)...

If you find this outrageous or unreasonable, that's cool I guess.  Just do remember all the factors involved in how it's computed.

TH

[John_Conley]

Tom:

I think Jeff's point is that it doesn't make any sense that this is even a criterion, let alone one that has such a dramatic result on the final outcome.

Is The Country Club a better course because it hosted a U.S. Open and Ryder Cup?  Or did it host a Ryder Cup and U.S. Open because it is a great course?  The result is somewhat self-fulfilling.

Looking at the numbers, why does Bandon Dunes score higher than Pacific Dunes?  Why does the Ocean Course score higher than Ocean Forest?  Because it is older?  If so, why should that matter?  

Ocean Forest hosted a recent Walker Cup and the Prince Course hasn't hosted jack.  Why does Stanwich have as much tradition as the TPC?  Why does Sycamore Hills have any?

How do you improve your tradition points?

Garden City has hosted 4 Ams and an Open.  Were any in the 20th Century?  Should a club where you don't have to wear a shirt be eligible for any tradition points, let alone more than all but 21 courses in the nation?

Strip out tradition and the data is actually very good.

[THuckaby2]

John:

Now THAT is the proper argument here, well stated.  I don't think that's at all what Jeff's point was, but he can say himself if so.  That's most definitely what I felt could be and should be argued here.

And I disagree with you, I do think it matters.  I also do think TCC is a greater course because of the historic things that happened there and not vice versa... and I also think that if I ever played there, it would matter a LOT what occurred before me, as I'd quite enjoy comparing to what Ouimet, Leonard, all the rest did there.  I've argued this before here.

I can also see how very reasonably those who say architecture is all that matters would argue strenuously against my take here.  To each his own, we can both be "right" about this, and it comes down to fundamentally what one wants out of golf and a golf course.

Strip out tradition and the data is good - TO YOU.  Hey, I like the way the list comes out that way a bit better also.

BUT... I can also see how very reasonable people can come up with how it goes with tradition points added... and given that I do believe it matters, I for sure am not gonna quibble with how the results the editors arrived at.  Different opinions + multiple factors guarantees results not everyone agrees with.

TH

[Jeff_Lewis]

I think the ambiance or tradition criteria helps define the best "experience", but the list says best "course". Also, I really believe that courses of great ambiance already get credit from players for that implicitly. Having a separate category results in double counting in a way, yes?

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:

That's a darn good point re double counting.  Maybe this occurs, maybe not.  In any case it SHOULDN'T happen, as one should give assessments of the specific criteria independently... it's human nature though to be awed, so perhaps a bit of this does occur.

Re "course" v. "experience", well now there's the fundamental issue here which trumps all the rest.  Somehow the term "golf experience" is said with a snarl on this site, as if somehow it's a bad thing... I've argued many times on here that one doesn't not play with his heart or eyes closed, so golf experience is really what SHOULD be assessed in these rankings.  To me, what one experiences at a golf course defines the course....

But if we are to split hairs here then, would you say GW's lists should be defined as the best "golf course architecture"?

To me, that and a golf course are really two different things.

And I absolutely realize I am among a tiny minority of participants on this site in holding this view.  I also believe I am part of an equally huge majority of all "golfers" in this viewpoint, however.

TH

[Brad Klein]

John Conley,

regarding Garden City Golf Club, the locker rooom surely  merits valuable "tradition points." Plus, how can you not give a bonus for a course where jacket and tie are mandatory but not a shirt?

[Jeff_Lewis]

Brad Klein,

At least we know that GD isn't cooking the books. They give out a heck of a lot of back-up data.

[John_Conley]

John:

Now THAT is the proper argument here, well stated....

I can also see how very reasonably those who say architecture is all that matters would argue strenuously against my take here.  To each his own, we can both be "right" about this, and it comes down to fundamentally what one wants out of golf and a golf course.

Strip out tradition and the data is good - TO YOU.  Hey, I like the way the list comes out that way a bit better also.

BUT... I can also see how very reasonable people can come up with how it goes with tradition points added... and given that I do believe it matters, I for sure am not gonna quibble with how the results the editors arrived at.  Different opinions + multiple factors guarantees results not everyone agrees with.

TH

Hucks:

Bingo.  That's why I tell people not to bash the list if they don't agree with the criteria.  For me, it really boils down to one criterion.

I like to think I don't need someone telling me a course is great to know that it is.  Isn't that what you do when you make a 7 point kick to the data for something like Interlachen, Cherry Hills, and Baltusrol?

Fact is that you and I could design the world's greatest course tomorrow and it is ineligible from the Top 35.  Does that make any sense to you?  It doesn't to me, which is why I say the data is actually quite good if you strip away Tradition.

I have yet to hear an argument that made sense to me for its inclusion.  I have had people tell me that knowing the Tour plays a course or that golf history has been made somewhere (like Ouimet, Bobby Jones' grand slam, or similar) makes it a better experience.  So would a favor from the attendant at the halfway house - let your imagination run, I'm trying to keep it G-rated - but that doesn't make the golf course any better.

[T_MacWood]

It is interesting to note the architectural attribution on Bethpage-Black. Despite the US Open did the course lose tradition points when Tillie was put on the back burner?

[John_Conley]

John Conley,

regarding Garden City Golf Club, the locker rooom surely  merits valuable "tradition points." Plus, how can you not give a bonus for a course where jacket and tie are mandatory but not a shirt?

Brad:

After all, I'm just an idiot.  Anyway, you get my point.  It is hard enough to ascertain which courses are good/great, yet another to ascribe a value to ancillary items.

As you know, I played Interlachen a bunch of times.  As a caddy.  On Mondays.  In the dew because they wouldn't cut the grass.  Without going in the clubhouse.  Changing my shoes in the parking lot.  Racing to finish 36 holes before they kicked us off at 1:00.  Carrying my own bag since all the caddies were playing and I sure couldn't have afforded one of us anyway.  Did I miss out on playing the course?  I think I know every blade of grass.  If a GD panelist had a triple Greyhound and toweled off with a monogrammed towel after the round, did they get more of an experience than I did?

I know you are just poking fun at it, but it really defies logic to this idiot.

- the Idiot.

[THuckaby2]

JC:

Very good stuff, your arguments are both logical and powerful.

And yet, I'll continue to disagree.  A golf experience with a halfway house filled with hookers would be one hell of a thing (assuming I could get over all the Catholic guilt and somehow psychologically not see my wife's face on each one of them  ), but that's not what we're talking about - OBVIOUSLY - and I believe we're all intelligent enough to separate that from things that do enhance the GOLF COURSE.... and things of importance in golf history that have occurred on a course do matter, to me.  They make the course "better" in that they allow for the basic greatest essence of golf - comparison with the greats, if only for a single shot - to occur with greater meaning...

BY way of example, tell me you haven't gone to the back of 17 green at Pebble and at least LOOKED at the spot from where Watson holed out.  Obviously this has nothing to do with the design of that hole, but it sure as hell does have something to do with how one PLAYS it... if one has any sense of history at all, one is always conscious of that spot, if not thinking about the tee 30 yards behind you from where Nicklaus hit the stick with a one-iron in 1972.  This adds a "positive" to Pebble Beach that neighboring Spyglass will never have... and thus taking such into consideration when assessing the two courses just does seem logical to me.

Maybe that's a good example, maybe not. In any case I can absolutely see how reasonable minds would differ on this.  If pure "architecture" is all one care's about, then of course none of this matters.

But that, to me, is a wholly different assessment, as I say...

Yes, this isn't "fair" to new golf courses.  BUT... remember there are six other criteria that have nothing to do with this.  If our course is truly great enough, we'll get to the top quickly, even without any of this "help".  In the meantime, we'll just have to be patient.

BTW, it is a drag that the editors take this on themselves, but I can even understand that.  You and I might not like to be told what's what in this area, but hey, we're aficionados of this and even at that, I admit I don't know the full tournament history or architectural significance of each club... nor do I trust that all the raters do any better than I do, either.  Thus the editors doing this is a necessary compromise, I'd say.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Someone mentioned to me the other day that Golf Digest raters don't have to actually play a golf course to vote on it.

Is this true?

If so, might this explain the amount of votes that a place like, say, ANGC gets?

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I'm relatively new to this as you know, but I have NEVER heard that.  The instructions I've received have always referred specifically to rating after one has played a course.  I obviously can't vouch for every rater that they follow these rules, but I will say with great specificity that at least what I've received is crystal clear in this area.

Just as I'm sure it's very clear how Golf Week treats this.

Remember also that we don't do "votes", we give very specific numerical evaluations to very specific criteria... most of which would be damn hard to do without seeing such in person.

Finally, as I'm sure you realize, there are a lot of GD raters.  it doesn't surprise me at all that a certain number would find their way to Augusta.

TH



TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Thanks for correcting me and setting the record straight.  

I certainly don't want to start any unfounded rumors, and I found it very odd myself that someone would suggest this.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Actually I just remembered.  

It was a rather esteemed member of the Golf Digest rating panel, and he mentioned it here on this DG the other day under my "Pine Valley...Again", thread.

I'm very surprised to hear this, and you seem to be as well.  

[THuckaby2]

Found that, Mike.  Mark Fine said GD raters can walk a course and study it WITHOUT ACTUALLY PLAYING IT and submit a rating.

THis is a different question and my apologies if I misunderstood yours.  My impression is still that one has to actually play, but Mark would likely know way better than I would... I know we are encouraged to play and walk each course we rate, multiple times if possible....

In any case, I thought the question was does one have to see it in person PERIOD... you can see how foreign the idea is of walking a course and not playing it is to me!    And in any case, seeing it in person most definitely is required.

TH

[Paul_Turner]

That list is hilariously bad.  From my experience spending weeks browsing through old magazines and seeing the real "tradition" value of various courses, it's ridiculous to see courses like Pine Valley and National where they are.

I'd shudder to see such a list compiled for the GB&I courses.  I

[Paul_Turner]

Just for fun-a prediciton of how the GB&I course rankings would fare with such a criterion.

That bastion of traditonal British golf, The Belfry, would be in the top 5.

No Irish course in the Top 25.  But perhaps the K club would crack it, after the next, exciting, Ryder Cup.

Courses that ooze "tradition" by any standard like Brancaster, Swinley Forest and Dornoch would languish in the mid-table region.

[ForkaB]

Be careful what you ask for, gentlemen.....

That "Tradition" list IS a hoot (as is the total list, as ususal an exercise in prophecy fulfillment...).

But, what if "tradition" were scrapped?  Lots of the oldies but goodies start slipping down the rankings and the testosterone levels of the great and good at those courses start to rise and the phone calls start going out to Rees Jones and Fazio and god knows what Tommy Naccarato might do next......