Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

2017 Golf Magazine Top 100


127 replies to this topic

#61 One_Putt_Blunder

One_Putt_Blunder

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,839 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56737
  • Joined: 05/28/2008
  • Location:Scottsdale Az
GolfWRX Likes : 3453

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:47 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

FYI: here is a list put out by a fellow WRX'er on a fantastic Phoenix thread on the Southwest forum (Thanks OnePuttBlunder).


1: Wekopa Saguaro
2: Ak Chin Southern Dunes
3: Troon North Pinnacle
4: Camelback Ambiente
5: Grayhawk Raptor
6: Wekopa Cholla


Subjectively we dont agree perfectly, but I dont think I could knock any of his choices.  In the end he (and what I would love for rankings to be) just thought "what course would I like to play".  
Would it be so hard to have a ranking where locals just list where they want to go play today.  Innately it will factor in all the subjective stuff, price, design, distance, etc. Wishful thinking


Only 1 of my courses overlaps with the Golfweek rankings. I based mine solely on my own opinion of architecture and what I like in a course. I could not care less about how the bag drop guy greats me or if there is triple ply TP in the mens room. I care about golf. I went through the list and said of all the public courses which would I rather play kinda like NFL/NBA Draft style. Also scenic backdrops not heavily rated. Does it help? a little maybe 5% of what I put into it, just enough to possibly be a deciding factor between two equal courses. If Cholla was a little less repetitive design and closer to Raptor I could see moving it ahead of Raptor because I'm not looking at houses most of the round, but raptor to me has more variety in holes and better green complexes so it wins even though Cholla is a much more spectacular backdrop.

Also I generally am not a fan of Troon Golf's over watering and price gouging of locals but I let that be and just ranked courses on their own merit.      

@oneputtblunder
10.5 Aeroburner TP Fujikura Speeder Pro XLR8
14.5 X2 Hot 3 Deep Tour Green
18* X2 Hot Pro Hybrid
RSI TP 4-PW KBS Tour 120
Byron Morgan DH89 Rincon Neck deep mill
Vokey 52/56/60 SM5/TVDK/TVDVgrind DG S300
WITB Link

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#62 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:53 PM

View PostOne_Putt_Blunder, on 12 September 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

FYI: here is a list put out by a fellow WRX'er on a fantastic Phoenix thread on the Southwest forum (Thanks OnePuttBlunder).


1: Wekopa Saguaro
2: Ak Chin Southern Dunes
3: Troon North Pinnacle
4: Camelback Ambiente
5: Grayhawk Raptor
6: Wekopa Cholla


Subjectively we dont agree perfectly, but I dont think I could knock any of his choices.  In the end he (and what I would love for rankings to be) just thought "what course would I like to play".  
Would it be so hard to have a ranking where locals just list where they want to go play today.  Innately it will factor in all the subjective stuff, price, design, distance, etc. Wishful thinking


Only 1 of my courses overlaps with the Golfweek rankings. I based mine solely on my own opinion of architecture and what I like in a course. I could not care less about how the bag drop guy greats me or if there is triple ply TP in the mens room. I care about golf. I went through the list and said of all the public courses which would I rather play kinda like NFL/NBA Draft style. Also scenic backdrops not heavily rated. Does it help? a little maybe 5% of what I put into it, just enough to possibly be a deciding factor between two equal courses. If Cholla was a little less repetitive design and closer to Raptor I could see moving it ahead of Raptor because I'm not looking at houses most of the round, but raptor to me has more variety in holes and better green complexes so it wins even though Cholla is a much more spectacular backdrop.

Also I generally am not a fan of Troon Golf's over watering and price gouging of locals but I let that be and just ranked courses on their own merit.   


But that is what I like about your ranking.  With 300 avid golfers ranking courses this way it would be difficult to get too far off.  It wouldnt look exactly like yours or mine, but I bet it would look better than what we get now from the rankings.

2

#63 One_Putt_Blunder

One_Putt_Blunder

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,839 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56737
  • Joined: 05/28/2008
  • Location:Scottsdale Az
GolfWRX Likes : 3453

Posted 12 September 2017 - 06:21 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 05:53 PM, said:

View PostOne_Putt_Blunder, on 12 September 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

FYI: here is a list put out by a fellow WRX'er on a fantastic Phoenix thread on the Southwest forum (Thanks OnePuttBlunder).


1: Wekopa Saguaro
2: Ak Chin Southern Dunes
3: Troon North Pinnacle
4: Camelback Ambiente
5: Grayhawk Raptor
6: Wekopa Cholla


Subjectively we dont agree perfectly, but I dont think I could knock any of his choices.  In the end he (and what I would love for rankings to be) just thought "what course would I like to play".  
Would it be so hard to have a ranking where locals just list where they want to go play today.  Innately it will factor in all the subjective stuff, price, design, distance, etc. Wishful thinking


Only 1 of my courses overlaps with the Golfweek rankings. I based mine solely on my own opinion of architecture and what I like in a course. I could not care less about how the bag drop guy greats me or if there is triple ply TP in the mens room. I care about golf. I went through the list and said of all the public courses which would I rather play kinda like NFL/NBA Draft style. Also scenic backdrops not heavily rated. Does it help? a little maybe 5% of what I put into it, just enough to possibly be a deciding factor between two equal courses. If Cholla was a little less repetitive design and closer to Raptor I could see moving it ahead of Raptor because I'm not looking at houses most of the round, but raptor to me has more variety in holes and better green complexes so it wins even though Cholla is a much more spectacular backdrop.

Also I generally am not a fan of Troon Golf's over watering and price gouging of locals but I let that be and just ranked courses on their own merit.   


But that is what I like about your ranking.  With 300 avid golfers ranking courses this way it would be difficult to get too far off.  It wouldnt look exactly like yours or mine, but I bet it would look better than what we get now from the rankings.

Funny, starting that thread years ago really changed a lot of my opinions on golf course architecture and how I look at. It really made me look a lot closer at what are the details of why I like a certain course over the other. I started paying a lot more attention to design features like tee shot options, subtle features, use of slope, green complex designs  instead of backdrop and conditions.

A course like Sunridge started off fairly high in my recommendations and now is not even in the top 25
@oneputtblunder
10.5 Aeroburner TP Fujikura Speeder Pro XLR8
14.5 X2 Hot 3 Deep Tour Green
18* X2 Hot Pro Hybrid
RSI TP 4-PW KBS Tour 120
Byron Morgan DH89 Rincon Neck deep mill
Vokey 52/56/60 SM5/TVDK/TVDVgrind DG S300
WITB Link

3

#64 az2au

az2au

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 185434
  • Joined: 06/10/2012
  • Location:Scottsdale, AZ/New York, NY
  • Handicap:3.6
GolfWRX Likes : 448

Posted 12 September 2017 - 06:54 PM

I had a similar experience when I started rating courses as a panelist. I didn't realize how emotional/subjective I had been previously been instead of being truly objective.

4

#65 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 13 September 2017 - 08:59 AM

Ignorance is bliss???  At a certain point isnt objectivity conforming to others held beliefs on what good golf is?  I was, as you two point out contemplating architecture, design, subtle nuances a couple of weeks ago on a trip to Kohler.  Played all the highly rated courses including Erin Hills.  All wonderful courses, but I left without a strong desire to return to the straits course.  I played well there, although it seemd a bit goofy (all the unnatural bunkering, and forced undulations). It had great design.  As both of you suggest above I have tried to untangle what is subjectivity and objectivity in my experience there.  Erin Hills was the opposite.  I didnt play quite as well (not terrible), but I would play that course every day if I had the chance.  Both of you have played more golf than me.  Curious if you have ever left a very highly rated course scratching your head, and from a raters perspective how do you reconcile that?


5

#66 kgeisler13

kgeisler13

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 314595
  • Joined: 05/13/2014
  • Location:Michigan
  • Handicap:6
GolfWRX Likes : 15

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:09 AM

Well I've only played 25 and 15.  The ocean course is overrated besides the fact that you're a stones throw from the water and the front 9 at crystal downs was fantastic but the back nine was just ok
KG

6

#67 az2au

az2au

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 185434
  • Joined: 06/10/2012
  • Location:Scottsdale, AZ/New York, NY
  • Handicap:3.6
GolfWRX Likes : 448

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:57 AM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

Ignorance is bliss???  At a certain point isnt objectivity conforming to others held beliefs on what good golf is?  I was, as you two point out contemplating architecture, design, subtle nuances a couple of weeks ago on a trip to Kohler.  Played all the highly rated courses including Erin Hills.  All wonderful courses, but I left without a strong desire to return to the straits course.  I played well there, although it seemd a bit goofy (all the unnatural bunkering, and forced undulations). It had great design.  As both of you suggest above I have tried to untangle what is subjectivity and objectivity in my experience there.  Erin Hills was the opposite.  I didnt play quite as well (not terrible), but I would play that course every day if I had the chance.  Both of you have played more golf than me.  Curious if you have ever left a very highly rated course scratching your head, and from a raters perspective how do you reconcile that?

The first course that came to mind in answering your question is County Sligo in Ireland. It is highly rated in Ireland and beloved by many raters but I think it is an objectively bad golf course. Not terrible or anything but it is the biggest differential between conventional thinking and what I see that I can come up with.  Ok, maybe it is terrible. I went through the holes in my mind and on a very simple 1-10 scale I'd struggle to give it a 4.

Locally, I think Ambiente is the one I am the outlier on. In that case I do think it is a very good course but there's no way I would rank it in the top 25 in the Valley overall or in the top 10 "you could play" type list. The front 9 I can see but the back 9 is clearly hampered by restrictions in the amount of land that could be used resulting in multiple compromises and somewhat repetitive feel of 12, 14, 16 and 17. Individually I can find any of those holes compelling but when taken as part of a whole course that is where I believe it falls apart. Again, very good golf course. I just don't hold it in nearly the same regard as others do.

7

#68 knock it close

knock it close

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,821 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 101876
  • Joined: 01/13/2010
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta
  • Handicap:+2.4
GolfWRX Likes : 5203

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:01 AM

There's nothing wrong with rating the hole experience, from the bag boys, to the showers, to the snack shack, that's fine just don't say you're ranking the golf course. If you are ranking the course layout, routing, design, and some conditioning should be the only factors. You can't bring in price (value) or accessibility because that is different for every person and skews the rankings. The course should be judged solely on the course itself. But like I said I have no problem ranking the overall experience just don't call it a top 100 golf course list
M2, maybe
915 FD
913 HD
712u 3
714 AP2 4-p
SM5 53, 59
Circa62

8

#69 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 593

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:12 AM

View Postknock it close, on 13 September 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

But like I said I have no problem ranking the overall experience just don't call it a top 100 golf course list

I think this is where Golf Digest does something clever in calling it the 100 Greatest Golf Courses. "Greatness" implies some intangible element beyond the pure sum of the parts.

9

#70 duffer987

duffer987

    Wears trousers.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 201269
  • Joined: 09/03/2012
  • Location:Canadian in Texas
  • Handicap:8.5
GolfWRX Likes : 4479

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:22 AM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

Ignorance is bliss???  At a certain point isnt objectivity conforming to others held beliefs on what good golf is?  I was, as you two point out contemplating architecture, design, subtle nuances a couple of weeks ago on a trip to Kohler.  Played all the highly rated courses including Erin Hills.  All wonderful courses, but I left without a strong desire to return to the straits course.  I played well there, although it seemd a bit goofy (all the unnatural bunkering, and forced undulations). It had great design.  As both of you suggest above I have tried to untangle what is subjectivity and objectivity in my experience there.  Erin Hills was the opposite.  I didnt play quite as well (not terrible), but I would play that course every day if I had the chance.  Both of you have played more golf than me.  Curious if you have ever left a very highly rated course scratching your head, and from a raters perspective how do you reconcile that?

In regards to the tussle between objective and subjective, I don't think it's a matter of 'conforming' but recognizing how things that can be considered objective or subjective compete and help form your own POV :)

For instance, for me a course like Chambers Bay or The Old Course sets up really well off the tee, as I play a fairly reliable draw with my driver, and they both suit my eye to a tee. So wherever a group of golfers rating those two courses may average them out, I may hold them in more esteem because of that subjective bias.
Conversely, someone who really enjoys putting would knock Chambers down some (or maybe a lot) because their greens aren't great and someone who thinks blind shots are 'unfair' is going to hold that against TOC.

It's funny you mention Erin Hills. I just don't see how it's ranked so high. There are a bunch of courses that don't make any national lists (some not even state lists) that I enjoy way more and think are more interesting courses, while being just as 'challenging'. Conversely I look past all the silly sand pockets thrown about the place and have The Straits as one of my favorite courses in North America.

Edited by duffer987, 13 September 2017 - 10:23 AM.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#71 knock it close

knock it close

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,821 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 101876
  • Joined: 01/13/2010
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta
  • Handicap:+2.4
GolfWRX Likes : 5203

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:32 AM

View Postraynorfan1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

View Postknock it close, on 13 September 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

But like I said I have no problem ranking the overall experience just don't call it a top 100 golf course list

I think this is where Golf Digest does something clever in calling it the 100 Greatest Golf Courses. "Greatness" implies some intangible element beyond the pure sum of the parts.
I still think its disingenuous to use "courses" yet grade intangibles
M2, maybe
915 FD
913 HD
712u 3
714 AP2 4-p
SM5 53, 59
Circa62

11

#72 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:38 AM


"It's funny you mention Erin Hills. I just don't see how it's ranked so high. There are a bunch of courses that don't make any national lists (some not even state lists) that I enjoy way more and think are more interesting courses, while being just as 'challenging'. Conversely I look past all the silly sand pockets thrown about the place and have The Straits as one of my favorite courses in North America."



I can see someone feeling this way, totally get it.  That is where I had to step back and think, At WS if I am considering the course through the green I dont have any gripes.  Is my lack of desire to return a result of the contrived nature of the property subjectively rubbing me the wrong way.  I dont have a gripe with the golf.  Conversley is the natural layout at Erin Hills, panoramic views from most tees and greens, subjectively drawing me in?  But as I considered it from a design standpoint and try to be objective, I still have to say that EH>WS.  Shot values,  options, bailouts, and penalties for poor shots all won out to me at EH.


12

#73 dhc1

dhc1

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56198
  • Joined: 05/20/2008
  • Location:NYC
  • Handicap:5.2
GolfWRX Likes : 92

Posted 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM

View Postrdillabo, on 12 September 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

Can anyone comment on why this list is quite different than the Golf Digest list? What list would you value more? I know lists change and things, but I find it interesting that some courses are ranked in totally different spots ie Bethpage Black does not show up on Golf Digest's list, and Kauri Cliffs in New Zealand is not on the Golf.com list. I guess its open for interpretation, but was list represents the Top 100 courses the best?

IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

Guys - we get it; you don't like requiring demanding tee shots and believe that 50 yard fairways are the only way to offer risk/reward. Wedges and putting are the only thing that makes an elite golfer. Also, framing a golf hole visually is a cardinal sin.

Edited by dhc1, 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM.


13

#74 tiderider

tiderider

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 320763
  • Joined: 06/13/2014
  • Location:b'ham
  • Handicap:5ish
GolfWRX Likes : 302

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:07 AM

View Postvallygolf, on 11 September 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

this thread is unreadable

yeah, but where would you rank it?

14

#75 One_Putt_Blunder

One_Putt_Blunder

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,839 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56737
  • Joined: 05/28/2008
  • Location:Scottsdale Az
GolfWRX Likes : 3453

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:21 AM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

  Curious if you have ever left a very highly rated course scratching your head, and from a raters perspective how do you reconcile that?

Locally Quintero for sure not even in my top 25 and it is 1 or 2 on some rankings

I am not as worldly as AZ2AU yet, working on that but I think I did a good job on picking my Scotland Rota and none of the 8 I played I would knock very much if at all. In the US Torrey Pines and Pebble Stick out a little. Torrey Pines South is an OK golf course and it is at 87 hard to get too nit picky over placing or removing when it is down that far on the list. I usually have a very clear golf memory. I can still recall almost ever hole at my round at Spyglass nearly 20 years ago but I have a hard time remembering anything other than the drop shot par 3 at Torrey from 3 years ago. Hard golf course without being penal yes, top example of course architecture not so much. Pebble is a much better golf course than Torrey. I keep looking at pictures of classic Pebble beach esp holes like the 7th and 17th and cant help but think how much a real historical restoration would help. Weather/erosion have played their part in forcing some changes, but also the high volume of play has lead to the shrinkage of many of the green complexes 17th, 14th and 11th are really good examples here 14th redone last year as well as 17 but 17 still a much smaller version than the original 11 is getting to the point where it is closing in on unplayable. It is getting to the stage where a full historical restoration would be a great thing. Some of the changes are ok, the new 5th is much better than the old 5th. Still a very good golf course even some of the inland holes again nit picky but not sure I would put it top 5

7
Posted Image
9 note the sandy areas left of the fairway
Posted Image

17 look how much bigger the green was even after its recent restoration the green is still sliver of the original
Posted Image
the restored 17th
Posted Image

Edited by One_Putt_Blunder, 13 September 2017 - 11:25 AM.

@oneputtblunder
10.5 Aeroburner TP Fujikura Speeder Pro XLR8
14.5 X2 Hot 3 Deep Tour Green
18* X2 Hot Pro Hybrid
RSI TP 4-PW KBS Tour 120
Byron Morgan DH89 Rincon Neck deep mill
Vokey 52/56/60 SM5/TVDK/TVDVgrind DG S300
WITB Link

15

#76 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:22 AM

View Posttiderider, on 13 September 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 11 September 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

this thread is unreadable

yeah, but where would you rank it?


Page 1, objective with lively banter personal anecdote and list of personal courses, but immediatly gets hijacked by visions of past verbal jousts and retalliation.   (2 stars)
Page 2, thread police show up and attempt to get things back on track, an actual course rater shows up with his typical sound logic, crisis averted (5 stars)
Page 3, devolves into personal anecdotes and a realization that personal ratings are subjective and publication ratings are more objective but less relevant, one member opines that he has difficulty being objective. (4 stars)

16

#77 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:29 AM

View PostOne_Putt_Blunder, on 13 September 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

  Curious if you have ever left a very highly rated course scratching your head, and from a raters perspective how do you reconcile that?

Locally Quintero for sure not even in my top 25 and it is 1 or 2 on some rankings

I am not as worldly as AZ2AU yet, working on that but I think I did a good job on picking my Scotland Rota and none of the 8 I played I would knock very much if at all. In the US Torrey Pines and Pebble Stick out a little. Torrey Pines South is an OK golf course and it is at 87 hard to get too nit picky over placing or removing when it is down that far on the list. I usually have a very clear golf memory. I can still recall almost ever hole at my round at Spyglass nearly 20 years ago but I have a hard time remembering anything other than the drop shot par 3 at Torrey from 3 years ago. Hard golf course without being penal yes, top example of course architecture not so much. Pebble is a much better golf course than Torrey. I keep looking at pictures of classic Pebble beach esp holes like the 7th and 17th and cant help but think how much a real historical restoration would help. Weather/erosion have played their part in forcing some changes, but also the high volume of play has lead to the shrinkage of many of the green complexes 17th, 14th and 11th are really good examples here 14th redone last year as well as 17 but 17 still a much smaller version than the original 11 is getting to the point where it is closing in on unplayable. It is getting to the stage where a full historical restoration would be a great thing. Some of the changes are ok, the new 5th is much better than the old 5th. Still a very good golf course even some of the inland holes again nit picky but not sure I would put it top 5

7
Posted Image
9 note the sandy areas left of the fairway
Posted Image

17 look how much bigger the green was even after its recent restoration the green is still sliver of the original
Posted Image
the restored 17th
Posted Image


pebble looked more like cypress back then.  Cool find.

17

#78 duffer987

duffer987

    Wears trousers.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 201269
  • Joined: 09/03/2012
  • Location:Canadian in Texas
  • Handicap:8.5
GolfWRX Likes : 4479

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:09 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

"It's funny you mention Erin Hills. I just don't see how it's ranked so high. There are a bunch of courses that don't make any national lists (some not even state lists) that I enjoy way more and think are more interesting courses, while being just as 'challenging'. Conversely I look past all the silly sand pockets thrown about the place and have The Straits as one of my favorite courses in North America."


I can see someone feeling this way, totally get it.  That is where I had to step back and think, At WS if I am considering the course through the green I dont have any gripes.  Is my lack of desire to return a result of the contrived nature of the property subjectively rubbing me the wrong way.  I dont have a gripe with the golf.  Conversley is the natural layout at Erin Hills, panoramic views from most tees and greens, subjectively drawing me in?  But as I considered it from a design standpoint and try to be objective, I still have to say that EH>WS.  Shot values,  options, bailouts, and penalties for poor shots all won out to me at EH.

I may need to get back to EH, as I have only played it once versus three at The Straits.
But those objective things, if we can call them such, I don't see EH > WS.
For instance, EH has that stretch on the front of one repetitive 400yd +/- 5 yards after the other, with a bunker running perpendicular to the green on each. Sameish tee ball, sameish approach. I think WS offers more options off the tee and uses more clubs in the bag on approaches.
I will concede there are more recovery options at EH, than WS, but then I'd counter that the approach shots are more testing at WS as a result.

Like music, books, tele, quantifying the unquantifiable really is a hiding to nowhere. Why I typically just like to say more fun, enjoyable, interesting, etc...
Regardless we're doing a bang up job of not comforming our 'objective' beliefs to one another ;)
We're all right and wrong.

Edited by duffer987, 13 September 2017 - 12:10 PM.


18

#79 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,428 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1145

Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:


IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

19

#80 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,428 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1145

Posted 13 September 2017 - 05:20 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

View Posttiderider, on 13 September 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 11 September 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

this thread is unreadable

yeah, but where would you rank it?


Page 1, objective with lively banter personal anecdote and list of personal courses, but immediatly gets hijacked by visions of past verbal jousts and retalliation.   (2 stars)
Page 2, thread police show up and attempt to get things back on track, an actual course rater shows up with his typical sound logic, crisis averted (5 stars)
Page 3, devolves into personal anecdotes and a realization that personal ratings are subjective and publication ratings are more objective but less relevant, one member opines that he has difficulty being objective. (4 stars)

Great review!  You should do more of  these.  BTW, did you consider the font, pictures and colors or just use the text when rating these pages? :taunt:


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#81 FairwayFred

FairwayFred

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 149
  • Joined: 04/22/2005
  • Location:Hwy 97, Mile Marker 55
GolfWRX Likes : 918

Posted 13 September 2017 - 05:54 PM

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:


IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

I'm curious how you came to the opinion that their rankings are biased towards Coore/Crenshaw and Doak when according to the lists you posted earlier in the thread you have played none of the Coore/Crenshaw or Doak courses on either list?
9* Callaway GBB Epic w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9° Cobra LTD w/ Kuro Kage XT 70
10.5* Taylor Made Mini Driver Tour w Fujikura Motore Speeder 7.2
10.75* Nike Vapor TW w Aldila Rogue 125 MSI Tour
9.5* Taylor Made M1 440 w Kuro Kage TiNi 60
9* Callaway 816 DBD w Aldila Rogue i/o 60
9* Ping G LS Tech w Project X Handmade
10.5* A Grind Classic 350 w Oban Izawa 60
10.5* Callaway GBB Epic Sub Zero w Aldila Rogue MAX 75
9* Bridgestone Tour B XD7 w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9.5* Mizuno JPX 900 w Ozik TP6HD
9.5* Nike Flex 440 w Kuro Kage XT 60
9.5* Taylor Made Tour Issue M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 3
9.5* Taylor Made 2017 M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 2

FREE AGENT CLUB HO

21

#82 duffer987

duffer987

    Wears trousers.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,252 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 201269
  • Joined: 09/03/2012
  • Location:Canadian in Texas
  • Handicap:8.5
GolfWRX Likes : 4479

Posted 13 September 2017 - 05:59 PM

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

Or that your bias in favour of Nicklaus courses makes you think they have a bias against Nicklaus courses ;)

Edited by duffer987, 13 September 2017 - 05:59 PM.


22

#83 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 13 September 2017 - 06:00 PM

View PostFairwayFred, on 13 September 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

I'm curious how you came to the opinion that their rankings are biased towards Coore/Crenshaw and Doak when according to the lists you posted earlier in the thread you have played none of the Coore/Crenshaw or Doak courses on either list?


Ill speak to this,  Streamsong Blue has no business on any top 100 list.  Conditioned as a links course without any hope to ever play as one, with terrible green complexes.

23

#84 FairwayFred

FairwayFred

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,883 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 149
  • Joined: 04/22/2005
  • Location:Hwy 97, Mile Marker 55
GolfWRX Likes : 918

Posted 13 September 2017 - 06:02 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

View PostFairwayFred, on 13 September 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

I'm curious how you came to the opinion that their rankings are biased towards Coore/Crenshaw and Doak when according to the lists you posted earlier in the thread you have played none of the Coore/Crenshaw or Doak courses on either list?


Ill speak to this,  Streamsong Blue has no business on any top 100 list.  Conditioned as a links course without any hope to ever play as one, with terrible green complexes.

But wouldn't you have to have played there to know that?  (btw I agree with you)
9* Callaway GBB Epic w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9° Cobra LTD w/ Kuro Kage XT 70
10.5* Taylor Made Mini Driver Tour w Fujikura Motore Speeder 7.2
10.75* Nike Vapor TW w Aldila Rogue 125 MSI Tour
9.5* Taylor Made M1 440 w Kuro Kage TiNi 60
9* Callaway 816 DBD w Aldila Rogue i/o 60
9* Ping G LS Tech w Project X Handmade
10.5* A Grind Classic 350 w Oban Izawa 60
10.5* Callaway GBB Epic Sub Zero w Aldila Rogue MAX 75
9* Bridgestone Tour B XD7 w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9.5* Mizuno JPX 900 w Ozik TP6HD
9.5* Nike Flex 440 w Kuro Kage XT 60
9.5* Taylor Made Tour Issue M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 3
9.5* Taylor Made 2017 M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 2

FREE AGENT CLUB HO

24

#85 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 13 September 2017 - 06:50 PM

Risking derailing this thread again.....indeed playing the course would be imperative to making a fully informed decision.


25

#86 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 593

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:42 AM

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:


IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

I think Fazio has four of the 31. If he had just one more would you think the list was biased towards him?

Nicklaus is a better example...

26

#87 az2au

az2au

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,146 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 185434
  • Joined: 06/10/2012
  • Location:Scottsdale, AZ/New York, NY
  • Handicap:3.6
GolfWRX Likes : 448

Posted 14 September 2017 - 08:33 AM

Having played and/or rated a bunch of Nicklaus courses I think the issue is that he is the king of very good, i.e., his courses are almost always at least very good, e.g., the Desert Mountain courses, Desert Highlands, Monte Rei, Mauna Kea, and rarely below that but almost none are great because they tend to run into various problems of repetition or weird design choices. I can't think of a case where those things knock it down to good but in all of the above I get what prevents them from being great.

27

#88 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 593

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:13 AM

View Postaz2au, on 14 September 2017 - 08:33 AM, said:

Having played and/or rated a bunch of Nicklaus courses I think the issue is that he is the king of very good, i.e., his courses are almost always at least very good, e.g., the Desert Mountain courses, Desert Highlands, Monte Rei, Mauna Kea, and rarely below that but almost none are great because they tend to run into various problems of repetition or weird design choices. I can't think of a case where those things knock it down to good but in all of the above I get what prevents them from being great.

I would argue that Nicklaus (and Fazio, to a large degree) were victims of their era. Many of the high profile golf opportunities when they were in their design "prime" (call it 1980 - 2008) were built as an amenity to a major real estate development, where "golf course views" had value to the developer. As a result, I'm not sure that the designers necessarily had their pick of the "best" land to use for the golf course - they needed to built a routing that would accommodate housing (and the infrastructure that comes with it). This "style" of golf course has fallen out of favor, but it was a huge design constraint that these guys had to work around.

If you look local to me, we have (in Plymouth, MA) courses built by Rees Jones (Pinehills), Jack Nicklaus (Pinehills), Brian Silva (Waverly Oaks), Hurdzan/Fry (Crosswinds), and Coore/Crenshaw (Old Sandwich). They are all built on more or less the same topography (all five courses fit inside a circle with a 1.25 mile radius). The Jones and Nicklaus courses are the anchor of a major real estate development, and are "good" public-access courses. The Coore/Crenshaw course, uninhibited by the needs of the condo development, is a Top 100 course.

They had the same fundamental property to work with (Nicklaus and Jones probably actually DID have the Old Sandwich property as a possibility), but the requirement to build housing on it totally changed the nature of what could be done.

28

#89 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 593

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:49 AM

View Postvallygolf, on 13 September 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

View PostFairwayFred, on 13 September 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

View Postdhc1, on 13 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

IMO, Golf Magazine has a definite bias against Tom Fazio courses - which is led by Tom Doak's pretty awful lack of professional courtesy, seconded by Ran Morrissett and Geoff Shackleford.

IMO, they have a bigger bias against Jack Nicklaus courses.

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

I'm curious how you came to the opinion that their rankings are biased towards Coore/Crenshaw and Doak when according to the lists you posted earlier in the thread you have played none of the Coore/Crenshaw or Doak courses on either list?


Ill speak to this,  Streamsong Blue has no business on any top 100 list.  Conditioned as a links course without any hope to ever play as one, with terrible green complexes.

I struggle with this one. I like Streamsong Blue a lot. I think it's a very fun course; but I understand that it's an acquired taste. I played 36 two days in a row there, (Red/Blue one day, Blue/Red the next) with a group of guys, and at the end, it was a good debate about the two courses. My perspective was that the Red was a "better" course, but the Blue was more fun. Which created some soul searching about how the "less fun" course could be "better"...if the point of this is to have fun...

In the end, I think the Blue is perfect for what it is (a resort course catering to rusty northern golfers a few months a year). Its design makes it easy to play well, but challenging to go low. This was super frustrating for the low handicappers in our group. They felt like they weren't rewarded enough for good shots off the tee, because the green complex introduced an "unfair" element of randomness. This same feature, however, kept the higher handicaps "in the game" because even a bad shot off the tee left you with some creative options to salvage the hole. I understand why good golfers really don't like that course very much. But for the rest of us, it's a lot of fun.

Does that make it a Top 100 course? I don't know. Depends on the criteria. Probably not on the Golf Digest set of measures.

29

#90 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 593

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:56 AM

View PostRoadking2003, on 13 September 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

And a bias in favor of courses built before 1950 (69 of the top 100) and Coore/Crenshaw with five of the 31 modern courses and Doak with six of the 31 modern courses.

Isn't it just possible that old courses are better? I'm only being a little tongue-in-cheek here.

Golf courses are not static; all have been renovated/tweaked/restored/evolved over their lifetimes. The "old" courses on the Golf Magazine list benefit from something else: they're full of really enthusiastic golfers who also happen to have really deep pockets. It seems likely to me that an old course with 50-100 years of history playing on it and near-infinite financial resources has better odds of being good than something that has just been put into the ground. Think about how many millions of dollars of capital investment an old country club has put into its course over its 100 year history. Not to mention consultations from the best architects of every era. It's a huge advantage for the aged/experienced venues.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors