New Golfweek Rankings

[Joe Hancock]

Does this constitute "sucking up"?  If so, Gib would be "appauled"!  

Dave,

It has become very obvious to the rest of us, through this Fruedian, subliminal misspelling, that you are suffering from an acute attack of Tompaulitis, which is a malady that causes one to post messages on an internet forum in an attempt to gain respect and honor among his peers. By sheer number of posts, the stricken feels he has influence over the rest of the participants of the discussion forum.

Calling Dr. Katz!

Joe

[THuckaby2]

You tell him, Joe.

Of course you also know the affliction disappears when one reaches 5 figures in posts.

 

[Sean Leary]

Is it me, or does it seem that Fazio doesn't show up on the modern list as much as he does in the Golf Digest or Golf Magazine rankings.  Granted, I think he was on 17 of the top 100, but when the best new courses come out every year with these mags, he seems to dominate.

[Joe Hancock]

Of course you also know the affliction disappears when one reaches 5 figures in posts.

Denial....Yet another symptom......

Joe

[ForkaB]

Joe

Another symptom is when you write words like "appauled"...............

[Joe Hancock]

Rich,

Thus, my direct quote from Mr. Shivas....and my obligatory diagnosis.

Joe

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

The stars must be aligned in a very odd position -- guess that's why I agree with you (one of those rarest of circumstances) on the overall position of Wild Horse.

Agreed it's a bit too high. I'd still keep it in the top 100 but closer to the rear rather than the front. Frankly, remoteness has become a very telling ingredient for some raters. My guess is that if a layout is placed in Mars it too will be rated very high. The same thing holds true for me regarding Sutton Bay and my reasons for that have previously been posted.

All kidding aside Wild Horse is a wonderful layout but I have always believed the manner by which the course is
prepared -- in conjunction with its remoteness -- are two big time factors on why the course is held in such esteem. Ditto the low price to play the course. There are a number of fine holes but the totality of what is there doesn't go beyond a number of other recently opened new courses IMHO.

[JESII]

Just out of curiosity, and not wanting to get in the middle of Huck and Shivas' spat;

What is the reasoning behind having two different lists?

[David Wigler]

Not meant to inflame Tommy but...The rankings do not have value as a category and they do have Walk in the Park (Although it is not factored in).  Below Rustic Canyon are (Among others) SouthShore, Southern Highlands, and Cascata (Among the Vegas courses).  If offered one round of golf tomorrow (Remember cost is not a factor in rankings), would raters really pick RC over one of those three?

What about Valhalla, Challenge at Manele, Flint Hills National.  Most strange to me is Old Memorial.  If Old Memorial and RC were next to each other and I had unlimited access to both, I imagine the ratio would be 8:2 OM over RC.  Of all the rankings on the list, RC as high as it is shocks me the most - Of course I have expressed this before and the sentiment seems to be that I just do not get it.

[Alex_Wyatt]

I have often been critical of these rankings, but there sure appears to be a trend here to getting things right.  I also thank Brad for including the math, so that we can better understand the small gradations of difference when they are very small.
Rankings are mostly a way of recognizing exceptional effort, either by an owner, designer, superintendent or members who champion a restoration. What's important isn't always the exact order, but that those doing exceptional work are rewarded and may have an easier time getting more work in the future, which is best for all of us.

There is no question that Rustic is a much, much better golf course than Cascata.  Is it a better experience? Probably depends on the time of day, who is in front of you, and your personality, but these are course rankings, not experience rankings.

[Mike_Cirba]

Funny thing is I think these rankings are damn good.  Wussy factor is only true shit I can give.

Tom,

As you've played many of these courses, I think GolfWeek Raters should say "thank you" for such a nice compliment.

You know how hard it is to get general agreement, but at least if the people who've played a lot of golf courses think the list is "damn good", then that's about as good as anyone could expect.

I'm hoping that your influence on the rankings for that other magazine (the one with 50% ads and 50% instruction) yields such quality results in the future.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

You're still a bunch of pansies.

 

TH

[Doug Siebert]

JES,

I would assume the reason for two lists is to avoid the howls of protest that would arise each time a new list comes out and people find that those two or three special new courses that get built have been placed in the list ahead of their established club, moving them slowly down the list.  Especially loud would be the screams from the members of clubs that were #99 but get pushed off the list entirely, never to return.

Its not realistic, because when Sand Hills got built just about every course on an overall top 100 would have to move down a spot to make room.  But I'm sure it avoids a lot of hate mail and cancelled subscriptions to only worry about moving down a list that includes a lot of resort courses and newer clubs that are less likely to be a membership that was handed down to the current holder from his father and his grandfather before him.

Look at how much whining about the college FB top 25 goes on when one team moves ahead of another after both won or both lost.  The top 100 rankings probably have a lot in common the college FB top 25 voting.  And we all know the problems inherent in that (better to lose early than lose late, a win over a team ranked high early counts for more than that same team who proves themselves at the end of the season to be unworthy, etc)

[tlavin]

Mr. Huckaby,

Two separate lists might strike one as a bit of a copout, but I like it because it broadens the field and exposes some hidden gems to people who are relatively clueless about the great courses out there.  Also, 100 is a traditional number, but it is simply too confining.  As my pal Jeff Rude says, "The problem with a Top 100 list is that there are only 100 courses on it."  Sounds simple, but it's a little bit profound.  Just from a Chicago perspective, I can say that the fact that Skokie and Beverly are now on the list will give many more out-of-staters a reason to include those courses on their Windy City tour.

That's a good thing.  Even if it is a little wuss!!!!!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

You're still a bunch of pansies.

 

TH

Tom,

Devereaux Emmett's we are not!  

Besides, I've already shared my Top 10 with you, including both modern and classic courses.  

I'd rather see GD drop their "tradition points" and "walking points" which is used to purposefully skew their rater's ballots, personally.  Until that is done, I really can't see anyone legitimately criticizing keeping modern and classic separate, can you?

Except perhaps for Golf Magazine, but they have their own issues needing refinement.

[PThomas]

WARNING: I am sick today and taking medication, so I wiil use both of those excuses if necessary!!

spyglass 16th? (full disclosure: I've never played!)

cog hill 47th

Hidden creek 68th (never played)

are those ratings too high, too high, and too low, respectively)

and as for remoteness being a plus, I read today where Japan wants to put a station on the moon, and since the Japanese really like golf.....

[THuckaby2]

Today is not the day to debate the merits of the Golf Digest system.  Suffice to say that these GD criteria have every bit as much (or little) merit as some fictitious, highly feminine "walk in the park" test.  

But YOU are on the hot seat for now, not me.  I'll take my battering again the next time GD comes out with a list.

So to this end, hell yes I can and will criticize your wussier than wuss separation of lists.  Oh I know YOU, Mike Cirba, have definite huevos maximos and have made your top 10 list.  Shivas does also and would make a list if he weren't in such a defensive shilling for GW mode right now.  So get your powers that be to get some nads, will ya?

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Today is not the day to debate the merits of the Golf Digest system.  Suffice to say that these GD criteria have every bit as much (or little) merit as some fictitious, highly feminine "walk in the park" test.  

But YOU are on the hot seat for now, not me.  I'll take my battering again the next time GD comes out with a list.

So to this end, hell yes I can and will criticize your wussier than wuss separation of lists.  Oh I know YOU, Mike Cirba, have definite huevos maximos and have made your top 10 list.  Shivas does also and would make a list if he weren't in such a defensive shilling for GW mode right now.  So get your powers that be to get some nads, will ya?

TH

Ok, a couple of quick comments...

Wild Horse is placed about right..perhaps still too low, if anything.

Rustic Canyon...I love it and think it's clearly Top 100...ugly range net and all...if it doesn't wash away.

Happily surprised to see that Sutton Bay came out so high but I expect that it might level closer to 20-25 in time.

I think Hidden Creek is about right...a superb member's course and everyone I know who visited it a second time liked it better.  Still, not quite as good as it's proponents suggest.

I said here months ago that I thought the best three modern courses were Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, and Friars Head, in that order and I'm sticking to it.

Nice to see that other's agree.  

[Rick Shefchik]

I would agree with Mike that Sutton Bay will probably settle somewhere around the 20s, but I'll also agree with Paul Thomas that Spyglass is rated too high. I've played them both, and my experience is that Sutton Bay delivers way more pleasure and excitement per hole than Spyglass.

[Top100Guru]

The Farm did move up "10" spots on The Modern List........I wonder if the newly installed sub-air greens (completed just late last year) and the upcoming 2005 US Senior Amateur being held there in September will affect the course positively again next year?

[Mike_Cirba]

Wow!

That's ALL the criticism of the actual list itself that this group can garner??

Like Alister Mackenzie when nobody had any criticisms of Cypress Point after he built it, I wonder what's wrong.  

Could it be that the list is getting pretty damn close to reflecting reality?

[Mike Worth]

Does anyone have a summary of which courses fell off the list (both modern and classic)?  Sorry if this was covered before, but I couldn't find it in the thread.

[THuckaby2]

Could it be that the list is getting pretty damn close to reflecting reality?

Mike - that's one possibility.

Another is that it's a fair guess that of the participants here who post on a regular basis, the composition goes like this:

50% are GW raters
25% are angling to be GW raters
10% don't give a rats ass about ratings
10% think the list is decent enough, not worth commenting on
5% disagree with something and find it worth commenting on.

Wait till the GD ratings come out again... that 75% at the top all of a sudden have a lot to say.

 

[Brad Klein]

Tom, you way over-estimate the presence and participation rates of GW raters on this website. And if there are more hopefuls, they haven't registered their intent with us, which is fine with me.

[THuckaby2]

Huck

I'm too damned lazy to type too much - and I notice that I have not had any dissentions on my brazen comments so far...........

No, I haven't.

That's because:

a) I don't find much in what you said to disagree with; and
b) if truth be told I'm in the 10% who doesn't give a rats ass about ratings, at least in the particulars of what course falls at what number.  It's all good to me.  I do like to give my friends shit, though.