[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Do people still read Golf Digest?

I ended my subscription back when I saw them recycle the article "I can get you out of the sand with one hand!".  

How many f*cking ways can I cure my slice or look dapper on the links this year?

I usually only buy a couple of issues off the newstands...generally the "best of" issue, although this year's listing isn't worth my $4.50.

[JakaB]

Mike,

Buy the magazine and read the accompaning articles by Ron Whitten.  You would love the one about if Fazio is good for golf.  I don't understand how you can claim and accept comps based on being one of the leading architectural critics in the nation and not do everything in your power to keep your hand on the pulse of golf.  The ball does still bounce around and architects make changes according to such....you desire to remain in the dark astounds me.   Recently I had a guy who thought he wanted to be my competition.  I quit going to my own jobs in the morning and went to his every day to study his strengths and weaknesses...he soon decided I was not worth the trouble and went somewhere else to ply his trade.   If you want to change golf for the better get out of your hole and see what the other guys who you think are so stupid are doing....you might learn something and teach them something along the way.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

If keeping my finger on the pulse of golf means reading a publication that tells me that Glenmaura National is one of the best courses in the state of PA then to me that pulse is dead.

I'd rather look for the soul of golf out in the dirt and make my own assessments.

[John_Cullum]

I'd rather look for the soul of golf out in the dirt and make my own assessments.

A very good reason to ignore all of the magazine rankings.

[Mike_Cirba]

And John,

This "comp" thing is really insulting at some point.  If someone extends that graciousness, then I'm appreciative.  That's their decision and perogative.

I haven't even mentioned that I'm a rater at the new courses I've played so far in 2005 and generally only do so if I feel I need to make an introduction.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd rather look for the soul of golf out in the dirt and make my own assessments.

A very good reason to ignore all of the magazine rankings.

John,

Go ahead and ignore them then, my good man.  

I just don't understand what my statement saying I'd rather go out and see and play many courses ("in the dirt") than read about them in making my assessments.

Is there a preferable approach you can suggest?

[JakaB]

John,

Then the raters would have to buy those little magnetic coin finders to pay for their lost comps...instead of looking for soul in the dirt they would look for quarters.

Mike,

I just called Glenmaura National to congratulate them on their high ranking and they were not even aware of it yet.  They said they had just opened up and had been too busy to read any magazines.   That fact alone and being that Dana Fry worked on the place I am confident in its ranking of 20th best in PA....it has to be better than Applebrook for Gods sake..

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Then the raters would have to buy those little magnetic coin finders to pay for their lost comps...instead of looking for soul in the dirt they would look for quarters.

Mike,

I just called Glenmaura National to congratulate them on their high ranking and they were not even aware of it yet.  They said they had just opened up and had been too busy to read any magazines.   That fact alone and being that Dana Fry worked on the place I am confident in its ranking of 20th best in PA....it has to be better than Applebrook for Gods sake..

Yeah John, I'm getting rich on the comps.  You should see my checkbook and with gas up at $2.25 a gallon, it's getting better all the time.  

You should try it.

Dana Fry wasn't involved with Glenmaura...it was built before he came on board.  

That was thoughtful of you to congratulate them...they are very nice people and I grew up 10 minutes from there.  They just have a golf course ledged onto the side of a mountain with flat greens and a lot of wetlands that isn't particularly a good one.

[JakaB]

Mike,

The price of gas is up...damn that is a shame.  Thank God us regular golfers always get a free fill up with the payment of a greenfee...if we take a cart we even get a free two liter of Sprite.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

The price of gas is up...damn that is a shame.  Thank God us regular golfers always get a free fill up with the payment of a greenfee...if we take a cart we even get a free two liter of Sprite.

John,

Drive over to Philly then.  I'll pay for your round and we'll call it even.

[Paul Richards]

Matt

>If you really understood the failure of Digest this time around with such states like New York, Pennsy and even my own you could easily understand how important the state ratings are.



Add Illinois to that list as well.


And, I might add, Michigan - at least from those I have heard from privately.

 

[John_Cullum]

I'd rather look for the soul of golf out in the dirt and make my own assessments.

A very good reason to ignore all of the magazine rankings.

I just don't understand what my statement saying I'd rather go out and see and play many courses ("in the dirt") than read about them in making my assessments.

Is there a preferable approach you can suggest?

Mike,

What part of my post indicates I disagree with you. I find lists to be an absolute waste of my fast fading good eye-sight. I only have so many words left before I go to eyeglasses.

I don't need a magazine to tell me Beverly is a great golf course, I've known that for a few years.

I find every step of the ratings process absurd. the raters do it for the free golf, the magazines write it to sell ads, and the end product is laughable.

[Mike_Cirba]

John Cullum,

I mis-read your post.  Mea Culpa.

I don't agree with your thrust that the ratings are meaningless or valueless.  But, I think we are in agreement that we'd rather find out for ourselves.

I'd also add that just like golf courses, some ratings are better than others.  

[T_MacWood]

I recall reading Golf Digest as a kid and being enthralled by the rankings. The first time I ever read of Shinnecock, Seminole, The Golf Club, Quaker Ridge, Cascades, Prarie Dunes, Cypress Point, NCR, Point O'Woods and Yale was while studying the rankings. The rankings can stimulate an interest in golf architecture.

I didn't lose any sleep in Ohio State GC falling out of Golf's rankings (didn't really deserve the ranking IMO), but I supect John K's continuing unhappiness with GolfWeek is related to a percieved slight of his course (Victoria National)...and prehaps the fact his brother's work has yet to make that list as well (although I don't think he has made the others either). I predict Ken Kavanaugh's first breakthough will likely be with GW....at which point his brother's protests will increase by ten fold.

At the rate Tom Fazio is building rankable courses and remodeling iconic classics, I reckon he'll have his name next to half of the courses on GD's list. Future generations will be forced to recongize this most prolific and important figure, it remains to be seen if future historians will conclude he is the greatest golf architect of out time or an artistic bad dream.

[JakaB]

Macwood,

With the thousands and thousands of great courses out there I would have to be nuts to think top 50 modern is a slight.  

[T_MacWood]

John
If you will be honest with us (and yourself)...you will admit you were disapointed by GolfWeeks initial ranking of VN and its ranking of VN following the GW outing...I know I personally thought the course was given the short end of the stick...expectations were quite high.

[JakaB]

Tom,

I'm sorry but I had to delete my confession for why I have become the poster boy for rater haters....I just hurts too much to leave up..I always wanted to be a member of a top 20 course and the pain of being 21st is too much to bear...sorry..

[Matt_Ward]

John said ...

"Will you admit that in the real world of public opinion that by being a Golfweek Rater that you are on the Junior Varsity?  Hell, you even play first.  Golf Digest is and continues to be the Varsity, Division One, Big Kahuna of ratings and that my friend seems best to explain the constant whining of the second team."

John -- I don't doubt that in the minds of Joe Sixpack and even quite a number of facilities the "perception" is that Digest is the big cheese in regards to the fanfare it brings to the table.

I am one of the very few people who has served on two of three ratings panels. I understand the cache of what Digest brings. But the lasting ingredient of ratings is ALWAYS tied to the credibility of the resuls.

Digest is no longer the only game in town. For years it occupied the main page in the ratings assessments. That's no longer the case.

I don't doubt that people will fire volleys at GolfWeek panelists like myself and say we see things from a biased position. On that count I plead guilty as charged. I also thin that the points I have raised on the deficiencies is there to b seen. You can call it whining but I know from my many years in evaluating courses I have come to appreciate many things that the existing Digest ratings results have completely abandoned with their Yellow Pages of raters approach.

John -- you are correct about Firestone. I don't see the architectural elements worthy of national acclaim. However, you tapdanced away from the many illustrations where Digest simply blew it -- both at the national and state level.

The prestige of the publication will only carry so far. Just ask the NY Times and 60 Minutes after their major fumbles in what they produce. Digest was an innovator in so many ways with course ratings -- sad to say but the results from this year's surveys are really lacking in any consistent credibility.

John -- Even Babe Ruth struck out at the plate.



 

[THuckaby2]

Huck:

You miss the point big time.

Digest inserted "tradition" into the equation to keep future Shadow Creeks from jumping into the fray and causing a future situation where "new" courses would likely jump into the high realm of rated courses -- ergo -- the once almighty classic courses would begin to fall like dominos.

That was the theory THEN ...

Fast forward to now -- here you Digest now ending "tradition" and relying upon the cumulative capabilities of its "esteemed" panel to come up with a final listing. The results ?

Laughable.

Now that the prop of "tradition" is removed you get to see the "tastes" of the existing Digest rater and you get such a silly collection of courses. Geeze, that sounds like what Digest originally wanted to avoid when "tradition" was inserted into the process.

I don't doubt the talent of TF -- but not 14 total courses. Not when other clear designs he has done are completely omitted (e.g. Glenwild in UT and Karsten Creek in OK, to name just two). You also have the demotion of such classics like Wannamoisett, Plainfield, etc, etc.

Huck -- it's very easy to reshape the Digest ratings. Unfortunately, existing Digest raters do not want to entertain any serious reform because it might affect their own self interest. How predictable.

I've said this before -- Digest should return to the split panel. Have state / regional people be the only ones who can rate in their neck of the woods. This would solidify those listings and keep out the interlopers who only cheery pick off one or two courses in their trek across the country.

Allow local raters -- those who know their own courses
best -- the full weight in determining their standing. If you really understood the failure of Digest this time around with such states like New York, Pennsy and even my own you could easily understand how important the state ratings are.

At the national level there are people who be the only ones to vote for the elite courses to make the top 100. Digest has sufficient people fully capable in doing this. When I was with them I met plenty of other raters who were fully informed about what is happening in all the sectors of the country. To keep things even -- you could rotate people in and out of the national panel to keep it fresh and away from being single-minded in its end results. From the assembled listing of raters that Digest has now you could easily assemble a national grouping of 100 well traveled and observant folks.

Huck -- when you permit Joe Sixpack to be the final word on a best wines listing you're likely going to get a Budweiser listing of courses. I would think Digest would know this. Forgive me for my error -- the reform I suggested would work quite well and restore what clearly has been lost this time around -- CREDIBILITY.

Matt:  How many times must you make this point, and how many times must I tell you it's unrealistic (super raters won't be paid) and unwise (why the hell do we really want the opinions only of super-rich?).

I didn't buy it the first 15 times, I don't buy it this #16.  But keep trying, maybe we'll do this dance 100 times before one of us gives up.

[Paul Richards]

Wow.

I have finally had a chance to start putting the state lists onto my all-inclusive spreadsheet.

Wow.

A few more head-scratchers:

Lawsonia - no longer in the top ten in Wisconsin?  
       it was #6 in 2003 on this same list and is ranked #61 on
       Golfweek's Classic list
          Can someone REALLY think it's better than The Bog???
 

Michigan's list just blows me away:

Point O'Woods falls from #3 to 10
Franklin Hills falls from #11 to 21

The CC of Detroit - wonderful course - falls from #13 to Out of
      the top 25!  It was #12 in 2001, #13 in 2003 and at least
      #26 in 2005???



I'm getting woozy again.........

 

[SPDB]

I'm getting woozy again.........

 

So, too, are we. Please, Paul, let it go.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()