[cary lichtenstein]

I'd like to see it done, up to Ran to create it.

If Ran is not interested, as I think he has expressed in the past, perhaps those of us who are, can create a a top 100 blog of some kind, but I'd perfer to see it here.

[Sean_A]

Another publication has just launched their top 100 in the world.  It is an ongoing process, but their top 100 for GB&I is the easily the best I have seen.  Have a look  www.top100golfcourses.co.uk

These guys basically steal all the legwork of several other publications.  They weight the info giving more recent mentions more credibility.  The list is interesting.

Ciao

Sean

[Alan Carter]

I would like to start this post by saying that I believe that the members of this site are exactly the right people offer a "ranking" of golf courses that should prove very interesting to see the results at the end of the day.

I'd go for the regional ranking method.  It is difficult to find enough people to fairly submit a list ranking courses in all regions of the world at one time.  Comparing Royal Melbourne to Bethpage Black is not something that very many of us can do.  But, you should be able to do a half way decent job with courses within your region.  You should also feel free to rank courses from other areas if you are able to do so.  Having 5 or 10 people try to do a ranking in my opinion ends up giving you slanted results.  Personally, the more lists the compiler is able to look at the better chance they have of achieving a fair list.  

I think it would be great to have a representative from each region nominated to recieve ballots via email and compile them into a list of the best using similar criteria for each area.  Once completed they could come up with the Top 100 in the US, 50 in Great Britain, 50 Europe, 50 Australia, 25 Canada, South America, Asia, Africa etc. as nominated by members of GCA.com

I think either the group here at GCA.com either creates their own ranking or they continue to not believe in rankings, but stop criticizing Golf Digest and the other publications when they do it.

By the way, this is not a rant just my two cents.

[Matt_Cohn]

Tom,

That last part sounds fair to me. It skews the results in the direction of the most "educated" raters. i'm cool with that.

I wondered about what you mentioned - you know, if some joker ranks his local muni ahead of Pine Valley and doesn't rank anything else. How would a 1-0 record, with the win against Pine Valley, compare with Sand Hills overall record of, say, 11,968-417?

[Glenn Spencer]

The Sagarin type ratings seem to make a lot of sense to me. I would just like to see the wins and losses. Instead of a 7.87 or whatever, the course picks up a bunch of points for someone rating it better than a power. I think it is more interesting that way. All we would have to do is rank the courses we have played and tally the results. The course would get a win for each that is ranked below it and a loss for above it. I like the idea of just doing it now, instead of playing them again, because courses are always changing anyway. I would rather hear from 20 guys that have played a course over 20 years than one that just went and played it. Sort of like an all-time system.

[Glenn Spencer]

Tom,

That last part sounds fair to me. It skews the results in the direction of the most "educated" raters. i'm cool with that.

I wondered about what you mentioned - you know, if some joker ranks his local muni ahead of Pine Valley and doesn't rank anything else. How would a 1-0 record, with the win against Pine Valley, compare with Sand Hills overall record of, say, 11,968-417?

Must have a certain number of wins to qualify. That takes the joker element out.

[Andy Troeger]

To anyone who is seriously thinking about following suit, I suggest you try it for an exercise yourself -- just TRY to rank the top 50 or 100 or 200 courses you've played in an exact order.  Then put it away for a month and look at it again and see how much you disagree with YOUR OWN list.

I've been doing this for a few years now...up until this year I tried to rank EVERY course I'd played, but after awhile I didn't care what #143 was anymore. I still do a top 100 of what I've played, based on my own personal formula (it includes a FUN category that I probably could not explain if I wanted to). Every time I look at it I probably want to change something, so Tom's point about disagreeing with your own list is VERY true in my case!

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Hate to bust anyone's bubble but the idea of being able to create some sort of "solid formula" is silly.

Part of the answer resides in what Bill V mentioned -- there are other issues.

For starters, you are attempting to implement a consensus formula and often times that's nothing more than a series of compromises and the like. Good hard hitting commentary cannot be diluted through an endless series of votes.

I'd much rather have one person provide the analysis because it then gives you an idea of where they are coming from -- it also provides a mechanism for a clear cross comparison of courses - for me the cross comparisons are the essential ingredient in understanding the merits / lack thereof from the courses being assessed.

Ratings without specific cross comparisons coming from a reliable and consistent source often mean nothing to me. I may not agree with the person but I know the process they follow. That's what makes Tom Doak's book "Confidential Guide" so powerful for me. I may not agree with the all conclusions but I know I'm not reading some pile of endless consensus driven results that often bog down on generalities and the like.

[Tom_Doak]

Alan:

Doing the rankings by starting regionally, has proven to be a dismal failure when I've seen it tried by others.  The GOLF WORLD (U.K.) rankings of courses in Britain and Europe are grossly overpopulated with modern courses which are the latest local phenomenon.  Well-traveled raters would see them as not so unique, and would be more able to compare the top works of different designers.

Glenn:

The problem is, lots of the guys who have traveled extensively are jokers, too.

[Doug Ralston]

Hey;

I want in on this. We need someone not obsessed with 'traditional' or 'minimalistic' courses to speak for our part of the golf populace who like a variety of design styles.

My friend at Dale Hollow to me about creation of Victoria National: "they gave Fazio and unlimited budget, and he exceeded it". Yet, look at what we got. Lots of earth moved [God forbid], lots of sculpting 'above the ground [God forbid], and yet a course most any golfer but a few GCA radcons would jump at a chance to play.

So when I hear that we have enough people to vote only very specific types of courses into the 'Top 100'; I think this site is too narrow to do a viable list.

BTW; I am as eclectic at golf courses as I am at government......I want to take the best of all 'styles'; whatever is most viable under whatever circumstances.

I vote we don't vote for one.

Doug

[Glenn Spencer]

Tom D and Bill V,

I was unclear, I meant to say that the COURSE would have to have enough wins to qualify, that way if a joker  rates some pasture over Pine Valley, it won't count because not enough people have rated it high enough.

[Steve_Roths]

I don't think it would be wise to create some ranking criteria or have some sort of pooling of votes either.

I think the only way to do it is have Doak bang out a list.  He has travelled everywhere.  He cuts through the BS.  If he thinks Parparauma is better than Trump National then its decided.  Not the other way where a Trump course gets in due to other factors.

And this doesn't have to be the hard and fast answer to it all but come on there are very few on here who would argue with Tom's final choices.  

Now if we can just get him to do it.......

P.S. we already know the top 5 (minus Pac Dunes):
      Old Course
      NGLA
      Cyrstal Downs
      Royal Melbourne
      Sand Hills

[cary lichtenstein]

I nominate Matt Ward to be chairman of this process. Do I hear a 2nd?

[Eamon Lynch]

Jeff Mingay,
Your grapevine source has been sipping too much wine. Rest assured that GOLF Magazine has no plans to stop ranking the Top 100 courses in the world.

[Tom_Doak]

I would actually like to see someone put this together.  I think it would prove to a lot of people that NO rankings will gain universal acceptance and that the existing rankings really aren't so bad.

I'll participate, if someone else wants to come up with the ballot of 400-500 courses we all have to rank, and if the group elects plus or minus 25 voters besides me.  I'm not taking all the flak myself.

[JMorgan]

What if we nominate five or six venerable GCA members to come up with a list or lists?  They could create their own free-form categories, and then perhaps Ran can create a GCA section devoted to the results.  Eh?

[Bill Gayne]

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.

[JMorgan]

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.

Ok, Tecumsah, we'll let the fair people of Savannah know.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()