[Greg Tallman]

Course rankings that include courses several months before they even open... or for that matter plant grass on at least a couple of holes.

Thoughts??

By the way... it exists... more later after a few rants on the subject.

[Greg Tallman]

Oh come on this board has no interest in a major magazine ranking courses 6 months before they open?

[Wade Whitehead]

I suppose the relative quiet is related to the simple truth that, when it comes to the two major golf magazines, money buys influence, both in equipment and course reviews and rankings.  The "objective" tests done on clubs and balls are far from that; as well, rankings are based on courses that solicit and/or welcome the magazine (or parent company's) raters.

The course that's not even open, but which makes the rankings, simply understands the game.

WW

[Greg Tallman]

I suppose the relative quiet is related to the simple truth that, when it comes to the two major golf magazines, money buys influence, both in equipment and course reviews and rankings.  The "objective" tests done on clubs and balls are far from that; as well, rankings are based on courses that solicit and/or welcome the magazine (or parent company's) raters.

The course that's not even open, but which makes the rankings, simply understands the game.

WW

Do i understand you wrong or are you suggesting that yet to be opened(or even grassed) courses should be eligible for rankings???


And I am fairly cetain you do not isolate the publication in question with your comments.

[Wade Whitehead]

My post is probably unclear.  I'll try to be more specific.

I believe the GolfWeek rankings are fairly compiled.  Those of other publications, however, are dubious.

WW

[Greg Tallman]

My post is probably unclear.  I'll try to be more specific.

I believe the GolfWeek rankings are fairly compiled.  Those of other publications, however, are dubious.

WW

So that is why you defend ranking a course 6 months prior to opening?

[Wade Whitehead]

I don't believe a course should be ranked if it isn't open.

The fact that courses are reflects a ranking process that depends on a variety of influences.

I don't believe a course should be ranked if it isn't open.

WW

[Greg Tallman]

My post is probably unclear.  I'll try to be more specific.

I believe the GolfWeek rankings are fairly compiled.  Those of other publications, however, are dubious.

WW

For further clarification what leads you to believe the GolfWeek rankings are "fairly compiled"... particularly considering they currently list courses under constrcution and wish to have 1400+ raters.

[Greg Tallman]

Sorry Brad...  but after Mary's visit and my questions... you knew i was going here.

[Wade Whitehead]

I'm not aware of courses in the GolfWeek rankings that aren't yet open.  If there are, please advise.

Thanks.

WW

[Wade Whitehead]

I'm not aware of courses in the GolfWeek rankings that aren't yet open.  If there are, please advise.

Thanks.

WW

Incidentally, I'm only referring to the Best Modern and Best Classic listings when I mention GolfWeek.

WW

[Greg Tallman]

I'm not aware of courses in the GolfWeek rankings that aren't yet open.  If there are, please advise.

Thanks.

WW

Please tell me when the rankings were compiled? and published?

[Greg Tallman]

I'm not aware of courses in the GolfWeek rankings that aren't yet open.  If there are, please advise.

Thanks.

WW

Incidentally, I'm only referring to the Best Modern and Best Classic listings when I mention GolfWeek.

WW

Oh no.... like the others they have ventured out of their niche...

[Brad Klein]

Greg,

We have 450 raters and have no plans for any major expansion.

This thread is so badly disjointed it seems that posts have been pulled or are missing.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

We have 450 raters and have no plans for any major expansion.

This thread is so badly disjointed it seems that posts have been pulled or are missing.

Wow... not the info I had received on rater count... my apologies if that is wrong.

I stand by my disbelief of rating courses long before they open regardless how insiginficant a "subsection" of the rankings it may be.

I would love the opportunity to discuss this with you personally... given the rankings themselves there does seem a disconnect from your personal criteria and disdain for preferred treatment... though that could be  an unfair assumption (though i believe i have a great argument)

[Brad Klein]

We get one course premature on the Caribbean list and for that you think the whole process  -- involving 2,200 courses -- is misguided? You can always reach me with your concerns via email (or through the magazine) if you have concerns about procedure.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

We have 450 raters and have no plans for any major expansion.

This thread is so badly disjointed it seems that posts have been pulled or are missing.

By the way... I doubt anything was pulled... just my scatterbrained though process I suppose... LOL

[Greg Tallman]

We get one course premature on the Caribbean list and for that you think the whole process  -- involving 2,200 courses -- is misguided? You can always reach me with your concerns via email (or through the magazine) if you have concerns about procedure.

First - I requested such contact from a member of the GolfWeek staff. I don't purport to be the holder of great knowledge... but have been around a bit.

Second - Stop taking this so hard... EVERY rating panel gets cirtiqued here... you are not different.

Third - Listing a course that is that far from ever being played is inexcusable... rather than attack I expected you to agree.

Fourth - Hope to see you here next spring assuming my critiqu has not precluded the summit.

The great thing about ratings... they elicit debate... some of whcih is contrary to what each of us want to hear.

[Greg Tallman]

If it makes you feel any better I love your publication.

[Scott Szabo]

Greg,

We have 450 raters and have no plans for any major expansion.

This thread is so badly disjointed it seems that posts have been pulled or are missing.

Brad,

If you ever have plans for any MINOR expansion, I'd love to learn more about the process

Scott

[David Botimer]

Seems to me the best way to evaluate the various ranking organizations is to compare each approach.

On that idea it seems the one with the flawed methodology is Golf Digest with their attempt at quantifying categories such as Shot Values, Resistance to Scoring, Design Variety, Memorability.....

Huh?

[Glenn Spencer]

Seems to me the best way to evaluate the various ranking organizations is to compare each approach.

On that idea it seems the one with the flawed methodology is Golf Digest with their attempt at quantifying categories such as Shot Values, Resistance to Scoring, Design Variety, Memorability.....

Huh?

All those are good, but my favorite is the walking category for extra points. It is like saying the 2007 NY Giants were the best team of all-time because they let fans into the locker room.

[Tom Huckaby]

Well THIS has certainly been batted around many times in here.

And as a Golf Digest ratings panelist, and firm believe that our system is the best, I typically come to our defense.

So let me ask you two naysayers....

1. Why do you find those categories inadequate, and how would you do it better?

2. What is wrong with awarding bonus points for easily walkable courses?  Do you not believe the game is better played on foot?

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom,
         If the Golf Digest system is the best, how come it seems to have more what the hell were they thinking courses show up on their lists?   

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,
         If the Golf Digest system is the best, how come it seems to have more what the hell were they thinking courses show up on their lists?   

I would not agree with the second part of that statement, so of course I can't answer your question.

But hell, I've only defended this point 1000 times already.  I'm just curious because I don't recall battling before with either Glenn or David.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()