Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel

[Jeff Schley]

I'll ask again, why do we bother to rate a golf course....other than $$$$$?


As for where we draw the line on wealth and access?  How about we start with Congress.

Personally I always loved any of the magazine rankings before I stumbled upon this site and certainly before the prevalence of social media. If I was traveling somewhere and knew squat about what I should play I always referenced my stack of magazines.


Even today while we complain about certain ranking systems and talk about darlings here, I think we could agree that there really are only about 500 courses in the U.S that are truly special (haven't been to Europe or Australia yet). I'm sure that's why the Golf panel only assesses 400 - and that's the whole World! While we complain about GD's list for example, its not like any of those courses don't belong in the discussion


We take for granted how much this group knows about great golf, and for a lot of lay people the magazines are their only point of reference. If a magazine ranking gets someone to visit a Lawsonia, Cedar Rapids, Rustic Canyon, etc I think its a win-win for golf

Great point Ryan.  Japan has over 2,000 courses alone in their country, I'll go out on a limb and say they have a lot more to offer I'm sure than Hirono, Naruo, Kawana, etc.  I wonder who on this board has played the most of those? It is easy to concentrate the discussion on only the top courses for those are the examples of what we like.


I am curious if Kankakee was one of the top 400 to be rated.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

While we complain about GD's list for example, its not like any of those courses don't belong in the discussion

Actually, there are three or four courses in their list that absolutely DO NOT belong in the discussion:  Rich Harvest Farms, Canyata, The Club at Black Rock, and maybe Alotian which is in their top 20 


Note that I have only been to one of these myself, as I don't believe them worthy of the discussion.

Tom


Why don’t you deem them worthy to see in person? Is it designer, ownership? Genuinely curious

[Tom_Doak]

 Japan has over 2,000 courses alone in their country, I'll go out on a limb and say they have a lot more to offer I'm sure than Hirono, Naruo, Kawana, etc.  I wonder who on this board has played the most of those?

My longtime friend Masa Nishijima has gone out of his way to see every course in Japan which anyone among the locals suggests is of interest, as well as all of the courses touched by Alison.  [His grandfather was a member of Alison's version of Tokyo GC that was lost during the war.]


The courses listed in volume 5 of The Confidential Guide include all of the courses that Masa thought were worth discussing.  But he doesn't have any other courses that he rates as bona fide candidates for the top 100, other than the five which have been ranked at one time or another.  The most intriguing of the others is Oarai, near the sea north of Tokyo, but it is seriously overgrown by big, gnarly pine trees that no one wants to take down.

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, there are three or four courses in their list that absolutely DO NOT belong in the discussion:  Rich Harvest Farms, Canyata, The Club at Black Rock, and maybe Alotian which is in their top 20 

Note that I have only been to one of these myself, as I don't believe them worthy of the discussion.

Tom


Why don’t you deem them worthy to see in person? Is it designer, ownership? Genuinely curious

I would never make up my mind to not see a course based on an obscure architect having built it -- generally, I'm more curious to see those than another Jones, Nicklaus, or Fazio.  But I've spoken to at least two people I know about each of the other courses listed, and the responses were a unanimous "don't bother going," except for Ran's defense of the golf holes at The Alotian Club.


I've also scouted each of them fairly closely on Google Earth to see if any features stood out that I wanted to see.  The Astroturf tee in the middle of the woods at Rich Harvest Farms was the closest thing to that, but not in a good way.

[Jerry Kluger]

You think GD has issues try the North Carolina Raters Panel. They are not associated with any of the major golf publications. But it is a panel that gets access to most of the courses in North Carolina and some of the courses care about their rankings.


http://www.ncgolfpanel.com/courserankings.cfm#6

[Tom_Doak]

You think GD has issues try the North Carolina Raters Panel. They are not associated with any of the major golf publications. But it is a panel that gets access to most of the courses in North Carolina and some of the courses care about their rankings.


http://www.ncgolfpanel.com/courserankings.cfm#6

Wow.  Yes, that list illustrates the point I was trying to make the other day, that most regional rankings get bogged down by outside forces.  It's been a long time since I heard the CC of NC touted as one of the best courses in the state.

[Mark_Fine]

I think we all need to get over ourselves regarding these different panels.  They will never please everyone.  We all know that and once they do (which they won’t) there wouldn’t be anything to debate    If anything, they all are improving (but even that is just an opinion).  What used to bug me about Golf Digest’s list was their “Tough but Fair” criteria and their “Conditioning” definition.  They have dramatically improved in my opinion on both.  There are NO unfair golf courses but there are poorly designed ones.  The word fair should never be used to evaluate a golf course.  And as far as “tough”; tough doesn’t always equate to great.  It is easy to make a golf course hard, it is a whole different matter to make it great at the same time.  Golf Digest has for the most part changed this “Tough but Fair” criteria for the better.  Regarding conditioning, they have made a huge improvement here as well.  Just because a golf course is green and lush doesn’t mean it is well maintained.  GD has gotten away from encouraging panelists to compare courses to August National.  Brownish/off color grass plays as well as green grass, certain courses are meant to be played firm and fast, a little rough around the edges is OK, aeration is part of normal maintenance, bunkers are hazards and they don’t have to be meticulously groomed, a course that is over watered is not a good thing,…  GD is encouraging these kind of attributes to their panelists and I believe it should start to show up in their rankings.   At the end of the day it comes down to the quality of their raters more so than the criteria as it does for most rankings. 

[Tom_Doak]

Brownish/off color grass plays as well as green grass, certain courses are meant to be played firm and fast, a little rough around the edges is OK, aeration is part of normal maintenance, bunkers are hazards and they don’t have to be meticulously groomed, a course that is over watered is not a good thing,…  GD is encouraging these kind of attributes to their panelists and I believe it should start to show up in their rankings.   At the end of the day it comes down to the quality of their raters more so than the criteria as it does for most rankings. 

"It should start to show up in their rankings," but has it?  I cannot think of very many examples, though I guess Ballyneal being ahead of Cherry Hills in their Best in State ranking might be an indicator of that.

[Edward Glidewell]

You think GD has issues try the North Carolina Raters Panel. They are not associated with any of the major golf publications. But it is a panel that gets access to most of the courses in North Carolina and some of the courses care about their rankings.


http://www.ncgolfpanel.com/courserankings.cfm#6

Wow.  Yes, that list illustrates the point I was trying to make the other day, that most regional rankings get bogged down by outside forces.  It's been a long time since I heard the CC of NC touted as one of the best courses in the state.

I played the Old North State Club on Saturday. It's a very pretty course and an enjoyable round, but it's nowhere near the 7th best course in North Carolina. Sedgefield, which is ranked 11th, is a much better golf course, not to mention courses like Mid Pines, Pinehurst #4, and Dormie Club which are 17th, 19th, and 44th(!!) respectively.

[Joel_Stewart]

GD has indicated what proper conditioning should really be, and I happen to agree.  But if other panelists don't agree, I get a poor grade as a rater.  For example, Ballyneal may be an ideally conditioned course per the people running the panel at GD.  But Ballyneal is not Augusta.  I could give Ballyneal very high marks for conditioning, as it fits the profile.  But if everyone else on the panel disagrees and dings Ballyneal because it's not lush and dark green with perfect white sand bunkers, I'm considered the outlier, even though I'm in line with the standard.  Doesn't make sense.

The problem is most GD panelists don't understand different grass and conditioning. The gold standard for panelists is Augusta ( technically The Quarry at La Quinta received a higher rating for conditioning) but to compare bent grass with fescue or Bermuda at GD is impossible.  Old MacDonald at Bandon is the best condioned course at Bandon and it still receives low conditioning scores.


The problems at GD are systemic starting with the management and then the methodology.  You input crap data and you receive crap analysis. 

[Tom_Doak]

You input crap data and you receive crap analysis.

Yes, but also, opinions are not data.

[ward peyronnin]

Why does one have to be a rater or a hater?
The rating process like many constructs is inherently imperfect but is still useful.

Useful i submit in the same way a logically linked critical path construction schedule my company used for years to coordinate challenges like redirecting hospital emergency room access/circulation while building four ten story elevator towers and an addition  within the existing building footprint adjacent. Other than the given that one starts in the ground and progresses vertically our schedule might bear little resemblance to another contractor schedule but it kept all the hundreds of variables anchored to the approach and served as the Rosetta stone for communicating.
We were always clear that the schedule was a tool and not carved in stone( beside the eventual completion date which the owner hired us to meet) and a continuously reassessed working document. I view rankings as a very similar platform but either one can be flawed and JC's information is certainly relevant but not eternally damning of raters.
I admit that not all raters are created equal; at a retreat I played with a 75 year old widow who in my view primarily signed on to enjoy a ready made quality golf trip(retreat) and maybe even troll for a husband because I never heard her utter a word regarding architecture?
So rankings are controversial but they do promote discussion and feedback to courses striving to be better at the least.
Full disclosure I do rate. Also Ron I will echo JC's comments that over the years i detected a self promotion, not as justified as some who are cited for that on here, and gradually avoided checking in on your posts for whatever that is worth; forgive me if you have self corrected.

[cary lichtenstein]

I'm not a rater or golfer anymore, I'll take GD's defense on this one. Golf Digest has to be a bad purchase, a money losing magazine. They must badly need revenue. All the courses have to do it put a limit on the number of rounds a panelist can play each month, and make the panelist pay full guest green fees. I remember playing Alotian, and I think they charged me $600.

[JC Jones]

Why does one have to be a rater or a hater?
The rating process like many constructs is inherently imperfect but is still useful.

Useful i submit in the same way a logically linked critical path construction schedule my company used for years to coordinate challenges like redirecting hospital emergency room access/circulation while building four ten story elevator towers and an addition  within the existing building footprint adjacent. Other than the given that one starts in the ground and progresses vertically our schedule might bear little resemblance to another contractor schedule but it kept all the hundreds of variables anchored to the approach and served as the Rosetta stone for communicating.
We were always clear that the schedule was a tool and not carved in stone( beside the eventual completion date which the owner hired us to meet) and a continuously reassessed working document. I view rankings as a very similar platform but either one can be flawed and JC's information is certainly relevant but not eternally damning of raters.
I admit that not all raters are created equal; at a retreat I played with a 75 year old widow who in my view primarily signed on to enjoy a ready made quality golf trip(retreat) and maybe even troll for a husband because I never heard her utter a word regarding architecture?
So rankings are controversial but they do promote discussion and feedback to courses striving to be better at the least.
Full disclosure I do rate. Also Ron I will echo JC's comments that over the years i detected a self promotion, not as justified as some who are cited for that on here, and gradually avoided checking in on your posts for whatever that is worth; forgive me if you have self corrected.

Ward,


I agree.  I think there is a place for rankings in golf media and I dont think all raters or bad or having them is bad.  My issues are with the current structure and system at Golf Digest and my thoughts are in hopes of improvement to a point of respectability so that the readers and the courses can have an honest and well thought out product.

[Mark_Fine]

I just glanced through Golf Digest’s latest Top 100 list.  Can you believe they have courses on their list like San Francisco GC, Pine Valley, August National, Cypress Point, [/size]Bethpage Black, [/size]Shinnecock Hills, Oakmont, Merion, Pebble Beach, National Golf Links, Sand Hills, Fishers Island, Old Macdonald, Winged Foot, Seminole, Crystal Downs, Chicago Golf, Friar’s Head, Muirfield Village, Pacific Dunes, The Country Club of Brookline, LACC, Oakland Hills, Camargo, Whistling Straits, Oak Hill, Riviera, The Ocean Course, Wade Hampton, Shadow Creek, Prairie Dunes, The Honors Course, Pinehurst #2, Peachtree, The Olympic Club, Bandon Dunes, Sebonack, Ballyneal, TPC Sawgrass, Quaker Ridge, Essex County Club, Olympia Fields North, Myopia Hunt Club, Kittansett, Plainfield,...
[/size]
[/size]Every list will have a some head shakers and whether a course is #57 or #78 it is still on the list, but [/size][size=78%][/size]I can see why many here think these rankings are ridiculous [size=78%][/size]