[Ian_L]

A few weeks ago a couple of GCAers were asking about creating a GCA course ranking system.  While it met mixed reactions, I thought I'd give it a shot.  To participate, simply follow this link:

http://spreadsheets0.google.com/viewform?key=pfp3dn4OWLucJzSgIuwa9cQ

and rate the courses YOU HAVE PLAYED from the Top 100 list.  I have decided to use the Doak Scale as most are familiar with it.  More info on the Doak Scale is available at:

http://www.designmentor.co.uk/dynamicpoll/scale.htm

This should seriously only take about two minutes.

Please use this thread to post suggestions, comments, or complaints against this system.


NOTE: The password you are required to enter is " fastandfirm ".  If you do not enter your password your inputs will not be considered.

I will post updated rankings every few days on this thread.  Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I think it would be a good idea if it were possible to enter our own courses. After all, why use the Doak scale, if none of the available courses is going to be rated below 7? I also think the course selection is a bit US-centric.

Ulrich

[Ian_L]

Ulrich, I agree on both accounts.  I originally thought of having all write-ins, but I figured that would take too much time and nobody would want to do it.  My ideal list would be of every course every GCAer has ever played, but I figured I'd set my goals low to start.  Perhaps in the future a survey with both the Top 100 (is there another list you would recommend?) and a write-in section would help...

By the way, I will be deleting egregious outliers, such as the person who rated 95 of the top 100 between 1 and 3 on the Doak Scale.

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

You need a ballot of about 400 courses in order to come up with a final list of 100.  It's really not that hard to put a ballot together if you want ... you could start a thread and include any course which got more than a couple of nominations.  This is essentially what GOLF Magazine does to arrive at their list.

I would suggest you check with Ran before you give it a go, however.  A ranking with wide participation here might be seen as "official", even if you say it's not, and I think it should be up to Ran whether he wants to go that route.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Generally speaking, I don't think anyone really needs another ranking.

[PCCraig]

We could do a ranking of the top rankings.

Generally speaking, I don't think anyone really needs another ranking.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We could do a ranking of the top rankings.

Generally speaking, I don't think anyone really needs another ranking.

Pat,

I have often written here that this is the next logical step - sort of a BCS of golf course rankings.  In theory, it makes some sense. If a course is ranked by GW, GD, Golf, Golf Inc, USA Today and Golf Club Atlas at, say 5, 10 ,19, 6, 34 and 57, using slightly different criteria, would a combination/average of those rankings be more valid to put it at 21.833?

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,
I actually did a combination of the most recent lists some day when I was bored. I think I gave courses points based on their rankings in the three main lists (GD, GW, Golf). GD and Golf was based on 100 points for 1st down to 1 point for 100th. GW causes problems of course, but I think I did 100th for 1st in each category, 98 for 2nd, 96 for 3rd, etc., in both the modern and classic lists. This favors the top modern courses a little bit which normally aren't rated #1 when the classics are counted. Courses that didn't finish in the top fifty on GW received no points.

I'm not going to post it because I'm a panelist for GD and don't want to post something that "competes" with our own list, but its pretty basic math if anyone wanted to do it. I thought the list that came up was pretty good, but its not that different from the other three when all is said and done.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

We all certainly want to know what the computer power rankings say, don't we?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I'm sure your former clients out in Lubbock do!

Andy,

It makes me think someone could come up with some kind of fantasy league for golf courses. Maybe like monopoly but with golf courses instead of the railroads, etc. (I understand they have just updated that game because no one recalls what the Reading and Baltimore and Ohio Railroads were)

[Tom_Doak]

They've got a much better football team this year than they've got a golf course.  (Pending today's result, of course.)

[Jay Flemma]

Lubbock better watch out or they'll find out just how much computer rankings mean.  Hello?  South Florida?  Rutgers here...Oklahoma just called and said their sending 54 guys to our party...

Boomer!  Sooner! (for one day at least, right kelly blake moran?)

Hey!  how about that.  KBM has to root for the Sooners!  Oh the irony.   That'll turn Burnt Umber to Burnt Umbrage.  Pass the TUMS in Austin and Lederach.

Tom D, I don't agree.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm picking OU.  59-2 record at home in the last 5 years.  Plus they can score too.

[Matthew Hunt]

The is already a collated list. It is hosted at:

www.top100golfcourses.co.uk

It goes:

1. Pine Valley
2. Royal County Down
3. Cypress Point
4. St Andrews
5. Shinnecock
6. Pebble Beach
7. Augusta
8. Oakmount
9.  Merion
10. Sand Hills

[John Kirk]

Ian,

I like this idea very much, though I agree that an additional 150-250 courses be added to the list before beginning in earnest.  With all due respect to Matthew Hunt and his great work last year, this would be the best GCA effort to identify our favorites.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

That there are major problems with the rankings according to the website you refer to, www.top100golfcourses.co.uk, can be clearly seen in how they have ranked the following three courses:

#15 - Kingsbarns
#18- Woodhall Spa
#22 - National Golf Links of America

[Tom_Doak]

How does Kingsbarns get ahead of Ballybunion (for one) in those rankings?  I don't recall ever seeing another ranking where it is ahead ... it's not even close on the GOLF Magazine rankings.

[Chip Gaskins]

The is already a collated list. It is hosted at:

www.top100golfcourses.co.uk

It goes:
1. Pine Valley
2. Royal County Down
3. Cypress Point
4. St Andrews
5. Shinnecock
6. Pebble Beach
7. Augusta
8. Oakmount
9.  Merion
10. Sand Hills

Matt-

Those guys have an interesting way of compiling their list.  I suppose it is as good as any other way as long as they have a lot of people giving input.

I do know their 1-4 is my 1-4.  But Pebble needs to be replaced with Ballyneal though.

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

With all due respect to the noble gesture you have decided to undertake -- I don't see "group" rankings being especially noteworthy. They are consensus driven arragements. In such a formula you get compromises of one sort or the other. The big dogs of yesteryear always seem to create the loudest of barks and candidly a few of them are living off the headlines of years past.

People also make assumptions that the same "sacred cows" will forever and ever be listed as they are. In sum -- the rankings are quite static because you have certain people who are in awe of specific places and therefore there is little movement. Augusta is prime candidate number one in this regard.

I'd much rather have one voice that lists their personal best -- sort of like what Robert Parker does with wines now.

Consensus formulas provide a fairly accurate road map but they miss so much detail -- they invariably mean you have little comprehensible cross comparisons because while some people have played course "A" there may be little or no people who have played course "B".

It's fun exercise and I don't mean to rain upon your parade and your noble desire to provide such information. I personally get more insight from specific people rather than these mass-generated spreadsheets of course listings.

[Ian_L]

Thanks to everyone on your input thus far.  I'll be the first to acknowledge this will not be a comprehensive ranking as there are many courses (Bandon Trails, Tobacco Road and others) that would be rated highly and are not included on this list.  Unfortunately enacting the suggestions posed here would take a lot more time, which I'm a bit short on right now.  However, if there is a lot of support for a better ranking system it would certainly be something to consider in the future (with Ran's permission, of course).

Matt, I don't consider this a noble gesture, but more of an experiment.  There are many flaws in this survey and I really don't want to take myself too seriously.  I agree completely with you that discussion is much better than a poll.  As you said, its a fun exercise, but not much more.

In case anyone's wondering, there have been 46 responses so far.  I will post some preliminary results for those interested within the next few days.

[Pat Burke]

Thanks to everyone on your input thus far.  I'll be the first to acknowledge this will not be a comprehensive ranking as there are many courses (Bandon Trails, Tobacco Road and others) that would be rated highly and are not included on this list.  Unfortunately enacting the suggestions posed here would take a lot more time, which I'm a bit short on right now.  However, if there is a lot of support for a better ranking system it would certainly be something to consider in the future (with Ran's permission, of course).

Matt, I don't consider this a noble gesture, but more of an experiment.  There are many flaws in this survey and I really don't want to take myself too seriously.  I agree completely with you that discussion is much better than a poll.  As you said, its a fun exercise, but not much more.

In case anyone's wondering, there have been 46 responses so far.  I will post some preliminary results for those interested within the next few days.

Ian, from my perspective alone, I say thanks.  Gave me a chance to revisit some of my favorites in my mind.  I for one, enjoyed the journey

[Ian_L]

Question: I have two entries with all 100 courses rated (meaning they've played them all).  Could these be legitimate?  I don't want to delete honest answers, however I am a bit skeptical.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Ian - I agree.  I would be very surprised if there are two gca-ers who have played all 100.  I'm guessing that there are only a few dozen folks in the world that have done that (I know 4).  Are you requiring that a course be played to be rated?  Can it just be walked?  Just seen on TV?  Merely mused over?

I chased lists for quite a while but in recent years I've lost interest.  I played somewhere around 3/4 of your list and it took me some 30 years to do that.  The only remaining number I keep track of anymore is the total lifetime courses played.  I'm at 975 and looking to break 1000 next year.  There are folks who have played 2-3-4 times as many courses as these and even most of those haven't played the top 100 in the world.

JC 

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

You are right that it's unlikely that two people have already posted ballots who have played all the top 100 courses, but it's not impossible -- I know of 7 or 8 people who have done it, and Ian's ballot is not confined to people who are MEMBERS of the GCA Discussion Group, it could be filled out by any of the thousands of lurkers.  So it's possible.

I think I would only be able to fill out 95 to 97 of the courses depending on the makeup of the most recent list.  But I haven't voted yet.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom - I know you and Brad both add courses you walked but not played to your personal lists.  Of the 95-97 you cite have you actually played all of them?  No criticism intended here but walking or cart riding a course takes much less time than does playing the course.  I’m not arguing someone who plays a course has better grounds to evaluate it; just that it’s somewhat less of a ‘feat’ to have seen but not played them.  JC 

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

I don't go around to see golf courses as a "feat" like some professional panelists do.  It's been years since I counted up how many courses on the lists I've seen, but I just did, just for you.

I've walked 96 of the most recent GOLF Magazine top 100 in the world, and played 90 of them.  (The ones I've never been to are Nine Bridges in Korea, Nanea in Hawaii, The European Club in Ireland, and Valderrama in Spain.  I have no immediate plans to go to any of them.)

Of the six I have walked but not played, I've walked four of them 2-4 times each, and had a very good look.  The only two that I've walked once only are Morfontaine in France (which I would vote for in the top 100 if they'd let us, and which I would love to get back to), and Whistling Straits (where my lack of standing to vote probably helps them).

I'm sure that the percentage of courses I've walked but not played is higher, the lower you go on the list of contenders ... if I've walked a course and didn't think much of it, I'm less likely to go back and play.

So, would those votes be of use to the GOLF rankings?  My take is that they would be.  There are still a lot of courses in remote places which fail to achieve a quorum -- Morfontaine used to be one of them, before it made the list and all the trophy-hunters were required to go.  A positive vote from me might get them on the list so others went to check them out, or at least encourage the magazine to keep the course on the ballot and try to get more voters there.  Ignoring my vote does nothing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()