Congratulations GOLF DIGEST

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have surrounded myself with protective armor so that the bombs lobbed at me will not penetrate to my very sensitive thin skin.

Golf Digest did what they had hoped to do.  However imperfect their ranking system or the panelists who do the ratings may be, GD has succeeded in promoting a discussion about golf courses and golf architecture.  GD has never said that their rankings are definitive, only that they are the collective wisdom of a good number of golfers, most of whom are pretty well traveled.  Trust me that there is almost as much disagreement among panelists as there is on this site--almost.

Both Ron Whitten and Topsy Siderowf and her staff are probably scratching their collective heads about some of the results.  I suspect RW is wringing his hands over the rise of AGNC.
So keep on talking about the system, the merits of the panelists, and how bad the ratings are.  It is good to hear folks who may rarely even notice the design of a hole join the discussion.

[Brad Fleischer]

Tommy

If only if that was done on purpose !!      They couldn't be that smart can they ?

[Jim Colton]

GD has never said that their rankings are definitive,

"Golf Digest's ranking remain the industry's gold standard."

"This is why Golf Digest's rankings are the most respected and comprehensive in the business."

Sounds like they view their rankings as definitive.

[J_ Crisham]

Tommy,    I have to say that GD's list of best in  the state of IL was really quite comical. Of the top 25 in the state I have played 22 and at the risk of being  meanspirited I will just agree to disagree with their purported experts. It is not an exact science but some of the rankings are probably questionable given the fact that the better clubs do not knowingly allow raters on their course and certainly not unescorted. This being the case would make me wonder how broad the rating coverage extends. The fact that you seem to see their list in a positive light would make me assume you are a rater? I have friends who are raters and some are well traveled and knowledgeable but not all are.  Just my opinion on what I see regarding Illinois.         Wish you well,  Jack            

[Mike McGuire]

Golf Digest did what they had hoped to do.  However imperfect their ranking system or the panelists who do the ratings may be, GD has succeeded in promoting a discussion about golf courses and golf architecture. 

Seems like a weak goal. If your mission is to just promote a discussion about golf course architecture why make a bunch of people waste their time running around playing and rating golf courses and having someone compiling an intelligent list. You could just regurgitate someone else's list and accomplish the same thing with a lot less effort.

[John Handley]

Golf Digest's rankings have no better merit than GOLF Magazine's rankings.  They are all done by panelists and "experts" and thus not the sole decision of the magazine nor Editor.  GD likes to think they are the holy grail.

[Doug Ralston]

Golf Digest's rankings have no better merit than GOLF Magazine's rankings.  They are all done by panelists and "experts" and thus not the sole decision of the magazine nor Editor.  GD likes to think they are the holy grail.

So do the folks here! Did you notice?

Doug

[Mike McGuire]

  It is good to hear folks who may rarely even notice the design of a hole join the discussion.

Why is this good? I would rather have folks who notice (and can critique) the design of holes than ones that rarely do compile the list.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am one who absolutlly appreciates the weaknesses in any  of the rating system. It just seems GD finds a way to completely miss the mark so badly so often. GW and Golf are far from perfect but their misses are fewer amd less off the wall.

[Derek Dirksen]

Golf Digest's rankings have no better merit than GOLF Magazine's rankings.  They are all done by panelists and "experts" and thus not the sole decision of the magazine nor Editor.  GD likes to think they are the holy grail.

So do the folks here! Did you notice?

Doug

Doug, I have!!! 

[Tommy Williamsen]

  It is good to hear folks who may rarely even notice the design of a hole join the discussion.

Why is this good? I would rather have folks who notice (and can critique) the design of holes than ones that rarely do compile the list.

Mark, I'm not sure I understand your  point.  What I was saying is that the rankings get folks (readers) to discuss architecture that might not otherwise.

[Mike McGuire]

  It is good to hear folks who may rarely even notice the design of a hole join the discussion.

Why is this good? I would rather have folks who notice (and can critique) the design of holes than ones that rarely do compile the list.

Mark, I'm not sure I understand your  point.  What I was saying is that the rankings get folks (readers) to discuss architecture that might not otherwise.

Terry,

Your right, it's good if they discuss. Looking at the lists though, it seems they let too many vote.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,    I have to say that GD's list of best in  the state of IL was really quite comical. Of the top 25 in the state I have played 22 and at the risk of being  meanspirited I will just agree to disagree with their purported experts. It is not an exact science but some of the rankings are probably questionable given the fact that the better clubs do not knowingly allow raters on their course and certainly not unescorted. This being the case would make me wonder how broad the rating coverage extends. The fact that you seem to see their list in a positive light would make me assume you are a rater? I have friends who are raters and some are well traveled and knowledgeable but not all are.  Just my opinion on what I see regarding Illinois.         Wish you well,  Jack            

Jack, I have played fourteen of the Illinois list.  Some thoughts.  I have all but Canyata of the top16.  The top five (Canyata?) seem pretty solid.  Rich Harvest is a phenomon and a great place but I would not place it in the top 15.  Shoreacres is a great course.  I would put it in the top five.  Kemper Lakes is a joke.  Play it with a fishing pole and leave your clubs at home.  Cog Hill is much better than Skokie.  Conway Farms is a pretty good Fazio but not top 20 material.  I would put North Shore, Beverly, and Bob O'Link in the top ten. I would drop Rich Harvest, Skokie, and Kemper Lakes out.  I think I would reinstate Knollwood.  It thought it was marvelous.

Thoughts?

[Paul Richards]

Tommy and Jack

The Illinois rankings are an absolute joke.

It would almost be comical, but, as a joke, they aren't funny in the least.

Tiger said it best:
>It just seems GD finds a way to completely miss the mark so badly so often.

I haven't had a chance to devour any other state rankings, but if they all 'miss the mark' as badly as they did in Illinois, then there is no hope for this system.


 

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy W:

Just a quick question ...

You said, "Cog Hill is much better than Skokie." Are you really serious ?

I mean how "much better" are you saying. Is Skokie in your mind a top ten
Illinois course?

Tommy, Tiger B is right on the mark. Digest is shooting way too many blanks to betaken seriously. The ascension of the existing ANGC demonstrates that loudly -- so do the bulk of the rest of the courses listed among their so-called "gold standard"listing. No one list can be 100% perfect but the holes are gaping.

One last point -- discussing architecture is fine -- I would think the world's leading pub would begin to really understand that so much of what they are now touting as "great" courses is really circumspect in so many ways. Keep this in mind, the national result is only topped by the outrageous results many of the states have shown.