[David Stewart]

http://www.golf.com/golf/special_feature/0,31941,1898778,00.html

There they are.  I don't think anyone has posted this yet but I'm sorry if it has already been discussed.  Pretty standard top ten, 9 new courses, including a future U.S. Open site.  I see several familiar names on the panelist list.  For those of you way more knowledgeable than I, what has been left out?  Which new courses don't belong?  Do you love seeing these rankings?  Do they make you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit?  Let the discussions begin!

[Mark Pritchett]

Interesting that the "Golf Digest Top 100 is out" thread was 8 pages long, yet Golf Magazine's Top 100 goes 24 hours without comment. 

Is the Golf list less contentious? 

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Interesting that the "Golf Digest Top 100 is out" thread was 8 pages long, yet Golf Magazine's Top 100 goes 24 hours without comment.  

Is the Golf list less contentious?  

It was leaked and discussed a week or two ago.

[Scott Warren]

Is the World Top 100 brand new as well?

[Mark Pritchett]

I realize there was a thread which was included "World List" and was about a page and a half that focused more on the world list. 

Either way, why would Golf Digest generate 8 pages and Golf magazine 2 pages?

Because everyone is in agreement with Golf?  The list is boring?  No reads Golf?

[Richard Hetzel]

Bay Harbor at #31? I ain't buying any of that at all.

[Jim Colton]

I realize there was a thread which was included "World List" and was about a page and a half that focused more on the world list. 

Either way, why would Golf Digest generate 8 pages and Golf magazine 2 pages?

Because everyone is in agreement with Golf?  The list is boring?  No reads Golf?

I think the Golf list has fewer outliers compared to the GD list.  Plus, the GD lists are deeper (state-by-state), providing more fodder.

I like Golf's expert panel approach as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()