I'm confused about the Best News - Golf Digest vs. Golf Magazine

[Mike Nuzzo]

Golf Digest vs. Golf Magazine
They sure are different.
And there sure seem to be a lot of ugly frilly bunkers.
They sure are long too.
I guess the answer is still more maintenance and construction $$s.

One highlight is congratulations to Gil Hanse.

Golf Digest's Thread
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42434.0/
Golf Magazine
http://www.golf.com/golf/special_feature/0,31941,1945578,00.html?xid=trips120909_headline

[Norbert P]

 I love Golf's Best New That "You" Can Play.   Shees! $350 for that apoplectic display at French Lick?!   Their "You" does not mean me.

(Lord, please save Pistol River from this fate.)


 Waldorf Astoria (Rees Jones)


   I almost never use the emoticons but it'll save typing . . .          then            then        but ultimately   

Apparently, he feels no need to redeem himself for Sandpines.

[Kalen Braley]

Slag,

At least you can't bag on Rees for using non-natural occurences of mother nature.

Amoeba are naturally occuring too ya know!! 

[Eric Smith]

Hey Kalen is that Bora Bora?   I went there on my honeymoon.  Dinner at Bloody Mary's, awesome snorkling...top notch!

[Garland Bayley]

Eric,

You mooned your honey in Bora Bora?
      

[Garland Bayley]

Best New Course You Can play 2009, Wine Valley - Unadvertised Golf Magazine Digest Yearly, 2009 issue

The others simply can spend more on advertising.

[Eric Smith]

Eric,

You mooned your honey in Bora Bora?
       

I guess you could call it that Gar!


sorry for the thread jack Mike!

[John Moore II]

I guess the difference could come from the fact that Golf Digest and Golf Magazine use different formulas to determine whats 'good' in a course. Or that one course gives away more free stuff to raters from one mag in order to get a better rating (I'm sure that happens more than we want to admit) I can tell you that at both the courses I worked at, we put on a real dog-and-pony show any time a few raters were coming on property; didn't help any. Plus, I think Golf Magazine has the more 'professional' or the rating staff's since just about anyone can rate for Golf Digest, but generally only industry people rate for GM, from what I understand.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Can you elaborate on the "dog and pony" show and what it entailed ?

thanks ...

[John Moore II]

John:

Can you elaborate on the "dog and pony" show and what it entailed ?

thanks ...

Hand raking bunkers
Made sure all maintenance equipment was off the course by the time they got there
Extra parking lot guys to make sure this fellow didn't have to handle his bag
Extra crap strewn about in the pro shop
just a bunch of BS really to try and make some sort of stupid impression (mind you I didn't work at a really high end/great club. Each course was just kind of average+ at best)

[Lou_Duran]

John K Moore,

I guess that I missed the invite.  I've probably "rated" couple hundred courses and never got a measly golf towel.  Once I ran out of balls and I asked if I could buy a dozen, but the club wouldn't take cash or a credit card so one of the pros went to his bag and gave a couple of sleeves which he was trying out for his sponsor.  If I was ever the recipient of a dog-and-pony show, it flew right over me.  Rats!

Nuzzo!!!  Man, you just don't get it.  It ain't what you like, but what the golfer is willing to pay for.  Maybe you want to be a Picasso in the era of Kinkade.  I bet the latter ate a lot better.

[Dale Jackson]

Hand raking bunkers
Made sure all maintenance equipment was off the course by the time they got there
Extra parking lot guys to make sure this fellow didn't have to handle his bag
Extra crap strewn about in the pro shop
just a bunch of BS really to try and make some sort of stupid impression (mind you I didn't work at a really high end/great club. Each course was just kind of average+ at best)

I too have rated about 150 - 200 courses and I have never seen anything like that.  Once the course had a cart with my name on it out front, and once another course let me know I would receive 20% off in the Pro Shop but that is it.  No free clothes, no free drinks, no free lunch.  And, if offered, I would politely refuse.  I have heard stories otherwise but never experienced it first hand.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you very much Lou!

BTW...
Picasso left an estate estimated at $750 million.

[Matt_Ward]

The real issue where Digest blew it is in eliminating the best affordable category.

Look at the ones selected this year -- and save for Palouse Ridge they all require a big time investment to play.

Saluting quality layouts that don't cost a second mortgage was a great idea -- it should make a grand return next year in my mind.

[Lou_Duran]

Thank you very much Lou!

BTW...
Picasso left an estate estimated at $750 million.

Nuzzo!!!

May you do the same 100 years from now (adusted for inflation, of course).

But if you noticed, I said "a Picasso".  Historically, there have been far more van Gohs who died penniless, but you get my point: you build for yourself or for the people who pay.  Fortunate is he that can do both, happily.

Matt Ward,

The Dallas Morning News for its top Texas courses does that, but takes it a step further by segmenting the public market into four categories: "most expensive" (over $75), "high-priced" ($55-$75), "mid-priced" ($41-$54), and "economy" (under $41).  I believe that it may have also done something similar in the past for the privates based on initiation fee, but not in the latest list.

I have argued before that the "best course" lists do not necessarily identify the best architects.  Sites and budgets have a great bearing on what typically makes it.  The best architects, IMO, are those who can really stretch the dollar like the guys who did Wild Horse, Mike Young, Hanse (Rustic Canyon), and a couple of our Texas boys.

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

The difference with a best new national listing is that few courses really can operate below a certain dollar amount. That's why Digest merged the category.

I still believe it adds a good element to the story line.

people can't fork over $350 to play Dye's monster layout in IN. Ditto the $$ it takes to play PR in NY -- also done by Dye.

Frankly, I think ratings should focus more on the cost side of things and freeze out those expensive places simply by virtue that they are not really "public" in the truest sense of the word.

[Tony Weiler]

The real issue where Digest blew it is in eliminating the best affordable category.

Look at the ones selected this year -- and save for Palouse Ridge they all require a big time investment to play.

Saluting quality layouts that don't cost a second mortgage was a great idea -- it should make a grand return next year in my mind.
.

Agreed, Matt, also I agree that many listed as "public" truly are not based on cost, and having to stay to play.   

[Matt_Ward]

Hats off to Red Ledges for being selected by Golf Mag as top private.

Only wish more people could see the place -- although a few people have been there (e.g Joel Z, et al).

In regards to what Lou mentioned earlier -- it would be good to see price points be used since this would allow more alternatives for golfers who don't have the deepest of pockets to play the other awardees on the public side.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Golf Digest vs. Golf Magazine
They sure are different.
And there sure seem to be a lot of ugly frilly bunkers.
They sure are long too.
I guess the answer is still more maintenance and construction $$s.

The major difference is what GOLF and GD consider new.  I think GOLF does calendar year.  For GD it is courses the year is from June 1 to the following June 1.  GD does that to make certain enough panelists get to to play the course.  It is confusing for folks however.  GOLF'S list is public access as well.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Here are the ones from Links:
http://linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/features/best_new_courses_2009.aspx

[Garland Bayley]

Here are the ones from Links:
http://linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/features/best_new_courses_2009.aspx

What?  No, Palouse Ridge? 
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

It's pretty easy to see that Rees 'stole' the idea for this:


from Van Kleek:


 

[George_Bahto]

Jim - Wadda calll  !!!!!!!!!!!!! hah

[Tony Weiler]

With the great differences between GD and Golf with respect to lists, ratings, and their panelists, the fact both chose French Lick says a lot.  However, for $350, that's not quite "public" to me.  It must be quite a ride, however. 

[Matt_Ward]

No doubt the two mags see the time line situations a good bit differently -- in some cases you might find a course listed "new" for one and then be repeated as "new" for the other because of the lag in time when such courses are deemed to have opened -- depending too upon that respective mag's publishing time frame and how they set-up when courses are evaluated.

For example, Rock Creek really could have been rated as "new" turning the '08 season. No doubt it was soon after it opened -- but when the course is then bumped into '09 it then has the benefit of being "open" for much more than other courses that opened in mid-summer in '09. For Digest the real issue is getting panelists to play the layouts and therefore they have created a mechanism which provides for the benefit of panelists getting to see such courses even though they have clearly opened a good bit earlier.

There's no clear cut answer unless Digest decides to fast track the process of evaluation by having a more streamlined way in reviewing such courses.