[Jim Colton]

Where do you think Old Macdonald will come out in its first eligible set of rankings?  Post your prediction for the following rankings and we'll keep them sealed in a vault.  Closest prediction will win a small prize, TBD.

If I've offended anybody by presuming that Old Macdonald is a top 100 course, I apologize.

1. Golf Magazine World - http://courses.golf.com/top-courses-and-resorts/top-100-world-courses-2009.html
2. Golf Magazine U.S. - http://courses.golf.com/top-courses-and-resorts/top-100-us-courses-2009.html
3. Golfweek Modern - http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/jun/15/2009-golfweeks-best-modern-courses/
4. Golf Digest U.S. - http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2009-05/100_greatestgolfcourses

My prediction:
1. 32
2. 20
3. 4
4. 54

[Emil Weber]

1. 56
2. 35
3. 7
4. 61

[Ron Csigo]

1. 48
2. 27
3. 8
4. 49

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,
The GD link you posted at #4 is for GM. 

1. 26
2. 17
3.  3
4. 22

 

[JC Jones]

The greens are wild and crazy, its got blind shots, its in the shadow of a top 15 course.  That formula seems to equate to about #20 in the Golfweek Modern and not ranked by the other publications...

[Jud_T]

1. 28
2. 18
3. 3
4. 46

[Tony Weiler]

1.  29
2.  20
3.  4
4.  50

[Mac Plumart]

1...n/a
2...75
3...15
4...n/a

This is for the 2010 rankings, right?

[Jim Colton]

1...n/a
2...75
3...15
4...n/a

This is for the 2010 rankings, right?

Mac, the first time it's eligible to be ranked.  May differ from publication to publication.  I'm guessing it'll be in the 2011 numbers across the board.

[John Kirk]

It depends on how the course difficulty is perceived.  It will be a hard golf course, with many short grass areas falling away from complicated greens.  It is nicely designed for low trajectory golf, but how will that play with the raters?

I have a tough time seeing how Golf Digest will immediately accept it into the top 100.  So I'll say:

80
45
9
No dice

[Tim Bert]

Has it been confirmed that it will be considered for GW list?  Wasn't sure if Brad Klein's participation on the committe would have an impact. Pardon me if this has been previously addressed.

[Jim Colton]

It depends on how the course difficulty is perceived.  It will be a hard golf course, with many short grass areas falling away from complicated greens.  It is nicely designed for low trajectory golf, but how will that play with the raters?

I have a tough time seeing how Golf Digest will immediately accept it into the top 100.  So I'll say:

80
45
9
No dice

John,

  I think you raise an interesting point, and it's one that I've been thinking about for awhile.  Is your average rater willing to embrace the threat of multiple three-putts as a reasonable resistance to scoring?  Will Old Mac have enough detractors that chalk it up as 'tricked-up' to drag it down in the rankings?  We had a discussion awhile back where Old Mac was labeled as the poster child for polarization, which is never a good thing when it comes to these rankings.  Then again, the guys who play Old Mac early on probably aren't your average golfer -- they are guys who are seeking it out and guys who are likely playing the other courses at the resort.  So maybe that warms them up to the ground game aspects, the fun factor, putting from everywhere, etc as well as gives some immediate context to other highly ranked courses.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Jim.  I'll stick with my predictions for the first eligible time, maybe 2011.

[Mike Hendren]

Right behind Blue Mound.  (Hey if this web-site is going to be co-opted by the hiney squadron to tout a course that hasn't opened yet, I don't see why I can't use it to sponsor one of my personal favorites).  Henceforth my default  answer to all questions on this site will be Blue Mound - just to see if I can somehow move the needle.  Come on along and join the Blue Mound Brigade - heck you don't even have to play the course - after all it's Raynor with a Renaisance Golf facelift!

Just teasing.

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

I have no idea where the course will wind up in the rankings.

I would GUESS that it will do best in the GOLFWEEK rankings [since their panel is populated with Seth Raynor geeks], and worst in the GOLF DIGEST list, since the majority of the GOLF DIGEST panel seems not to understand my idea of design [or just don't like my style].

The most interesting thing will be to see how it affects the rankings of all the other courses in Bandon.  If Old Macdonald is perceived as the best out there [which I've been told several times already, but which I doubt will wind up as the consensus view], then it will undermine the rankings of all the other courses.

But, I'll happily make a side bet with JC that it winds up ranked in more publications than his favorite course on the outskirts of Traverse City, just to piss him off.

[Kevin Pallier]

Where it falls and where I'd have it will obviously be two different things  

I reckon in the first publications it will come out something like:
1. 35 (and improve with time)
2. 22
3. 3
4. 52

[Pete_Pittock]

1. 29
2. 16
3. 3
4. 17

I've played 10, walked all 18 twice. Tee time on 6/2. Think it will be the slight favorite of all the courses at Bandon because it accommodates all games,
or the least polarizing, but that it will rank slightly behind Paciifc Dunes, which has "history" going for it.

[Andy Troeger]

Don't count on OM being eligible for the Golf Digest list until 2013.

[Mac Plumart]

Andy...

That is why I said it wouldn't be rated in the 2010 or 2011 ratings.

Doesn't Golf Digest have a waiting period?

[Andy Troeger]

Mac,
I'm not sure about a waiting period, but normally courses do go through the "Best New" process before being eligible for the other lists. I would think Old Mac will get to the required number of ratings faster than most new courses, but if its not there in 2011 don't be surprised.

[JC Jones]

But, I'll happily make a side bet with JC that it winds up ranked in more publications than his favorite course on the outskirts of Traverse City, just to piss him off.

You're on, Tom.  If I win, you host me at my favorite course outside of Traverse City, of which you are a member.

[Tim Bert]

JC - you aren't using the new and approved Spartans logo, are you? 

[JC Jones]

JC - you aren't using the new and approved Spartans logo, are you? 

Well, the official announcement is in April (coinciding with the Spring Game).  Until then, I'll keep the current logo.  I don't quite know how I feel about the "new" logo yet.  Izzo's tirade on it the other day was interesting though.

[Tom_Doak]

But, I'll happily make a side bet with JC that it winds up ranked in more publications than his favorite course on the outskirts of Traverse City, just to piss him off.

You're on, Tom.  If I win, you host me at my favorite course outside of Traverse City, of which you are a member.

You forgot to offer something on your end of the bargain.

[George Freeman]

JC - you aren't using the new and approved Spartans logo, are you?  

Well, the official announcement is in April (coinciding with the Spring Game).  Until then, I'll keep the current logo.  I don't quite know how I feel about the "new" logo yet.  Izzo's tirade on it the other day was interesting though.

Well seeing there are 50,000 (and growing FAST) fans of "Just Say No - Support the old MSU logo" group on Facebook, the university would be smart to open their eyes and realize how bonehead of a decision it would be to change the logo...This supposed Izzo tirade sounds like another glaring clue...

Somehow I just can't see U of M changing the font of their "M"...

Sorry for the OT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()