Golfweek's Best Tour Courses You Can Play (2009-2010)

[Jud_T]

1. Pebble
2. TOC
3.Whistling Straights
4. Turnberry
5 Bethpage
6. Spyglass
7. TPC Sawgrass
8. Cap Cana
9. Harbour Town
10. Fallen Oak
11. Sea Island
12. Kapalua
13. Cog Hill
14. Mayakoba
15. Kinderlau Forest
16. Greenbrier
17. Dove Mountain
18. Port Royal
19. Trump Intn'l
20. CordeValle
21. Pumpkin Ridge
22. Celtic Manor
23. Crosswater
24. Pga National
25. Torrey
26. Bay Hill
27. TPC Scottsdale
28. TPC San Fran
29. Doral
30. Rose Hall
31. Savannah Harbour
32. TPC Sawgrass (Valley)
33. Hualalai
34. Sonoma GC
35. Atunyote
36. TPC Louisiana
37. Classic Club
38. Grayhawk
39. Innisbrook
40. Indian Wells
41. Ross Bridge
42. University of Georgia
43. TPC Las Colinas
44. Kingsmill
45. TPC Deer Run
46. Royal Ka'anapali
47. Rio Secco
48. TPC Summerlin
49. Turtle Bay
50 Torrey (North)


Wow.  And I thought Golfweek was the best of the big 3.  The top 5 alone blow my mind.....

[Tom_Doak]

I thought they said it was impossible to compare Classic and Modern courses.

And I don't think they use the same voting criteria for both, so how do they compare the numbers?

[Andy Troeger]

I thought they said it was impossible to compare Classic and Modern courses.

And I don't think they use the same voting criteria for both, so how do they compare the numbers?

I asked this before when I noticed that the public state lists include classic and modern courses lumped together into one list. It would certainly appear that it can be done!

[Jud_T]

I don't know how they got them, but they have rating numbers for each entry...i.e. Pebble 8.85, TOC 8.69, etc....

[Mac Plumart]

You guys continue to underwhelm me; to compare the classics to the moderns is quite simple. 

First and foremost, you've got to run a regression analysis of the modern criteria vs. the classic criteria

Upon gathering the results of this analysis you should have ample data to derive to correlation coefficient between the two.

By applying the correlation coefficient to the disparate criteria you can then geo-metrically link the two to come to an approximation of the results.

However, approximates won't cut it when it comes to golf course architecture analysis.  Therefore, you've got diagram the results into chart and see where the slopes begin to demonstrate convexity.  This will begin to narrow the approximation down to very managable and discernable levels.

By taking this measure of convexity and double checking to ensure the results demonstrate no heteroscedasticity, then you have comparable data within a normal distribution pattern.

And voila, you have your apple to apples comparison for Golfweek's modern and classical lists. 

Easy as pi!

[Jud_T]

Mac,

Exactly!  But What Durbin-Watson Coefficient are you applying?  

[Niall C]

Perhaps they should first start with defining what a Tour course is. What tour is Turnberry on ? If they mean courses that are played periodically in the oPen then that brings in quite few other which I would have thought would have been higher up the list. I can't think of any Open venues that you can't get on with at least some prior arrangement.

Niall

[Sean Leary]

Perhaps they should first start with defining what a Tour course is. What tour is Turnberry on ? If they mean courses that are played periodically in the oPen then that brings in quite few other which I would have thought would have been higher up the list. I can't think of any Open venues that you can't get on with at least some prior arrangement.

Niall

It looks like courses that any of the major tours are playing in 2009-2010.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Interesting, I would think Chambers Bay and Jasper Park would find their way to the top 50 easy.

[Sean Leary]

Interesting, I would think Chambers Bay and Jasper Park would find their way to the top 50 easy.

Tiger,

Which pro events are being played at CB and JP?

[Michael Huber]

RE: Cap Cana

I saw the champions tour event held at the site, and needless to say the eye candy is spectacular. 

how does it stand up as a golf course?  Does it deserve the top 10 ranking?

[JC Jones]

You guys continue to underwhelm me; to compare the classics to the moderns is quite simple. 

First and foremost, you've got to run a regression analysis of the modern criteria vs. the classic criteria

Upon gathering the results of this analysis you should have ample data to derive to correlation coefficient between the two.

By applying the correlation coefficient to the disparate criteria you can then geo-metrically link the two to come to an approximation of the results.

However, approximates won't cut it when it comes to golf course architecture analysis.  Therefore, you've got diagram the results into chart and see where the slopes begin to demonstrate convexity.  This will begin to narrow the approximation down to very managable and discernable levels.

By taking this measure of convexity and double checking to ensure the results demonstrate no heteroscedasticity, then you have comparable data within a normal distribution pattern.

And voila, you have your apple to apples comparison for Golfweek's modern and classical lists. 

Easy as pi!

show off

[Tim Leahy]

What tour plays Cordevalle? Is this the one in San Jose?

[Matthew Petersen]

What tour plays Cordevalle? Is this the one in San Jose?

It's a PGA Fall Season event. The Frys.Com Open that was at Grayhawk the past two years will be there in 2010.

[Jud_T]

I thought they said it was impossible to compare Classic and Modern courses.

And I don't think they use the same voting criteria for both, so how do they compare the numbers?

If you look at the ratings from the Modern, GB&I etc. lists, it does appear that they just lifted those ratings numbers and sorted the data....