[Mac Plumart]

Keith...agreed 100%.   Rankings are really important for a lot of reasons.  I get why educated and experienced golf course architecture gurus don't value them and/or think they are silly.  But, like you say, the average golfer relies on them to help them find a vacation golf getaway or a club to join.  Either way, they are spending money to play golf.  Therefore, I feel it is important to get the rankings right...so each dollar spent by the average golfer is well spent and this should have them walking away from the course happy and with a good attitude towards going on another golf trip.  This is good for the game and everyone involved.  In essence, it helps perpetuate the growth of the game.  This is why I think the ratings/rankings are important and why it is important to get 
them right.

[cary lichtenstein]

I don't think it gets a lot of rater play.  I was lucky enough to play it once, and to me it's a Doak 9.  Great set of par 5s that take you from the the upper dunes land to the lower, flatter former potato fields, twice!  I think of them as "The Escalators!"

I loved the course, fortunate to play it twice. I thought it was a 9 also after my first play, but the 2nd time around, I really paid double attention to the "non-dunes holes". I think there are 8.

These holes for those who haven't played there, are in the old potato fields, dead flat. You feel like you've come out of drop dead great course and into Kansas with Toto.

All in all, if you blend those holes which I think let you down, it drops down.

I would hire Pete Dye to do his Whistling Straits magic on those holes and bring Coore and Crenshaw back to do the greens.

That would make it a 9.

[Kevin_Reilly]

the average golfer relies on them to help them find a vacation golf getaway

That would justify rankings of "places you can play" or resorts.

or a club to join

. 

Really?  Would someone join a club without playing the course and deciding if they liked the course and the membership and the "atmosphere" of the club?  Would they join a club without playing some adjacent clubs and deciding which course they preferred?  Or would they need rankings to either break a tie or help them make a club decision?  I don't get this, and I live in an area with a lot of private clubs, and only a small number are ranked in any magazine poll. 

If it isn't obvious, I think golf course rankings are a waste of ink.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I and I read somehwere that it gets a 9 on TCG.

Ahh Keith - I think you read that nowhere(!) as Tommy's little book predates FH by 10-15 years.....

[Bill_McBride]

I don't think it gets a lot of rater play.  I was lucky enough to play it once, and to me it's a Doak 9.  Great set of par 5s that take you from the the upper dunes land to the lower, flatter former potato fields, twice!  I think of them as "The Escalators!"

I loved the course, fortunate to play it twice. I thought it was a 9 also after my first play, but the 2nd time around, I really paid double attention to the "non-dunes holes". I think there are 8.

These holes for those who haven't played there, are in the old potato fields, dead flat. You feel like you've come out of drop dead great course and into Kansas with Toto.

All in all, if you blend those holes which I think let you down, it drops down.

I would hire Pete Dye to do his Whistling Straits magic on those holes and bring Coore and Crenshaw back to do the greens.

That would make it a 9.

In addition to the par 5s which are half down in the "fields," as their greens or tees are up or down, I thought 5, 6, and 13 were really good holes.  I felt less enamored of the par 3s and #2, but I thought the shaping of the holes down there was really world class.

To me it was the quality of the holes down below that got Friars Head up into that rare air of a 9, although I wouldn't argue too much about an 8.  The holes upstairs are all outstanding.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I know I'll get drawn and quartered for this (and would NEVER think of posting this on Tommy's site) but I am less of a fan of FH than most.  The class of the course opens on the back nine with one of the most rudely outragous (and brilliant!) par 3s in the world.  The course continues in top 25 fashion from there.  The front nine left me a little cool.....borderline top 100.

[Michael Blake]

Rankings are really important for a lot of reasons.  I get why educated and experienced golf course architecture gurus don't value them and/or think they are silly.  But, like you say, the average golfer relies on them to help them find a vacation golf getaway or a club to join. 

"Average golfers" don't care where they play.  They don't 'need' rankings.  They're happy teeing it up anywhere.
The 'educated and experienced golf course architecture gurus' need them.  How would they know which courses to beg for access in order to cross them off their list of 'greatest courses played.'  
I'm half-serious but the more I think about it the more it seems true.  Especially the latter.  Those guys really need to know which nothces to cut in ther belt.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Rankings are nice for marketing.
Rankings are nice for selling advertising space in the semi-annual tri-seasonal quarterly every other weekend special rankings issue.

I just don't see them as being 'really important' for any reason.

[Matt_Ward]

The idea that Digest has not had enough raters play FH is laughable.

There are other courses in the USA that are no less private and might even have even less of a desire to be rated.

What would be curious is to compare / contrast the NY courses that Digest does have ahead of FR in its state ratings.

NY is likely the most competitive of states given the depth of private courses there. Interesting, how both Cary and Jonathan opined on that same element as an area of concern / weakness.

Michael:

No doubt -- for you that's so.

However --

Ratings do matter to plenty of people and when the chief golf pubs weigh in -- people do notice. Clearly, you can ignore them as you presently do. Look at the comments people provide -- raters and non-raters alike -- and you can see the interest and reaction they generate.

[Link Walsh]

Here are the rankings for the state of New York on Golf Digest's website:

1.  Shinnecock Hills
2.  Winged Foot West
3.  Fishers Island
4.  Oak Hill
5.  National Golf Links
6.  Bethpage Black
7.  Sebonack
8.  Garden City
9.  Winged Foot East
10.  Quaker Ridge
11.  Maidstone
12.  Hudson National
13.  Piping Rock
14.  Friar's Head
15.  Atlantic

[David_Madison]

It's easy to say that any given course belongs in the top ten in a state, or top 100 nationally, or whatever. But looking at that list of NY courses rated by Golf Digest, it looks really strong, certainly through #8. No question about those - all are truly elite. Is FH better than any of those? Those of you who've played FH, which courses would you move it ahead of? Conversely, are there any courses below it that you'd rank higher?

[Keith OHalloran]

Sorry Mr. Cummings. I guess I did not read it in TCG. I read it on this site in a thread about FH. On June 18, 2009, JC Jones wrote..."Still, to be the ONLY course that he has seen in the last 13 years that is a 9, pretty impressive."  I have yet to have a reason to question JC's veracity. If you feel that I should not rely on this, let me know. 

[Ed Oden]

I have yet to have a reason to question JC's veracity.

Big mistake. [insert emoticon here]

[Mac Plumart]

+1

 

[Wayne Freeman]

How Digest has FH out of it's top 100 is certainly beyond me.  I can't imagine that they haven't had enough raters there.... 
   I loved Friars Head and in fact can still remember every hole after 3 years as if I played it yesterday.  In the New York listings I would put it above Hudson National and Atlantic for sure and probably also ahead of Piping and Sebonac,  both of which are pretty darn good!
 As an aside, after playing Sleepy Hollow for the first time last week I'd probably put that one ahead of Hudson National and Atlantic too. What a great job they did with the restoration.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Sorry Mr. Cummings. I guess I did not read it in TCG. I read it on this site in a thread about FH. On June 18, 2009, JC Jones wrote..."Still, to be the ONLY course that he has seen in the last 13 years that is a 9, pretty impressive."  I have yet to have a reason to question JC's veracity. If you feel that I should not rely on this, let me know. 

I wonder where JC Jones got this info (it wasn't from The Guide).  Other than the TCG I don't know where Tom Doak published (even on gca) actually Doak ratings....  It's not something he does often, or at all.  I could be wrong..

[George Pazin]

George Pazin: While it is easy for people like us to say "who cares" to the ranking, unfortunately they matter...

Keith...agreed 100%.   Rankings are really important for a lot of reasons... 

Of course they serve a purpose to many. I was merely pointing out the futility of trying to resolve the many contradictions and paradoxes within any set of rankings. You'll live longer if you take my approach.

Were I to favor any type of rankings, it would be the Rich Goodale Michelin Rankings...

[Jud_T]

Sorry Mr. Cummings. I guess I did not read it in TCG. I read it on this site in a thread about FH. On June 18, 2009, JC Jones wrote..."Still, to be the ONLY course that he has seen in the last 13 years that is a 9, pretty impressive."  I have yet to have a reason to question JC's veracity. If you feel that I should not rely on this, let me know.  

I wonder where JC Jones got this info (it wasn't from The Guide).  Other than the TCG I don't know where Tom Doak published (even on gca) actually Doak ratings....  It's not something he does often, or at all.  I could be wrong..

Jonathan,

from Tom's last featured interview by our fearless leader:

18. Your frankness in the Confidential Guide is obviously still appreciated to this day. Since the publication of the book, what is the best course you have seen?

Keeping our own courses out of the equation, I would say the only course I’ve seen which I think is a clear 9 is Friars Head.  There are several more, all modern designs, which are an 8 — you could guess what most of those are, they’re the same courses that everyone on Golf Club Atlas routinely gives a 9 or 10 on their own version of the Doak scale.  But if you look at my other 9’s — places like Prairie Dunes, Pebble Beach, Royal County Down, and Oakmont — I just don’t think there are many modern courses which can be seen as their equals.  Now, I had great fun seeing Brora in Scotland, or Plymouth Golf Club in Mass., but I couldn’t rate them anywhere near that highly.

[Jim Franklin]

Golf Digest is not missing the boat on Friar's Head; they just do not have enough panelist visits to qualify for the Top 100. In order to qualify you need 45 visits. In order to qualify in the Best in State category you only need 10 (may have increased to 15). FH has received the required number for Best in State since they are the first course listed after the Top 100 courses in NY. They need a few more panelist visits to get into the Top 100 which they most certainly would if they allowed raters. Golf Magazine and Golfweek do not have the strict number of visits required in order to make their lists.

I loved FH. It is in my personal top 20. I wish they allowed raters to play, but, unfortunately, they do not.

[Jim Colton]

Golf Digest is not missing the boat on Friar's Head; they just do not have enough panelist visits to qualify for the Top 100. In order to qualify you need 45 visits. In order to qualify in the Best in State category you only need 10 (may have increased to 15). FH has received the required number for Best in State since they are the first course listed after the Top 100 courses in NY. They need a few more panelist visits to get into the Top 100 which they most certainly would if they allowed raters. Golf Magazine and Golfweek do not have the strict number of visits required in order to make their lists.

I loved FH. It is in my personal top 20. I wish they allowed raters to play, but, unfortunately, they do not.

Jim,

  Hudson National is 12th in the state and 94th overall.  Piping Rock is 13th in NY and out of the top 100.  Friars Head is 14th in NY.

[SL_Solow]

Jim;  On what do you base your statement that the other magazines do not have a minimum number of raters required before a course is listed?  Is it possible that others have been more diligent in seeing FH even if they do so without invoking their rater's privilege?

[Garland Bayley]

... invoking their rater's privilege?

Rater's privilege? What's that? Quid pro quo?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Thanks Jud

[SL_Solow]

Some courses seek out raters and invite them to play regardless of any connection with a member.  Others discourage raters and many are indifferent.  Clearly, some courses are less accessible absent the open invitation or "raters privilege'.  that is all I was referring to.

[Kirk Gill]

"Average golfers" don't care where they play.  They don't 'need' rankings.  They're happy teeing it up anywhere.

I know that your tongue is somewhat in cheek making this statement, but I think that average golfers are not a homogenous group, and I believe there is a wide diversity of opinion amongst average golfers regarding courses, and ratings.

[TEPaul]

Since I've never been a fan of magazine course rankings I have no idea at all if a course's ranking is somehow affected if the club doesn't care for course rankings and course raters but if that does have an affect on a course's ranking that might help explain why FH isn't ranked higher. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()