How do the

[Mike Policano]

Pat, what did happen to Pine Tree?. Here is what I saw on GD website.

Pine Tree place on GD top 100 over the years.

1970 first ten (wow!)
1980 third ten
1985 #58
1995 #86
2004 #81
2005 off the list

Couple of observations

In 1970 there were virtually no Fazio and Pete Dye courses on the list. In 2010 list there is 12 Fazios, 7 Nicklaus and 10 Dyes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Policano,

If you take the 1970 and 1980 rating that averages somewhere in the top 20, you have to ask yourself, did all of the courses ranked above Pine Tree get moved up, up and away ?

In other words, if Pine Tree was # 27 and it's no longer on the top 100 today, did everycourse ranked 28 and higher also get bumped ?


If not, you have to wonder how the system could cause a course once ranked in the top 10, 20, 30, could be gradually removed from the list while other courses, not as well ranked, remained on the list.

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
Courses change positions on these lists all the time for any number of reasons. As you know, golf courses change and are dynamic in and of themselves. Some courses that have fallen on hard times recently will inevitably see their rankings tumble. Renovations at times can change ranking placement.

The lists are nothing more than the combined opinion of a panel of humanoids. The make-up of the panels change over time, the individuals that rate a course during the rating period vary as we go see different courses, tastes in architecture change for better or worse...there's probably other factors not coming to mind as well.

The numerical difference between courses in the bottom half of the 100 Greatest and the next 100 courses that don't make the list is very small. It doesn't take more than a couple good or bad ratings to change a ranking in some cases.

You can analyze this all you want as I do think it makes for an interesting topic, but I don't think you'll ever get a definitive "answer" if that is what you seek.

[Jim Franklin]

Pat -

Like someone said initially, the earliest versions of Golf Digest's lists were for most difficult courses. I am not sure when that changed, but GD has tweaked their system a few times which dropped some courses a lot (see Five Farms, Plainfield, Wannamoisett), and had some courses jump dramatically (Kinloch). Personally, I thought PT was fantastic. My caddie was great and on one par 3 told me to miss the green short right and I could make par. The 3 players I was with all hit the green to the left and all 3 putted. I missed short right and got up and down for par. That kind of strateic play doesn't happen everywhere. I thought the course was a blast.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Please reread my reply # 76.

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

I do know that for several years, GOLF DIGEST's "tradition" factor gave points for lots of things including FOR BEING ON THEIR PREVIOUS TOP-100 LISTS.  That is probably what kept several courses "on" the list in the 1990's even as the rest of the numbers were pushing them off.  But, it was done because the definition of greatness was so bad that scores of modern courses would have replaced the classic courses on their list, and DIGEST understood that would show up their system, because people would not accept some of the courses that were in the top 100 according to their numbers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I agree, I think the category of "tradition" was a preservationist safety valve.

How could a new course, Sebonack, Pacific, OM, possibly attain sufficient "tradition" points ?

The couldn't.

I think "Golfweek" did a smart thing.
They doubled the number of courses on the top 100 list, a neat trick, and they bifurcated the rankings.

Clearly, some courses lacked the ability to elasticize themselves, dooming them in terms of their ability to enhance the challenge for today's best players.