Golfweek Vs. Golf Digest lists

[Paul Richards]

Having spent a little time studying the new 2002 Golfweek
America's Best Classical list, I compared it to the 2001
Golf Digest Best in State list and came up with these huge
disparities in rankings.

Food for thought - who's right?


Lehigh - #88 on GW classical, has NEVER appeared on GD's
lists.

Moraine CC - #52 on GW, not even in top 25 of the state of
Ohio by GD.

Mountain Lake - #100 on GW, not even in the top 25 in GD's
list of Florida's best.

Wykagyl - #59, not even in top 25 of GD state for NY.

Fenway - #80 on GW, not even in top 25 of NY.

Yeaman's Hall - #28 on GW list, but only the 12th best course in South Carolina by GD.

Manufacturer's - #69 on GW, only 21st in state of PN on GD.

Philladelphia Cricket Club - #90 on Gw, only #23 on GD state list for PN.

Essex - #66 on GW, only #15 in state of Mass by GD.

Firestone - #86 on GW, only 15th in Ohio by GD.

Fox Chapel - #94 on GW, only 15th in NC by GD.

Indianwood - #54, only 13th in Michigan.

Taconic - #73, only #14 in Massachusetts.

Lancaster - #63, only 12th in PN.

Hollywood - #57, only 11th in NJ.

Pine Needles - #84, only 14th in NC.

Kirtland - #83, only 13th in Ohio.

CC of Detroit - #81 in GW, but just 12th in state of Michigan
by GD.

Huntingdon Valley - #75 in GW, but 11th in Pennsylvania by GD.

Lawsonia Links - #65 on GW Classic, but GD has it tenth in
state of Wisconsin.

Brookside - #74 on GW, but just 10th in Ohio by GD.

[APBernstein]

GOLFWEEK.  Might as well have some confidence, right?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Richards,

No one is right, and no one is wrong.

They have both merely expressed their opinions based on the judging criteria of their rating panelists.

Both magazines and articles provide for interesting conversation and debate.

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

Actually, what I am asking for here is some debate.

How can one periodical think that Yeaman's Hall is the 28th
best classical course, yet another thinks that it is only the
12th best course in the state?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I think the answer may lie in the criteria used to judge each golf course.

Perhaps if you analyze the standards or criteria both magazines use it would be helpful in arriving at the answer to your question, and it would probably stir debate on which criteria is more valid.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[SPDB]

I tend to agree with Pat here. It's a futile exercise to try and figure these things out, given how subjective these lists are.

That being said, I am amazed by Taconic's state listing in GD.
In my opinion Taconic is one of the top 3-4 (with TCC, Essex, Myopia), and at worst, part of the top 5 (with Eastward Ho!, Salem, Charles River, or Crumpin Fox to round out).

[Ran Morrissett]

Paul,

You make a strong case but unfortunately what glory is there in besting a magazine whose criteria places Sand Hills 36th in the country?    :-/

Cheers,


PS Off the subject, did you attend the Sea Island GW gathering last year - I am surprised that it dropped off the top 100 modern list altogether? The photos I've seen suggest it is some of Fazio's best work of late.  

[John_Conley]

Ran:

I hate to belabor a point I've made a hundred times, but you're making me!  Golf Digest DOES NOT say Sand Hills is ranked there FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE that the arbitrary criteria "tradition" is worth that many points.  As Mike Vegis has shown, strip out Tradition and it is something like 6th or 7th in their ranking.  

As my friend who's a member points out, if you take Tradition to mean a traditional design, Sand Hills should get 10 out of 10 points.  To the powers that be at Golf Digest, it means years open, tournaments held, and prestige in the community.  Half of the 300 people in Hooker County couldn't find it if they tried!

Said another way, every Golf Digest panelist could agree that your new Carthage course is PERFECT - better than every course already in existence.  It would show up about #30, but we'd all be able to see that it WOULD BE #1 if it had tradition points equal to Shinnecock Hills, Pebble Beach, or Chicago Golf.

To the average Golf Digest reader, a chance to play Winged Foot would rank above the chance to play Sand Hills five years ago.  Not many had heard of it (to my amazement not even half of the avid golfers I tell about my trip are aware of it today) and they haven't seen it on TV.  A lot of people need to be told a course is good for them to know it and some of the rest just go by size of clubhouse.

To answer PAUL's question:

Almost all of the courses you mention are older courses that aren't real difficult in comparison to some of today's newer designs.  Only you can answer your question, "Who's right?"

Is it important to you that a course measure over 7000 yards?  Golf Digest's criteria require that a course resist scoring quite a bit.

In a partially related sidenote, I was fortunate today to play with a TOUR pro and one of America's top 20 College golfers.  Both hit it 280 at sea level virtually every drive.  Tack on 150-yard 9-irons and you have D-9 on your 430 yard straight holes.  Toss in any doglegs and it's even less because they hit it so straight.  Think they'd have as much fun as I did at Mountain Lake?  Great course, but the lowest handicap of the membership is probably about 8.  Their club pro, obviously a good player, shot about 62 or so within the last two years.

Some of the courses you mention have almost no significant differences from my viewpoint.  For example, Massachusetts probably has 10 courses on the Golfweek Classic list?  It used to be ten.  Essex and Taconic appear toward the bottom of the Top 100.  The difference in GD's 8th and 15th for Massachusetts (and New York and Pennsylvania) is probably pretty slight.

With such vastly different criteria, the shocker would be if Digest and Golfweek reached the same conclusion.

[Ran Morrissett]

John, You're right - you are belaboring the point.   To agrue that Golf Digest's system doesn't place it at #36 when it appears as #36 is ... well... you pick the word. If Golf Digest didn't think tradition was an important element in the overall evaluation of a course, they wouldn't (or shouldn't) include it as part of their overall criteria.

But you make my point for me - given their flawed system, why compare GW's efforts to it? Your last sentence is spot on.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Because of numbers GolfWeek is able to indentify many wonderful Classic designs that would never be seen on GD's top 100. Courses like Essex County, Franklin Hills, Lawsonia and Yeamans Hall which fall under the radar screen due to GD's criteria. And hypothetically the Modern list should provide the vehicle to showcase many up and coming less than house-hold name architects. It doesn't succeed as well here, the list is dominated by the usual big name suspects of Fazio, Nicklaus, Rees, Dyes and a like. They all have deserving courses, but it would be nice if talents like DeVries, Hanse, Strantz and the other less known got their due.

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the GW get-together
at Sea Island last year, so I have not yet seen their new-
and-improved version.

[redanman]

On the general theme of this topic I have posted it before.  The state rankings are always a little suspect on either/any  list as they are vulnerable to who has been where recently.  Golf Digest's list is severely affected in this manner, GOLFWEEK's is but somewhat less so.  Ergo questions about courses such as Lehigh, Wykagyl and Fenway, the plethora of really good Flynn courses in Pennsylvania, all the NYC Tillinghast hidden gems and the like.  Honestly, enough raters have to play a pile of courses in a pile of places.  You've really really got to get around, play the junk as well as the good stuff, all the new and no-name designer stuff with a completely  open mind.

the Sea Island GW gathering last year - I am surprised that it dropped off the top 100 modern list altogether? The photos I've seen suggest it is some of Fazio's best work   of late.  

Since you didn't ask me:  

The course does photograph well in places, but many here have had new orifices ripped on this board for commenting on photographs.    There are not terribly many exacting holes strategically, it is beautuifully framed, nauseatingly so at  a couple of points on the first nine with little Zen gardens with trees so obviously artistically planted, adding nothing to the game except visuals.  Fazio's team at its best at what it does well.  Style over substance.

A similar group of raters also registered in on Victoria National "downgrading" it from #22 to # 28. (I have no idea what this means)

What does it mean regarding Sea Island?  It was a good effort but not good enough to keep it there in that never never land of the last 20-30 of the top 100 modern.  As I said earlier this week, I'd like to see 200 on the modern list.  Once you get past 25, 50 or 60, there is so little difference it is amazing. (A bit similar to the world's top golfers, past the first 5, 10, 50 how much difference is there really?  Look at teh Jacob's Creek tone-a-mint from Australia this weekend.)

There is one thing Fazio is right about, there are lots of good new courses all meeting a certain fairly high level of quality, and way more than just His own  "100 'top 20 ' courses".  (See dictionary under: Hubris).

[Nick_Ficorelli]

an;
I think whenever you get 60 plus raters at one venue ,in one year,you will undoubtedly see a movement in ratings one way or the other. Examples:
Bandon Dunes.Cuscowilla,Victoria National and Sea Island...
all in the numbers

[Nick_Ficorelli]

Thats Ran not an, sorry

[ed_getka]

John,
 You mentioned your suprise at how few people were aware of Sand Hills. That reminded me of a similiar suprise that occured to me. On a day when I had the good fortune to be golfing at Cypress Point, I was crossing the road from #14 to 15 when a guy pulled over in his car (identified himself as a golfer). He asked me, "Thats a beautiful looking course, which one is it"? When I informed him it was Cypress Point, he then asked me, "they don't seem too busy, do you think I could get out"?

[jim_lewis]

Because of numbers GolfWeek is able to indentify many wonderful Classic designs that would never be seen on GD's top 100. Courses like Essex County, Franklin Hills, Lawsonia and Yeamans Hall which fall under the radar screen due to GD's criteria. And hypothetically the Modern list should provide the vehicle to showcase many up and coming less than house-hold name architects. It doesn't succeed as well here, the list is dominated by the usual big name suspects of Fazio, Nicklaus, Rees, Dyes and a like. They all have deserving courses, but it would be nice if talents like DeVries, Hanse, Strantz and the other less known got their due.

Tom:

I must take exception to your suggestion that the GW Modern rankings inadequately recognizes lesser known architects.  Below is a summary of the architects credited in the latest GW Modern list, along with the number of courses ranked:

Tom Fazio   18
Pete Dye      13
Jack Nicklaus  9
RT Jones, Sr  7
Rees Jones     5
Coore & Crenshaw 5
Tom Doak     4
Bob Cupp      4
Weishopf  & Moorish 4
Palmer & Seay  3
Fought (with Cupp) 3
Mike Strantz  2
Jim Engh 2
RTJ, Jr (1 with Senior) 2
Steve Smyers 2
Dick Wilson  2
Art Hills  2         ( Everyone below has 1 course ranked)
David Kidd
Red Lawrence
Lester George
Proctor & Axelrod
Rick Smith & Henderson
Gil Hanse (with Doak)
George Fazio
Roger Rulewich (with RTJ, Sr)
Gary Player & Tom Walker
Bruce Devlin
Ken Dye
Ted Robinson
Bobby Weed
Stephen Kay
Dick Bailey
Mike Devries
Hurdsan & Fry
Roger Baird & Todd Eckenrode

It seems to me that GW should be praised for recognizing the work of so many architects. Of course, Fazio, Dye,  RTJ, Sr, and Nicklaus have more courses on the list than the others. They probably have designed more courses  than everyone else on the list combined, and many of their courses ( not all) are very good. You mentioned Mike Strantz. At the time the 2002 ballots were submitted, Mike had completed only six courses, two of which are on the GW list. Many of these guys have designed very few courses and are probably pleased to have a third or half of their courses appear on the list. Percentage-wise, Fazio, Dye, Nicklaus, and the Joneses are probably under-represented.

Which courses ( that you have played) on the latest list would you like to see removed, and which (that you have played) would you like to see added?

Does it also bother you that  60% of the courses on the Classical list were designed by only four architects (Ross 23, Tillinghast 14, Raynor 13, and Flynn 10)?


I can not comment on the GD list. I stopped reading when I saw they ranked PB ahead of Pine Valley. This is the same panel  that once listed Grand Cypress in the top 100 and (according to Ran) has Sand Hills somewhere in the 30’s.
 

[John_Conley]

Ran:

You and I agree on this.  I just think others would be okay to take it with a grain of salt when they do show Sand Hills in the 30s.  Remember their readership, to whom a club's stature is often very important.

I worked at Interlachen for a long time.  Perhaps no club better exemplifies the GD bias better.  

Golden Valley held the U.S. Girls Junior with Brandie Burton.  Interlachen had the 1930 U.S. Open with Bobby Jones and the Grand Slam.

Somerset had the U.S. Women's Senior and Interlachen had the 1993 Walker Cup with Harrington, Herron, Leonard, Harris, Sigel, Doyle, Gay, and more.

White Bear Yacht had Jimmie Johnston as a member.  He was one of the first champion golfers, but it was so long ago that it is as relevant as Nero's fiddle.  Interlachen had Patty Berg, founder of the LPGA and one of the most recognizable female golfers ever.

Minneapolis had the 1959 PGA won by Bob Rosburg, who most people only know as an annoying commentator.  Interlachen has the next Solheim Cup with players like Sorenstam, Davies, and Pepper.

Ask anyone from out of town about golf in the Twin Cities and they've heard of Hazeltine and Interlachen.  The idea that they are substantially better than Minneapolis, Golden Valley, Somerset, Minikahda (great course hindered by a short stretch of four par 4s to finish), or White Bear is one I don't agree with - and I'm a HUGE fan of the course where I worked for ten years.

[APBernstein]

After replying to the modern version of this thread, I went through and checked what I thought might be the case...it was.

Mid Pines is nowhere to be seen on the GD Best 25 of North Carolina.  Anyone has been anywhere near that state should know better than that.  There are some deserving courses on that list, but Pinehurst #7 at 18th should definitely not rank ahead of Mid Pines.  I would put Mid Pines in a class including Forest Creek and Pine Needles.  You could almost make a case for including The Pit, but not quite.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jim
I looked at your breakdown and it seems to support my remark. You've 100 potential slots and 40% are taken by three guys. And I don't consider RTJ, Dick Wilson and George Fazio up and comers.

Do you think it does good job of identifying lesser known talent? There are architects who have participated on this site whose name I don't see and I would have thought they would each have at least one course deserving - Brauer, Liddy or Kern. I'm surprised Donald Steel isn't on the list. I Know Gib is high on Harbottle. What about Brian Silva? I think you might get an arguement from quite a few architects. I would hope interesting architecture like Tobacco Road, Inniscrone, Black Creek and Kingsley would be given more credit.

[David Wigler]

Paul,

To answer your question I think GW got it right most of the time although I am certain that GD got it right in regards to Firestone.

[Jeremiah Daly]

SPDB,
  How can you leave Kittansett out of your Massachusetts list?  I can understand arguments on how one would see TCC, Myopia, Salem and maybe Essex CC are better or comparable.  I have played every course on your list and played high school golf at Crumpin-Fox.  Have you played Kittansett? I personally feel its easily #1 or 2 and very underrated outside of the Bay State

[John_Conley]

Mister Daly:

Massachusetts has so many great courses that make great fodder for discussion on best in state.  I have played Longmeadow, which is very nice.  The hilly site at Pittsfield looked like a hoot, but I was there for a wedding and didn't have time for a round.  Brad Klein's book makes me want to go to the 9-holer near Worcester.

I'd love to see a Top 20 (with asterisks by any you haven't played but think would make your hierarchy) if you think you've played enough in Mass to do it.

I've always heard great things about Crumpin-Fox.

Please either post or e-mail it to me if you have the time and ability to provide such a list.

[SPDB]

Jeremiah - I completely forgot about Kittansett. For some reason, i always associate Marion with R.I. - STRANGE.

Kittansett is TERRIFIC, and it would definitely have to be included in the top 3-5 in massachusetts. I don't know which it would push out, but probably Essex, or Crumpin. My inclusion of Essex Cty may not jibe with what others have, but i think it is spectacular.

[jim_lewis]

Tom:

As far as I know, the GOLFWEEK panel has only one responsibility, identify the BEST 100 courses (Classical and Modern) in the U.S., regardless of who designed or re-designed them. There is no agenda or objective that calls for us to "showcase" any architect or group of architects, be they established or lesser known. I am confident that very few deserving courses will go unrecognized for long. It may take a while for enough raters to see some of the new courses (such as Black Creek), but they will get their fair shake in due time. I think that Donald Steele has designed only two or three courses in the U.S. and they are so new or  so private that they probably have not been seen by enough raters, yet. As I mentioned before, Strantz has just opened only his seventh course, and three have already made the GW list with two still on it. How many must he have before you think he is being treated fairly? There is no way that Tobacco Road, True Blue, or Tot Hill Farm will ever make the top 100  because they get low marks from many raters. We are in the "business" of recognizing the "best" COURSES, not necessarily the most original, bold, innovative, or creative. We are also not in the business of recognizing architects, sponsoring new architects, or spreading the recognition around.

I am not at all surprised or bothered by the fact that three architects are credited with 40% of the best 100 courses built since 1960. Given the length of time they have been in the business, the number or courses they have designed, and the quality of sites they get to work on, why shouldn't they produce a lot of good courses. By the way, I am also not surprised or bothered by the fact that 60% of the courses of the Classical list were designed by only four architects.

Which courses by Kern, Brauer, Liddy, Harbottle, Silva, etc. (that you have played) do you think are being over looked? As I have stated before, it is my objective to try to see courses by new (to me) architects. I will make a special effort to see any courses you recommend.  

If some genius architect came along that was so brilliant and so prolific that he or she could design the best 100 courses in the country, I would  expect them all to appear on the GW best modern list!

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Jim expressed my view very well.  GW's objective is to identify the best 100.  Architect is not one of the criteria.  Many of us are very passionate about architecture and go out of our way to see courses by "Lesser known" talents.  As well, we travel to extremely odd places.  I was thrilled to see that Flint Hills National made GW's list.  Even though this course is from one of the big shops (Fazio) it is in the middle of nowhere (Wichita) and is a fantastic effort.  The same goes for Whispering Pines in Trinity Texas.  Kingsley and Barona both made our lists and will probably (I'm guessing) move up as more raters see them.  I hope that the list never becomes slotted by architect or advertiser and always strives to identify the best.  If Todd Eckenrode got on a hot streak and designed 100 consecutive courses as good as Barona and different enough that they did not seem the same, I would be very comfortable putting them all in the top 100.

PS - Congrats to your Buckeyes on a great weekend.