News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: [1]

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 2001
« on: March 10, 2002, 10:50:40 AM »
Having spent a little time studying the new 2002 Golfweek
America's Best Modern 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!?!?!? ???

Cuscowilla - #10 on GolfWeek Modern list, only ninth in Georgia on Golf Digest Best in State.

Talking Stick North - #82 in GW, not in Top 25 of State of AZ by GD (assumption is that it was eligible since it opened in 98)


World Woods - Rolling Oaks - #83 in GW, only 24th in FL in GD.

Lake Las Vegas - #36 in GW, only 7th in NV by GD.

Old Tabby Links - #45 in GW Modern, only 18th in SC by GD.

Musgrove Mill - #49 in GW, only 16th in SC.

Secession - #66 in GW, only 17th in SC.

Caledonia - #67 in Golfweek Modern, but just 23rd in SC.

John's Island - #74, but 19th in the state of Florida by Golf
Digest, 2001.

Old Memorial - #74 in GW, but 17th in FL by GD.

The Tradition GC - #91 in GW, but just 22nd in CA by GD.

The Farm GC - #89 in GW, but just 17th in GA.

Barton Creek - Fazio Canyons - #91 in Golfweek Modern, but
sits at just 12th in Texas by Golf Digest best in state 2001.

 ??? ??? ???





« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

ChrisB (Guest)

Re: Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 200
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2002, 10:55:05 AM »
Paul,

I think it would also be interesting to see the reverse list--that is, what courses Golf Digest is rating so highly that Golfweek isn't.  Could provide some insight on what types of courses the GD panelists "prefer" over the ones you listed which are obviously quality courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 200
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2002, 11:06:20 AM »
ChrisB:

Thanks for a great idea.

My analysis of the lists is done for the weekend, but there's
always next week ...   ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 200
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2002, 07:07:21 PM »
Is there a point to this exercise?

You should start by reviewing the criteria used by both magazines.  That will go a long way to explain why they look a little different.

BTW, Florida usually has about ten courses on the Modern 100.  You cite courses that are in the GW 100 and top 20 in Florida for GD.  Is that a big discrepancy?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

APBernstein

Re: Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 200
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2002, 08:07:35 PM »
I can't comment on any of those courses except Caledonia, which I have played.  To put it bluntly, Golf Digest is wrong.  I have played a lot of courses in South Carolina and Caledonia is very deserving of a MUCH higher ranking.

NO WAY that True Blue should be ten spots above Caledonia.  NO WAY Yeamans Hall should be four spots below The River Course (although The River Course is still pretty decent).

John is right in that it is difficult to dissect the rankings without looking at the methods and why these differences occur.  However, some of the placings look so blatantly out of place that its tough to reconcile them with accurate.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 200
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2002, 05:03:38 AM »
Paul -

Virtually all of your examples are from the SE/SW.  Do you think that might be a sign that raters from the SE/SW are under-represented as GW panelists?

In other words, that swings in only a few votes has an inordinate impact on the final rankings for those regions?  

Or perhaps that some of the state-best voting is stale because of too few panelists in those regions?

I don't know, I'm just asking.  I seems odd, however, that all but one of your examples are from the SE/SW.

Bob

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golfweek Modern 2002 vs. Golf Digest State 200
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2002, 07:15:00 AM »
Mr. Crosby:  

You bring up very valid points.  I don't have great familiarity with drug trials, but I've always said that the procedures used by Golf Digest, GOLFWEEK, or Golf Magazine would never hold up in the scientific community.

Consider all lists "Best Efforts" and it is easier to live with the results.  In my opinion, these efforts are very good and I let the uncontrollable X-factor account for anything that differs from how I want to see things!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1]
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back