[William_G]

Why would your course want a high ranking from the panelist or course raters from any of these publications?

And which has the most prestige?

Or which is the most relevant to GCA peeps?

Which is the most relevant to golf purists?

Or is it all FUBAR anyway?

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

GOLF DIGEST ranking is still the most coveted in the USA, even though a lot of aficionados also think it's the worst list.  [There are a couple of courses on it which are practically indefensible.]

GOLF Magazine ranking is the most coveted outside the USA, and for any course which finishes higher on their list than on the GOLF DIGEST list.

GOLFWEEK list is the most coveted for the +/- 75 courses that aren't on either of the other two lists.

[Morgan Clawson]

From a publicity standpoint, Golf Digest would be the most important because it has the highest circulation ( # of copies):

Golf Digest - 1,650,000
Golf Magazine - 1,400,000
Golf World - 225,000
Golf Week - 160,000

I believe that Golf Digest started the rankings as well...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Excuse the ignorance but do Golf Digest do a world Top 100 or is it split in to US and Outside US?...

If they do, could someone please point me towards the last list...

[Jim Franklin]

GD just started an international list.

TD - Which courses, out of curiosity, do you feel have no place in the GD Top 100? There are several I think are not worthy as well. Are there any on the GM US list you feel are not worthy?

[PCCraig]

From a publicity standpoint, Golf Digest would be the most important because it has the highest circulation ( # of copies):

Golf Digest - 1,650,000
Golf Magazine - 1,400,000
Golf World - 225,000
Golf Week - 160,000

I believe that Golf Digest started the rankings as well...

Those numbers are surprisingly low for GolfWorld and Golfweek.

It would be interesting if you could merge main website hits with the circulation numbers to find what I think would be a better indication of readership.

[George Freeman]

From a publicity standpoint, Golf Digest would be the most important because it has the highest circulation ( # of copies):

Golf Digest - 1,650,000
Golf Magazine - 1,400,000
Golf World - 225,000
Golf Week - 160,000

I believe that Golf Digest started the rankings as well...

Surprisingly, GM isn't very far behind GD as far as circulation goes...

The same can't be said for the other two...

[Fred Yanni]

Trying to rank golf courses is a bit like trying to sort out who the 100 most beautiful women on the planet are when there are 1000s to choose from.  Its impossible because everyone likes something different.  

Ran finds Tobacco Road's curves sexy, I think she is a chubby mess.  I think Oak Hill is tall, slender and sexy, but Matt Ward notices the mole on her face.  

As you can tell I  think all of the rankings are FUBAR.  If Merion falls to 20th from the top 5 is it really going to impact anything?  The members know the course is great, guests know the course is great and experts know the course is great.  Its not like the USGA will pull an event from the course.  

Ranking probably only really benefits the facilities that allow public access so they can drive more traffic and interest to the course to hike up green fees.  Oh and of course it benefits the magazines as well.  I wonder what the uptick in sales are when the ranking issues come out?

[Scott Warren]

Ratings are only as good as the people given the responsibility of doing the rating, aren't they?

I used to think, in what seems a previous life, that it was only the really experienced, knowledgable folks who did the rating. Of late I have found out a few rater identities that made me laugh out loud and I guess that really drove home the point that a measure of anything is only as "good" as who does the measuring and what aspects they are asked to measure.

But I agree with Tom Doak - tell me which list rates my course the highest and that is my favourite list!

[Richard Choi]

Trying to rank golf courses is a bit like trying to sort out who the 100 most beautiful women on the planet are when there are 1000s to choose from.  Its impossible because everyone likes something different.  

Just thousands to choose from almost 7 billion people on this planet? Man, you are tough...

[Jim Hoak]

Don't be overly critical of the rankings.  They are designed to sell magazines and they do a pretty good job of it.  People love to argue about them, and the buzz builds circulation.  With what has happened to print journalism in this country, any boost is welcome.

[Ben Sims]

Ranking probably only really benefits the facilities that allow public access so they can drive more traffic and interest to the course to hike up green fees.  Oh and of course it benefits the magazines as well.  I wonder what the uptick in sales are when the ranking issues come out?

Fred,

This is simply misguided.  In fact, the courses that may care the most about rankings are newer, private golf courses.  In this golf climate, new courses need publicity to find the type of member willing to pay $50,000+ for membership to an exclusive, national membership, amentities laden-type facility.  The best publicity in the golf course world is 1) Hosting a televised tournament and 2) magazine rankings.

I'll reserve my opinion on which is more coveted based ont he fact that I am a rater for one of the publications mentioned.  But I'll say this, don't confuse "most coveted" with "most respected"

[Sean Leary]

Ben,

Most respected by whom? GCAers or the clubs on the list.

[Tom_Doak]

Don't be overly critical of the rankings.  They are designed to sell magazines and they do a pretty good job of it.  People love to argue about them, and the buzz builds circulation.  With what has happened to print journalism in this country, any boost is welcome.

Jim Hoak:

I have heard that point of view expressed by both Ron Whitten and Brad Klein, usually when they are apologizing for a result which they know is crap.

It may indeed be true on the one hand.  But if it is, then it's utter b.s. for the magazines to take their own rankings so seriously and pretend they are infallible, as they all do to one degree or another ...  GOLF DIGEST being the worst offender in that department.  Plus, it isn't just about "selling magazines" anymore.  DIGEST and GOLFWEEK are making significant money arranging tours of contending courses for their panelists, selling top 100 merchandise, and trying to find any avenue they can to make a buck off their "definitive" rankings.

[Tom_Doak]

GD just started an international list.

TD - Which courses, out of curiosity, do you feel have no place in the GD Top 100? There are several I think are not worthy as well. Are there any on the GM US list you feel are not worthy?

Jim Franklin:

I don't have a copy of the DIGEST list handy here in the Toronto airport.  The one which is "indefensible" is Rich Harvest Links.  I say that never having been there, but I've heard about six reviews of it from different people, and all of them implied that either GOLF DIGEST panelists are very easily impressed with things other than golf holes, or, that someone has taken a bribe to put it on their list.  There are three or four other "nouveau riche guy" courses in their rankings which are at odds with everyone else's thoughts, but that one is the flagship.

[PCCraig]

.

[Mac Plumart]

Ok...what the heck...here goes...

Why would your course want a high ranking from the panelist or course raters from any of these publications?

Prestige, bragging rights, something to aid the sales process, enhance benefits of membership


And which has the most prestige?

I think that the layman gravitates towards Golf Digest, but I think the small number of Golf Magazine raters and their own personal prestige and high regard in the golfing community makes that list carry a little more weight with those a little more in the know.


Or which is the most relevant to GCA peeps?

I think Golfweek is, but Golf Magazine should be in the debate as well.

Golfweek regards Kingsley as Top 100, as well as Wannamoisett, Colorado Golf Club, Dunes Club, Wild Horse, Holston Hills and Cuscowilla, and no one else does.  Most of which seem to be highly regarded by GCA nuts.


Which is the most relevant to golf purists?

See above answer.


Or is it all FUBAR anyway?

It will always be perceived as FUBAR by some people.  I think it is vital to know what you like in a golf course and why before you use any list to help you pick and choose a course to play.  Golf Digest seems to favor some beautiful course and challenging courses, perhaps the latter can be related to its legacy of buildling a Top 100 most difficult courses list early on and its "shot values" and "resitance to scoring" criteria.  Golfweek's nuance seems to be natural courses that fit the lay of the land, perhaps this is captured in its "Walk in the Park" criteria.  Golf Magazine doesn't really have any set criteria, the raters just rate of they see fit.  Also, these guys make kind of a compliation list, which might be worthwhile to check out.  http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/index.asp

The bottom line is to not take anyone else word for it and get out there and see for yourself.  It doesn't matter if Kingsley is a Top 100 course in Golfweek or Golf Digest, it matters if it is your kind of course and if you like playing it.  Some people hate Pinehurst #2, but all the rating entities regard it super highly.  Don't play it because it is rated highly, play it because you like it.

2 cents.

[Peter Pallotta]

Perhaps the idea of national magazines publishing yearly lists has run its course, and is running now on (waning) momentum. 

Hasn't the internet changed the playing field significantly, and for good?

So many more (and varied) sources of new and/or repackaged information, so many more opportunites for (and near-instant) updates and revisions, so much less disadvantage for (regional and local) competitors, so many more (and more freely-opinionated) writers/content-providers.

Maybe the GD-GM moutaintop is no longer the mountaintop; maybe most 'end-users' know that; it's maybe only the advertisers who haven't quite figured it out.   (Maybe the smaller but more targetted GW is in a different boat).

I say: one last, magnificent, all encompassing, hard-copy-only, leather-bound, 400 page, personally autographed, limited-edition, on paper from old-growth forests, globally-distributed, joint GD-GM-GW production of the "200 Greatest Worldwide Courses of All Time!"

Then each year, the "Ten Best New Courses in the World"....just to feed the addiction.

[Mac Plumart]

No way Peter...no freakin' way. 

If I don't have yearly lists to analyze, what the heck am I going to do with my time!!!   

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha, ha - but no worries, Mac: you'll still have plenty of lists, more than ever probably...just not from national magazines, and not just once or twice a year.  Also, don't forget you'll have the 400 page, leather-bound, limited edition, personally-autographed, old-growth papered book to occupy you.  I plan to bore all my friends with it for years to come!

Peter

[Jud_T]

Let's not kid ourselves about the importance of these lists, regardless of how well we feel they're compiled.  In times like these when a lot of clubs are at best a break-even proposition, being considered amongst the top tier can make or break some of these places...

[Tommy Williamsen]

DIGEST and GOLFWEEK are making significant money arranging tours of contending courses for their panelists, selling top 100 merchandise, and trying to find any avenue they can to make a buck off their "definitive" rankings.

Tom, it is just not true that GD is arranging trips for panelists.

[Fred Yanni]

Ben

You are a rater so I will defer to your expertise which I expect is significantly more expansive then mine.  I agree with you that a top 100 ranking certainly can't hurt any private club but I would be interested to hear an example of a golf course that is really deserving of a top 100 ranking that is hurting in attracting members.  If it is I would think it must have other issues at play.  (Although I expect many here will post 10 examples in the next few minutes).  There are still plenty of rich guys out there that will pay to join the best courses/clubs if it really is great.   If a private club needs to garner a top 100 rating to get enough publicity to fill its membership ranks, the inital club model and assumptions were probably severely flawed.

As we all do, I know many people at top private clubs around the country.  Not once in my short 40 year life span have I heard a decision to join or not to join a club be influenced on the golf rating agencies rankings.   Maybe I just don't know any of the really rich vanity membership collectors.  Other people here may have different experiences and I would love to hear them.  

Thanks

Fred
 

[Mac Plumart]

"Not once in my short 40 year life span have I heard a decision to join or not to join a club be influenced on the golf rating agencies rankings."

Fred...you must have missed the post a few months back;  ”I was wondering if anyone knows of any "good deals" on any National Memberships for Top 100 courses?”   

[Fred Yanni]

Mac

Let's make a pact,  if either of us hears about a great new top 100 club in need of members let's see if they have a buy 1 get 1 free deal and we can go splitzees.   .   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()