[David_Madison]

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.

 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,

What are you talking about here? I'm a panelist and I've never heard anything about any tours of contending courses. Nor has GD ever done anything specifically to me to influence my ratings other than to set and define the criteria, nor have they ever arranged access to any courses for me. Are you implying that I or any other rater is going to be influenced in our ratings because the magazine arranged some sort of access to a course or courses? The panelists I know personally do all we can to rate the candidates as straight up as possible - - no games, no bribes, no personal agendas. Maybe we're not perfect in your eyes, but there's no science here, just our best possible judgement. And no one is leaning on us, subtle or otherwise, to influence the results. If a business wants to cross-sell an element of its products, in this case interest in a ratings list of courses, and they don't influence those ratings in the process, what's wrong with that?

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy W. / David M. :

What, exactly, then, is a GOLF DIGEST Panelist Summit?

I was asked to speak at one at Lake Las Vegas a few years back.  Everyone there paid good money to attend, to listen to a few architects plus Ron Whitten, and to play a couple of the courses at Lake Las Vegas.  Perhaps those were not really worthy contenders ... in fact, I'm not even sure if either course is open anymore.  But don't you think there was any reason GOLF DIGEST chose that spot, or that money changed hands toward GOLF DIGEST based on where they chose to visit?

I did not mean to imply that the choice of venue impacted your ranking of any course you saw, just that GOLF DIGEST was taking money off courses which aspired to be ranked in this fashion.  Have they stopped those panelist events now?

[JC Jones]

Tommy W. / David M. :

What, exactly, then, is a GOLF DIGEST Panelist Summit?

I was asked to speak at one at Lake Las Vegas a few years back.  Everyone there paid good money to attend, to listen to a few architects plus Ron Whitten, and to play a couple of the courses at Lake Las Vegas.  Perhaps those were not really worthy contenders ... in fact, I'm not even sure if either course is open anymore.  But don't you think there was any reason GOLF DIGEST chose that spot, or that money changed hands toward GOLF DIGEST based on where they chose to visit?

I did not mean to imply that the choice of venue impacted your ranking of any course you saw, just that GOLF DIGEST was taking money off courses which aspired to be ranked in this fashion.  Have they stopped those panelist events now?

What is the difference between that and the 4 Golfweek "rater retreats" offered per year?  Each Golfweek panelist is required to attend one at least every 2 years.

[Sean_A]

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

I love the idea of trying to sort out which courses must be seen and why.  This often means that these courses are some of the best on the planet and comparing them is a means to learning something.  This is why I can't understand folks who say courses can't be compared - this is all rankings are - a comparison.  On the other hand, I will never understand specific assigned numbers for courses.  Isn't it enough to know if courses are worth seeing and why?  What purpose does extending a comparison of courses to a ranking serve?  So I say as it is, this whole ranking system is FUBAR (whatever that means exactly???). 

I will also say that any attempt to offically rank courses when the rankers are comped in any way or even if the front office of a course/club know the guy is a ranker is doomed.  These sorts of things have to be done on the sly and anonymously for all the obvious reasons.  Walking up and saying hello, I am Joe Bloggs, the XXXX rater and then taking any sort of "compensation" (including a free game), immediately puts the entire process in jeapardy if we are truly looking for candid opinions.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy W. / David M. :

What, exactly, then, is a GOLF DIGEST Panelist Summit?

I was asked to speak at one at Lake Las Vegas a few years back.  Everyone there paid good money to attend, to listen to a few architects plus Ron Whitten, and to play a couple of the courses at Lake Las Vegas.  Perhaps those were not really worthy contenders ... in fact, I'm not even sure if either course is open anymore.  But don't you think there was any reason GOLF DIGEST chose that spot, or that money changed hands toward GOLF DIGEST based on where they chose to visit?

I did not mean to imply that the choice of venue impacted your ranking of any course you saw, just that GOLF DIGEST was taking money off courses which aspired to be ranked in this fashion.  Have they stopped those panelist events now?

What is the difference between that and the 4 Golfweek "rater retreats" offered per year?  Each Golfweek panelist is required to attend one at least every 2 years.

JC:  There is not much difference.  I mentioned GOLFWEEK in my earlier post, too, but it was the GOLF DIGEST panelists who demanded clarification.

[JC Jones]

Tommy W. / David M. :

What, exactly, then, is a GOLF DIGEST Panelist Summit?

I was asked to speak at one at Lake Las Vegas a few years back.  Everyone there paid good money to attend, to listen to a few architects plus Ron Whitten, and to play a couple of the courses at Lake Las Vegas.  Perhaps those were not really worthy contenders ... in fact, I'm not even sure if either course is open anymore.  But don't you think there was any reason GOLF DIGEST chose that spot, or that money changed hands toward GOLF DIGEST based on where they chose to visit?

I did not mean to imply that the choice of venue impacted your ranking of any course you saw, just that GOLF DIGEST was taking money off courses which aspired to be ranked in this fashion.  Have they stopped those panelist events now?

What is the difference between that and the 4 Golfweek "rater retreats" offered per year?  Each Golfweek panelist is required to attend one at least every 2 years.

JC:  There is not much difference.  I mentioned GOLFWEEK in my earlier post, too, but it was the GOLF DIGEST panelists who demanded clarification.

The good news is that I have just been informed that there might be more than 4 "rater retreats" per year.

[David_Madison]

Tom,

I've been to one GD panelist gathering, in Orlando five or six years ago. It was held at Grand Cypress. As you indicated, there were a number of well-known architects speaking (Fazio, Dye, Jones, Nicklaus, Palmer) and we played one of the courses. After playing, Ron Whitten used the course and a number of panelists' ratings as a training exercise. The fee for the event was totally in line for what we got in terms of the hotel room, food, and so on. The course was okay, but not a serious contender for anything. In no way, shape or form was the event designed to drive ratings for any course or courses, and I can't imagine that Golf Digest made a whole lot of money from the thing after all of the expenses they had to incur in the process of bringing in their staff as well as the guest speakers.

Follow-up trainings were primarily very short events - fly in and then out the next day, with no golf on the schedule. I believe there have been a couple of other multi-day events, but again, driving ratings or making the big bucks couldn't possibly be a driver. There was one event held at Pinehurst a few years ago. I did not attend, so I don't know what golf was involved.

Tom, I can't help but believe from my very limited view vantage point, that Golf Digest isn't profiting from the process involved in developing and producing the ratings, especially after paying the staff that's involved. Instead, my guess is that their profit is coming from the buzz and the resultant magazine sales, and that's nothing different from what you and others have heard from their management about the whole thing.

I have participated on a couple of conference call trainings, but that would only have cost Golf Digest money to conduct. There has not been any pressure on me to attend any trainings in person anywhere for a number of years now.

[Jim Franklin]

Well GD has certainly not picked places that deserve to be ranked. GW is going to Sand Hills, Sea Island, and other interesting places while GD goes to Grand Cypress (yuk), and Reflection Bay (yay). GD's Summits are designed to help their panelists understand what they are seeing. Some panelists have never played a Top 20 course and I think the Summits help them understand why Cypress Point is better than Grand Cypress. The last one we did was a webinar and I thought it was the most informative yet.

[Andy Troeger]

David I think explained the Golf Digest process very well, and as Jim mentioned they have gone to a webinar format this year with no in-person seminars. I'm with David in that I don't believe the magazine made any significant money from the original summits. The only in-person training I've attended was a two-day deal in Dallas three years ago that involved no actual golf as part of the seminar, just workshops and presentations. Since then I believe I've attended three webinars.

If GolfWeek is doing four rater retreats per year, that's very different from the way Golf Digest has gone over the last 2-3 years.

[Mac Plumart]

I love the idea of trying to sort out which courses must be seen and why.  This often means that these courses are some of the best on the planet and comparing them is a means to learning something.  This is why I can't understand folks who say courses can't be compared - this is all rankings are - a comparison.  On the other hand, I will never understand specific assigned numbers for courses.  Isn't it enough to know if courses are worth seeing and why?  What purpose does extending a comparison of courses to a ranking serve?  So I say as it is, this whole ranking system is FUBAR (whatever that means exactly???). 

 

Sean...I think you make a great point.  "I love the idea of trying to sort out which courses must be seen and why."  That is a big part of the fun for me as well.  And seeing Harbour Town, Pinehurst, Sand Hills, TPC Sawgrass, Black Diamond Ranch (and many others) has really opened my eyes to a lot of different varieties of golf.  I have much more to study and learn and see, but so many great courses offer so many unique things to the golfing experience.  Fun stuff!

Also on FUBAR...it stands for F**ked Up Beyond All Recognition.  For example, one might say this, "Dude, last night after drinking the entire bottle of Tequilla I was totally FUBAR'd." 

[William_G]

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.

Well said Mac!

[Terry Lavin]

A better question here might be: "Which panel is most appealing to the rater community (insert substitute term here) that frequents gca.com?

[William_G]

A better question here might be: "Which panel is most appealing to the rater community (insert substitute term here) that frequents gca.com?

Terry,

Sounds like GCA peeps prefer Golfweek as it is more for serious golfers. Golf Digest for sure has more circulation as its a reception area magazine. (Golf Magazine has a celebrity panel of raters.)

A viable analogy would be looking at Wine Spectator (large circulation)vs. Wine Advocate (small circulastion). Both pubs rate wines and WS is a reception area magazine as well.  Most serious wine drinkers prefer Wine Advocate as a more unbiased and accurate rating guide.

Love your tagline Terry, as that definitely should not be underestimated, LOL

[PCCraig]

To each their own when it comes to which list people follow, but I agree with Mac P. in that lists do act as a nice "guide" to finding new courses. Of the three panels, Golfweek does do a nice job of digging a little deeper and bringing attention to places like Beverly (just one example off the top of my head) that is on the Classic list after a great renovation. Renovations allow for movement in the classic list the same way new designs can crack the modern list.

[Cristian]

I don't mind these lists actually. In fact it was lists like these that sparked my interest in GCA and got me travelling to see special places initially. It was only after that when I started reading some more and finding places like this website.

And yes all the rankings are different, but if you study a list you soon get a feel for the biases apparently present among the raters; and even how these biases are different from your own preferences.

I do not mind these biases, as long as they are consistent; It becomes annoying when courses are on lists in positions which are not defendable by any bias. An example of a list like that for me would be GD top 100 outside USA.

[Jud_T]

I think Mac's point is a good one, and one that those who dismiss any critical ranking of courses should heed.  Each of us has our own preferences and abilities.  The lists are a good jumping off point to investigating new courses that either we are predisposed to like, as well as shedding light on new GCA's, rehabbed classic gems etc. and perhaps checking out a specific work of a GCA we had previously dismissed.  This is far different than the mindless pursuit of bed-post notching of all the courses that are on a given list.  Obviously they're far from perfect, but I'd rather have them than not....

[cary lichtenstein]

I think it sort of depends on which magazine rating panel you are on. Each magazine has quirky stuff, probably politically generated. The first 50 on each are pretty gold plated with a few exceptions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()