Golf Digest on NYC newsstands with Top 100

[Matt_Ward]

I'd like to know from those who have played The Alotian club AND a healthy assortment of other top tier TF courses -- is the Arkansas course really more about the "extra" items you get when going there -- not really the golf course itself.

thanks ...

Tom D:

I have done that -- did so when I was a panelist (17 years) for GD. Closed minds are tough to open. I get "worked up" Tom because the founders of GD understood something a bit more than what is passed off today. Simple as that.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  If The Alotian Club is really unwalkable, I'm surprised it is rated so highly.  I have always told clients that my indirect conclusion from all the rankings is that every course that's considered truly great is walkable.  Is this the first time they've crossed that line on the GOLF DIGEST rankings?

P.S. to Matt:  One problem with GOLF DIGEST's definition is that they have based it on a couple of paragraphs that their late founder, Bill Davis, wrote 35 or 40 years ago.  At that time, there was no points system behind his definition, so the panelists were free to ignore the flaws in it, but once they started compiling numbers, and Davis passed away, they boxed themselves into a corner and just deny that anything could possibly be wrong ... they believe their results, however ridiculous they are, because they believe their system is infallible.

[Jerry Kluger]

I don't see what all the controversy is about concerning the Alotian Club - from the pictures I have seen it clearly has some of the prettiest cartpaths and bunkers I have ever seen which certainly means it is one of the best courses in the world.

[Ronald Montesano]

Would Geoff Shackleford, now on the dole at GD, be considered our "inside guy," since he works with Hanse and has written extensively on what golf course architecture truly is? I would consider that as important as 1000 emails promoting change in the system.

[Jim Colton]

Most of these arguments come back to people's definition of a great course.

GOLF DIGEST is the only ranking which uses a strict definition, with points for aesthetics, for conditioning, for "resistance to scoring", and even for tradition and ambiance [though I believe they've made the latter category less important in recent years; it used to be a huge fudge factor].  If you don't agree with their definition [which I don't], or if you believe that greatness in a golf course is somehow beyond ticking boxes and scoring points [as I do], then you should not expect to agree with their results, and should not get too worked up about whatever they publish.

I think it's a shame that such a prominent golf publication has such a bad system for defining what a great course is, but they are not likely to listen to me, since I used to work for a different publication and since their results affect my business.  I would encourage those others of you who disagree with their results (and therefore their system] to write in with suggestions to IMPROVE THEIR DEFINITION, instead of wasting your breath arguing about the results pointlessly, as everyone else does.

Tom,

 Trying to get Ron to listen to a suggestion is an equal waste of one's breath. I tried suggesting that conditioning was too big a weight in the master formula, and that they should just fold it into the nebulous 'ambience' (+/- points for conditioning that supports or detracts from the traditional values of the game, with firm and fast being one of their desired target values). I now have two of something where I previously only had one.

  You're definitely onto something with the formula.  What makes one course great may not be the same as another course. I like how Golf Magazine lets you make the distinction for yourself, then uses the collective wisdom of the expert panel to come up with the final output.  Golfweek, likewise, seems like it's a pretty accurate reflection of the collective opinion of its rater pool.  Golf Digest has a different bias in terms of its ratings panel (all single-digit handicappers), but one can't say for sure how much of that is driving the outcome vs. the formula approach.

[John Kavanaugh]

Would Geoff Shackleford, now on the dole at GD, be considered our "inside guy," since he works with Hanse and has written extensively on what golf course architecture truly is? I would consider that as important as 1000 emails promoting change in the system.

He has an article on his site concerning the rankings.  He admits his bias now that he is in the rare world of blogger check cashers.  He is toast.

[John Kavanaugh]

Most of these arguments come back to people's definition of a great course.

GOLF DIGEST is the only ranking which uses a strict definition, with points for aesthetics, for conditioning, for "resistance to scoring", and even for tradition and ambiance [though I believe they've made the latter category less important in recent years; it used to be a huge fudge factor].  If you don't agree with their definition [which I don't], or if you believe that greatness in a golf course is somehow beyond ticking boxes and scoring points [as I do], then you should not expect to agree with their results, and should not get too worked up about whatever they publish.

I think it's a shame that such a prominent golf publication has such a bad system for defining what a great course is, but they are not likely to listen to me, since I used to work for a different publication and since their results affect my business.  I would encourage those others of you who disagree with their results (and therefore their system] to write in with suggestions to IMPROVE THEIR DEFINITION, instead of wasting your breath arguing about the results pointlessly, as everyone else does.

Tom,

 Trying to get Ron to listen to a suggestion is an equal waste of one's breath. I tried suggesting that conditioning was too big a weight in the master formula, and that they should just fold it into the nebulous 'ambience' (+/- points for conditioning that supports or detracts from the traditional values of the game, with firm and fast being one of their desired target values). I now have two of something where I previously only had one.

  You're definitely onto something with the formula.  What makes one course great may not be the same as another course. I like how Golf Magazine lets you make the distinction for yourself, then uses the collective wisdom of the expert panel to come up with the final output.  Golfweek, likewise, seems like it's a pretty accurate reflection of the collective opinion of its rater pool.  Golf Digest has a different bias in terms of its ratings panel (all single-digit handicappers), but one can't say for sure how much of that is driving the outcome vs. the formula approach.

Now that the Ballyneal Tenors are all Digest raters I am surprised to hear you sing such a sour tune.

[Jim Colton]

Most of these arguments come back to people's definition of a great course.

GOLF DIGEST is the only ranking which uses a strict definition, with points for aesthetics, for conditioning, for "resistance to scoring", and even for tradition and ambiance [though I believe they've made the latter category less important in recent years; it used to be a huge fudge factor].  If you don't agree with their definition [which I don't], or if you believe that greatness in a golf course is somehow beyond ticking boxes and scoring points [as I do], then you should not expect to agree with their results, and should not get too worked up about whatever they publish.

I think it's a shame that such a prominent golf publication has such a bad system for defining what a great course is, but they are not likely to listen to me, since I used to work for a different publication and since their results affect my business.  I would encourage those others of you who disagree with their results (and therefore their system] to write in with suggestions to IMPROVE THEIR DEFINITION, instead of wasting your breath arguing about the results pointlessly, as everyone else does.

Tom,

 Trying to get Ron to listen to a suggestion is an equal waste of one's breath. I tried suggesting that conditioning was too big a weight in the master formula, and that they should just fold it into the nebulous 'ambience' (+/- points for conditioning that supports or detracts from the traditional values of the game, with firm and fast being one of their desired target values). I now have two of something where I previously only had one.

  You're definitely onto something with the formula.  What makes one course great may not be the same as another course. I like how Golf Magazine lets you make the distinction for yourself, then uses the collective wisdom of the expert panel to come up with the final output.  Golfweek, likewise, seems like it's a pretty accurate reflection of the collective opinion of its rater pool.  Golf Digest has a different bias in terms of its ratings panel (all single-digit handicappers), but one can't say for sure how much of that is driving the outcome vs. the formula approach.

Now that the Ballyneal Tenors are all Digest raters I am surprised to hear you sing such a sour tune.

And with all of your new GW buddies, maybe DR will crack that Top 200 modern in 2012.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

John,
Rating the course was not even mentioned on either of the times I have been there.
Yes, what a superb practice facility it has..awesome..but so do many Fazio courses.
Dont get me wrong it is a beautiful golf course, one I enjoy tremendously, wonderful place to play, but top 20 in the nation.?

[Mike Hendren]

MWP, not to put you on the spot, but since you are among a handful qualified to make an assessment, please list three top strengths and weaknesses of The Alotian Club's golf course.

Thanks either way.

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

The issue w GD is that it has been sniffing the glue of superiority for way too long.

The old days of the mag were much better -- not necessarily the ratings mind you but the collective writing and style of the mag.

The course ratings process is just a mess now. They don't want to see it and frankly they don't hear the sneers and laughter that is happening because of their recurring fumbles.

Ron Whitten is a smart guy but frankly when they allowed Ron to do design work / consulting he lost a big part of his credibility and the magazine did so as well.

The ratings provided by GD only show how disconnected the magazine is today.

Comments from me and others have been passed along -- GD often views such comments with disdain and brands the people making such comments as disloyal. How nice.

[JR Potts]

Funny Matt, amongst the non-CGA crowd, I often hear that the Golfweek rankings are the real outliers.

Again, all the rankings are flawed as humans are directly involved in the process.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Mike H
TOP 3 STRENGTHS
1. The natural terrain, elevation changes and vista
2. Very solid Fazio design, good combination of hole types and strategies
3. Wonderful practice area, quality of service and the feeling you are somewhere special...and Dan Snyder as the pro

Single Weakness........Not really walkabale

Other less than strengths...  I hate to say it but another Nice Fazio design, you dont really feel as though the design was stretched to what it could have been.
Predicatlbe bunkering and green types

But in all honesty that is being very critical.

[Matt_Ward]

MHP:

Thanks for your notes - curious to know how many other TF courses have you played -- can you list your personal top 5 or top 10 ?

Kelly:

Digest has always thought of itself as beyond the others in the business.

They took a long time stand that no architects would be involved with their efforts in course ratings.

The architectural critic of GD cannot be an umpire and a player AT THE SAME TIME.

I never said Ron was "shady" but that the editors of the pub should understand how their credibility is then weighed - or worse, not weighed as it is now with their ratings results.

Ryan:

Frankly, I think there is a middle ground beyond what GD does the groupthink ethos that GW raters must follow.

The "flawed" dimension you mention can be considerably reduced -- the suggestions provided would do just that. Ryan, smart people can disagree but smart people can see the wherewithal to make prudent changes to improve the system. GD believes it is not flawed -- hence the problem.

[Jim Colton]

A friend sent me an admittedly crude attempt of combining the three major ratings. Here is the top 50.  I think in general it's pretty strong, as it balances out some of the inherent biases that Ryan and others have pointed out.

1   Pine Valley GC (Pine Valley, NJ)
2   Cypress Point Club (Pebble Beach, CA)
3   Shinnecock Hills GC (Southampton, NY)
4   Augusta National GC (Augusta, GA)
5   Oakmont CC (Oakmont, PA)
6   Sand Hills GC (Mullen, NE)
7   Merion GC--East (Ardmore, PA)
8   Pebble Beach Golf Links (Pebble Beach, CA)
9   National GL America (Southampton, NY)
10   Pacific Dunes GC (Bandon, OR)
11   Crystal Downs CC (Frankfort, MI)
12   Fishers Island Club (Fishers Island, NY)
13   Winged Foot GC--West (Mamaroneck, NY)
14   Seminole GC (Juno Beach, FL)
15   Chicago GC (Wheaton, IL)
16   Whistling Straits GC--Straits (Sheboygan, WI)
17   Prairie Dunes GC (Hutchinson, KS)
18   San Francisco GC (San Francisco, CA)
19   Pinehurst Resort & CC #2 (Pinehurst, NC)
20   Oakland Hills CC--South (Bloomfield Hills, MI)
21   The Riviera CC (Pacific Palisades, CA)
22   The Country Club--Clyde/Squirrel (Brookline, MA)
23   Friar's Head GC (Baiting Hollow, NY)
24   Muirfield Village GC (Dublin, OH)
25   Bandon Dunes GC (Bandon, OR)
26   The Olympic Club--Lake (San Francisco, CA)
27   Bethpage State Park GC--Black (Farmingdale, NY)
28   Los Angeles CC--North (Los Angeles, CA)
29   The Ocean Course (Kiawah Island, SC)
30   The Golf Club (New Albany, OH)
31   Garden City GC (Garden City, NY)
32   Southern Hills CC (Tulsa, OK)
33   TPC at Sawgrass--Stadium (Ponte Vedra Beach, FL)
34   Shadow Creek GC (Las Vegas, NV)
35   Baltusrol GC--Lower (Springfield, NJ)
36   Oak Hill CC--East (Rochester, NY)
37   Sebonack GC (Southampton, NY)
38   Wade Hampton GC (Cashiers, NC)
39   The Honors Cse (Ooltewah, TN)
40   Spyglass Hill GC (Pebble Beach, CA)
41   Pete Dye GC (Bridgeport, WV)
42   Medinah CC #3 (Medinah, IL)
43   Old Sandwich GC (Plymouth, MA)
44   Ballyneal GC (Holyoke, CO)
45   Kinloch GC (Manakin-Sabot, VA)
46   Peachtree GC (Atlanta, GA)
47   Shoreacres GC (Lake Bluff, IL)
48   Camargo Club (Indian Hill, OH)
49   Inverness Club (Toledo, OH)
50   Bandon Trails (Bandon, OR)

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

These are the top ten off the top of my head...NOT in any particular order
Wade Hampton
Reynolds..National
Pine Valley ..short
Alotian...yes it is certainly there
Karsten Creek
Golf Club of Oklahoma
Dancing Rabbit
Caves Valley
Dallas National
Briggs Ranch
Shaddow Creek

[Eric Smith]

And with all of your new GW buddies, maybe DR will crack that Top 200 modern in 2012.

C'mon - you're better than that, Jim.

[Sean Leary]

P.S.  If The Alotian Club is really unwalkable, I'm surprised it is rated so highly.  I have always told clients that my indirect conclusion from all the rankings is that every course that's considered truly great is walkable.  Is this the first time they've crossed that line on the GOLF DIGEST rankings?

P.S. to Matt:  One problem with GOLF DIGEST's definition is that they have based it on a couple of paragraphs that their late founder, Bill Davis, wrote 35 or 40 years ago.  At that time, there was no points system behind his definition, so the panelists were free to ignore the flaws in it, but once they started compiling numbers, and Davis passed away, they boxed themselves into a corner and just deny that anything could possibly be wrong ... they believe their results, however ridiculous they are, because they believe their system is infallible.

In terms of GD feeling infallible in terms of their system, are you (and Matt, I guess) saying that because they won't change it, or is that what Ron Whitten says. I just haven't seen anywhere they say that they are 100% right or that their system is superior or bulletproof. Maybe he does or they do, I just haven't seen it.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

I get insulted that my take is all wet and I'm supposed to say what ?

I have said that places such as Rock Creek, Kingsley and even Black Mesa are worthy places that are simply bypassed for reasons that make no sense. I have watched the ratings process closely over the years and just weighed in with my personal feelings.

Ignore whatever you please.

I don't think it is the base argument you put forth that people take exception to but rather your assertion that your opinion matters more than others (your words not mine). Even if accurate you're not going to get anywhere with that delivery. You just can't slap people in the face and say "I am better than you".. Sorry, but it is that simple.

[JR Potts]

Deleted (off-topic)

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Please don't have me retract the "bright guy" statement I made earlier.

You're pushing it.

I said no ratings process is perfect. Got it now.

What I did say is that major steps could have and should have been done because each new ratings demonstrates the major disconnection they are producing.

GD has a significant brand name and they simply tarnish it with such a collective grouping of certain courses while completely ignoring others. Again, my lowly opinion.

Greg:

Simple thing -- disregard whatever you please. My opinion only matters to me.

I know what I have played (no hubris mind you) and I try to weigh in with cogent comments tied to that. If others feel inadequate or thin-skinned that's not my problem. Maybe they should look in the mirror.

Greg, I respect people who do their homework -- is that so much to ask for? Is it so much to ask that people demonstrate in some concrete form -- that they have taken the time and energy to go out in the field before deciding to extol the virtues of a given course(s). I never slapped someone who didn't strike me first. Amazingly, I never see people (you and others) weigh in against such attacks made in my direction. So be it. Enjoy partner ...

[Sean Leary]

Sean:

Please don't have me retract the "bright guy" statement I made earlier.

You're pushing it.

I said no ratings process is perfect. Got it now.

What I did say is that major steps could have and should have been done because each new ratings demonstrates the major disconnection they are producing.

GD has a significant brand name and they simply tarnish it with such a collective grouping of certain courses while completely ignoring others. Again, my lowly opinion.

Greg:

Simple thing -- disregard whatever you please. My opinion only matters to me.

I know what I have played (no hubris mind you) and I try to weigh in with cogent comments tied to that. If others feel inadequate or thin-skinned that's not my problem. Maybe they should look in the mirror.

Greg, I respect people who do their homework -- is that so much to ask for? Is it so much to ask that people demonstrate in some concrete form -- that they have taken the time and energy to go out in the field before deciding to extol the virtues of a given course(s). I never slapped someone who didn't strike me first. Amazingly, I never see people (you and others) weigh in against such attacks made in my direction. So be it. Enjoy partner ...

Matt, I am probably neither very bright nor clueless on these matters, likely somewhere in between. But I don't think my question is that absurd. Golf Magazine already does it your way. GW does it their way. Do each think theirs is best, I am sure. But an arrogance label is placed upon GD that I am not saying isn't there, I just haven't seen it. They don't seem any more righteous about their list than the other two. At least to me.

I appreciate that you do and have done the work to see many, many courses. I do think that you know a lot, and I am likely to seek a Matt Ward hidden gem, for example. But I don't think that you are the only one whose opinion matters, and you come off that way, I am sorry to say.

With that I am out of this. Been fun bantering with you.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Digest is likely the worst of the big three. They expanded their panel in the hope that if you provide for a slew of raters then coverage will increase accordingly. It has not worked and likely will continue to fail. Golf Mag does a better job but I have to wonder if their esteemed panel ever ventures to the more obscure public courses and not just play the elite of elites. With GW I just wonder if the groupthink mentality is the primary marching orders. No perfect system is possible -- although I think a hybrid of all three might be more meaningful.,

As I mentioned earlier -- we live in a viral world -- much info is passed in seconds in which previously it would have taken far, far longer. Mags don't need an army of raters to stay up-to-date on what is happening. I mentioned the sources I rely upon for my travels and frankly they are far more skilled than just about any raters I have ever met. My own experiences have helped me network with a god cross section of leading people within the golf industry.

GD may not seem righteous or arrogant to you. Fair enough. I do agree w Tom Doak about his comments on the mag though. GD needs to change things because it's brand name is being taken down a few pegs with such haphazard findings. Again -- that's my lowly opinion.

No doubt people should search for whatever info, resources, people they wish to connect with. I know what I have done in my lifetime in playing golf and from the many, many courses I have personally visited. People are free to not believe one iota of what I say -- I would just up they would show some respect for it and leave it at that.

[Kalen Braley]

The only caveat I would add to the last two pages of discussion, and not that its anything new to this group.

But when you talk to the average weekend warrior, these are the things they say they love:

1)  Fast golf carts with smooth paths
2)  Green fairways and even greener greens without a blade of grass out of place
3)  Lush ponds and fountains
4)  Nice "extras" in the form of food, cart girl, beverages.


I'm all for winning hearts and minds in trying to expose to people I play with what good golf should be about, but try as I might, I've have limited luck and they still seem to want what they want.

[JR Potts]

The only caveat I would add to the last two pages of discussion, and not that its anything new to this group.

But when you talk to the average weekend warrior, these are the things they say they love:

1)  Fast golf carts with smooth paths
2)  Green fairways and even greener greens without a blade of grass out of place
3)  Lush ponds and fountains
4)  Nice "extras" in the form of food, cart girl, beverages.


I'm all for winning hearts and minds in trying to expose to people I play with what good golf should be about, but try as I might, I've have limited luck and they still seem to want what they want.

Thank you for writing this.  You're 100% correct.  And it doesn't just apply to the weekend warrior....it applies to 98% of US golfers - both pubic and private.