[Mike Demetriou]

In what will certainly be a firestorm here in the DG, the recent GolfDigest "Most Fun Golf Courses" (US only) contains a startling omission.  How can they leave the Sheep Ranch off this list!?

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2012-09/most-fun-golf-courses-intro

Notwithstanding this whiff, this is one of the better "rankings" of golf courses I've seen in a long time. For some reason I find it much more objective to describe courses as "fun" in contrast to describing courses as "world class" or "excellent" based solely on architecture.

Do you think there are any other glaring omissions?

[Dan Herrmann]

Because I don't think it's a "real" golf course.  No scorecard, no tee markers, etc.

(I'm just using Patrick Mucci's reasoning from the Family Tees thread )

[Mike Demetriou]

My cell phone didn't work there, either. Seems like Pat would love it...

[Joe Stansell]

Do you think there are any other glaring omissions?

Wine Valley. No question about it.

[Jay Cox]

It's hard for me to figure out what the list is really trying to be.  I know we've had this discussion before, but it seems like "fun" either could mean "most enjoyable to play every day" (in which case it should be pretty close to a list of the best courses, with some allowances things like quirk and lack of length) or else "greatest difference between how enjoyable it is and how 'good' it is" (in which case you still should have some stereotypically good courses but also a wide range of neat places that aren't stereotypically good).

This list seems to vaccilate back and forth between the two.  I don't think Pebble Beach belongs at number one on either criterion, but it certainly doesn't belong at number one if you're using the latter criterion.  On the other hand, I don't see how you can possibly end up with the Preserve ahead of Pac Dunes - or end up including many of the courses in the 21-50 range - if you're using the former crterion.

Seems like just another excuse to do a rankings issue to me.

[Tom_Doak]

The Sheep Ranch is still a thorn in Mr. Keiser's paw to some extent.  He has decided he will do something different with it at some point, so he has discouraged anyone from promoting it.  GOLF DIGEST's editors enjoy their trips out to Bandon, so they probably got the message and looked the other way.

I think it's a great thing that DIGEST has recognized the value of courses being fun to play ... even if their main course rankings have discouraged the idea for 46 years and counting.  The recently-published ranking just looks like something that was thrown together with input from a half-dozen editors; it's unlikely they thought through Jay's different definitions, or all the many others.

I wonder, if they added "fun to play" as one of their ranking criteria, if they could even explain what it meant to some of their panelists!

[Dan King]

Jay Cox writes:
Seems like just another excuse to do a rankings issue to me.

As opposed to other ranking?

Cheers,
Dan King

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
 --Albert Einstein

[Steve Salmen]

Hard to believe Royal Dornoch was not on the list.  I think it's about as much fun as one can have playing golf short of Cypress.

[Dan Herrmann]

If you want another Doak course what WAS a ton of fun to play, it was Beechtree.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Mike, my friend - you have to keep bringing the Sheep Ranch don't you!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()