[Jud_T]

Tim,

The only reason the greens at Bandon may be a touch slower, and I'm  not convinced they are, is that they regularly have wind gusts north of 30 MPH which would quickly become unplayable at the speeds that some clubs keep their greens at. 

[John Shimp]

Terrible list that keeps getting worse.  #2 at 40? 

[Bill Gayne]

What makes Sand Hills 69 spots better than Ballyneal?

(I've played Ballyneal but never Sand Hills.)

[Jon Wiggett]

IMO, the reason that the greens at Bandon appear slower is that unlike any other type of sward a putt on a high % fescue sward loses its speed evenly over the length of the putt rather then the braking stop you tend to get on most swards. This means that for the majority of the length of a putt the ball will be travelling physically slower on a fescue sward than on say a bent green even when both greens stimp the same. Hence the feeling that fescue greens are slower.

Remember, stimping is not a measure of the 'speed' of the green rather the 'length' of the roll. Most people, even in the industry do not understand this.

Jon

[Andy Hodson]

Happy to see GD give the credit for Whispering Pines to Chet Williams and not Jack. Jack never stepped foot at WP that I know of.
Chet's a great guy and did a hell of a job there.

[Mark Bourgeois]

"Glaring omissions"..."#2 at 40"..."fescue greens"...People! Cease quibbling. You're missing the overall. You're missing the major news. Pine Valley has supplanted Augusta National as the #1 course in the land.

Huzzah huzzah !!!

[Jon Wiggett]

"Glaring omissions"..."#2 at 40"..."fescue greens"...People! Cease quibbling. You're missing the overall. You're missing the major news. Pine Valley has supplanted Augusta National as the #1 course in the land.

Huzzah huzzah !!!

Mark,

PV has long been considered the top course in the world rankings even if it wasn't considered the best one in the USA

Jon

[Mac Plumart]

What makes Sand Hills 69 spots better than Ballyneal?

(I've played Ballyneal but never Sand Hills.)

Of course, it is personal preference...but many prefer the grass type on the greens of Sand Hills and the slope to speed mix on the greens.  Resistance to scoring might also favor Sand Hills.  And, I'm not sure if it is part of the criteria but the entire setting of Sand Hills is close to being unmatched.  

You should definitely go play it and see if you enjoy it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sand Hills is perfect with a historical pedigree to boot.  It is underrated on this list.

[Tom_Doak]

Sand Hills is perfect with a historical pedigree to boot.  It is underrated on this list.

John:  Sand Hills is a 10 in my book so I have no problem with the first assertion in your post, or perhaps even the third.

However, why is Sand Hills' historical pedigree of any significance?  Why would some courses that are less than 20 years old be considered to have greater pedigree than others?  [And, btw, I thought they finally took pedigree or "tradition" out of the voting because it was such a clear fudge factor.]


As for the grass types, it is bizarre that DIGEST just recently gave Bandon Dunes its environmental award and praised it as a model of the type of conditioning that they changed their rating criteria to favor ... yet the courses which follow that model continue to get lower "conditioning" numbers from the actual raters.

[David_Elvins]

Sand Hills is perfect with a historical pedigree to boot.  It is underrated on this list.

John:  Sand Hills is a 10 in my book so I have no problem with the first assertion in your post, or perhaps even the third.

However, why is Sand Hills' historical pedigree of any significance?  

It was the first great course of the post-modern era?  The first great golf course of the modern remote destination and 'minimalist' trend? The first great course in the sand hills?  the first great course of Coors and crenshaw?  Surely it is a course of historical significance/pedigree?

[Ronald Montesano]

I think "historical pedigree" was tongue in cheek...I hope that "historical pedigree" was tongue in cheek...

[Mac Plumart]

I know Sand Hills has an historical pedigree, for many of the reasons David mentioned.  It will keep that pedigree forever, much like the Hogan/Seminole relationship, NGLA's pedigree, Pine Valley's etc.  Sand Hills is a truly great course and it is a trailblazing club/course...again for many of the reasons David mentioned.  Make no mistake about it, this pedigree is vitally important when it comes to rankings/ratings.

[Jim Colton]

Sand Hills is perfect with a historical pedigree to boot.  It is underrated on this list.

John:  Sand Hills is a 10 in my book so I have no problem with the first assertion in your post, or perhaps even the third.

However, why is Sand Hills' historical pedigree of any significance?  Why would some courses that are less than 20 years old be considered to have greater pedigree than others?  [And, btw, I thought they finally took pedigree or "tradition" out of the voting because it was such a clear fudge factor.]


As for the grass types, it is bizarre that DIGEST just recently gave Bandon Dunes its environmental award and praised it as a model of the type of conditioning that they changed their rating criteria to favor ... yet the courses which follow that model continue to get lower "conditioning" numbers from the actual raters.

Tom,

 I'll be interested to see Old Macdonald's conditioning score, since it will be based purely on ballots after they switched to the 'brown' definition. Old Macdonald is probably the best firm and fast turf that I've ever played on, and probably comes closest to their conditioning definition. My guess is its conditioning score will still lag well behind the Augusta's of the world. And I couldn't help but notice the other three courses at the resort all dropped since last time.

EDIT: Here's the first official public glimpse -- a top 20 slideshow

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2013-02/photos-100-greatest-top-20#slide=1

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

John Kavanaugh,

Congrats on continuing your online ragers while maintaining your in-person "greatest guy you've never met" persona.

Bill, thanks for the post...It was clear to me that you weren't trolling for hits/views.

Baltusrol Upper...have they had a sympathetic restoration to RTJ or something?

Ronald,

Yes they have had major renovations on the Upper at Baltusrol, and the lower as well. Every time I play there construction in on going on both courses.

I will say that, to my eye, what I have seen seems beneficial and not detracting from the playability of the golf course. However, it would be preferable, in my view, if they left the upper course alone and just continued to F--- with the lower course.

Oak Hill in Rochester, NY is wonderful example of where they have let architects run wild on the east and left the west alone. I love playing the west. The Greens are amazing

[Mac Plumart]

Can someone email me the 101-200 portion of the list?

mac@mrpgolf.com

[C. Squier]

Can someone email me the 101-200 portion of the list?

mac@mrpgolf.com

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/digital-subscription

[Howard Riefs]

Tweeted by Golf Digest's Ron Whitten this afternoon about the new rankings:

"Just got my 1st complaint from an architect!"

https://twitter.com/RonWhittenGD/status/284760040055898112

Well, we know it wasn't Fazio. Any guesses?

[Bob_Garvelink]

Kingsley? Greywalls?  Forest Dunes?  Black Lake? and Arcadia being in the 50's?  No respect for Michigan Golf!

[Matthew Mollica]

My limited knowledge of US golf suggests this list is seriously flawed.

LACC North not Top 30?
Sahalee ahead of Pasa?
Friar's Head that low?
Ballyneal that low?
Courses at Bandon that low?

Seems crazy to me.

MM

[Ash Towe]

Was Mountain Ridge considered after the improvements made there or was it to late to be considered?

[Joe Bausch]

Tweeted by Golf Digest's Ron Whitten this afternoon about the new rankings:

"Just got my 1st complaint from an architect!"

https://twitter.com/RonWhittenGD/status/284760040055898112

Well, we know it wasn't Fazio. Any guesses?

Unlikely it was Joe Burbeck.  Perhaps the ghost of AWT?

[Scott Warren]

Bill G,

Answering with consideration for what it is the Digest list seeks to identify:

I'd agree with Mac that the greens at SH are likely to be more popular with more people, being faster, smoother roll (as at Aug 2012) and less dramatic in contour.

Re: setting, while both Ballyneal and Sand Hills have similar middle-of-nowhere locations, Sand Hills' course being laid out in a massive bowl where a good amount of the course is visible from many points, as well as the numerous long vistas there are both weigh in favour of SH for mine.

I'd also consider Sand Hills more difficult (though in 72 at each I had really similar scores), certainly from tee to green, which the Digest list rewards.

Not sure that equates in my mind to the type of ranking disparity this list features, but I also think that despite the obvious similarities, Sand Hills and Ballyneal are very different golf courses on very different pieces of land.

[Ronald Montesano]

Sancho, Great answer. I'm looking into a tablet subscription (see PM.)

For all,

What if GM, GW and GD agree on a rating paradigm, but use different raters to interpret those standards. Will we have similar disparity? If all three lists lined up, would we be bored?

Is your emotional reaction more violent/passionate when a rating gets it right or (in your view) gets it wrong? Will any of us tweet Whitten, Finch, et al with the positives or solely the negatives?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tweeted by Golf Digest's Ron Whitten this afternoon about the new rankings:

"Just got my 1st complaint from an architect!"

https://twitter.com/RonWhittenGD/status/284760040055898112

Well, we know it wasn't Fazio. Any guesses?

"Erin Hills is way too low."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()