Could someone please explain this to me?

[Ted Sturges]

I stopped getting Golf Digest long ago.  When in the airport waiting for my fllight to Florida recently for the visit to Streamsong, I picked up a copy (it was the annual course rankings issue).

In their "best in state" section, GD ranks the state of South Carolina with the Ocean Course at Kiawah as #1, Yeamans Hall as #2, and Harbour Town as #3.  That seems pretty reasonable to me.

On their top 100 list, the Ocean Course comes in at #21, and Harbour Town limps in at #96.  Yeamans Hall is not only not in their top 100 in the US, but they go on to list their second 100 in the US, and Yeamans doesn't make that list either.  I have several friends (including a "beloved" website icon) who rank Yeamans in the top 100 in the World (some rank it in the top 50 in the world).  How can the esteemed panelists from Golf Digest place it outside the top 200 in the US???  And...how can they place it far below Harbour Town when their own rankings has Yeamans Hall ranked ahead of Harbour Town in the state of South Carolina?  What am I missing?

Can someone please explain this to me?

TS

[jeffwarne]

I stopped getting Golf Digest long ago.  When in the airport waiting for my fllight to Florida recently for the visit to Streamsong, I picked up a copy (it was the annual course rankings issue).

In their "best in state" section, GD ranks the state of South Carolina with the Ocean Course at Kiawah as #1, Yeamans Hall as #2, and Harbour Town as #3.  That seems pretty reasonable to me.

On their top 100 list, the Ocean Course comes in at #21, and Harbour Town limps in at #96.  Yeamans Hall is not only not in their top 100 in the US, but they go on to list their second 100 in the US, and Yeamans doesn't make that list either.  I have several friends (including a "beloved" website icon) who rank Yeamans in the top 100 in the World (some rank it in the top 50 in the world).  How can the esteemed panelists from Golf Digest place it outside the top 200 in the US???  And...how can they place it far below Harbour Town when their own rankings has Yeamans Hall ranked ahead of Harbour Town in the state of South Carolina?  What am I missing?

Can someone please explain this to me?

TS

Perhaps Yeaman's paid them to keep them off it?

[Matthew Petersen]

Ted,

It takes fewer ratings to make a best of state list than the full national list. Yeamen's clearly didn't have enough ratings to make the national list but it should reasonably fit somewhere in there between Kiawah and Harbour Town.

[Bill McKinley]

Ted,

Matthew is correct.  A course needs 45 evaluations in an 8 year period to be eligible for the Top 100, while it only requires 10 evaluations over that same time to be eligible for best in state.

Erin Hills is also like Yeamans in that it appears it would be in the top 100 if it had enough evaluations.  But if you want a real brainbuster, take a look at Ohio.  Inverness is ranked #54 and Double Eagle is #83 and in the best in state their are 3 courses (Kirtland, Firestone South and Brookside) who are in between the Big I and 2 Eagle.  Strange!!

[Garland Bayley]

Ted,

Matthew is correct.  A course needs 45 evaluations in an 8 year period to be eligible for the Top 100, while it only requires 10 evaluations over that same time to be eligible for best in state.

Erin Hills is also like Yeamans in that it appears it would be in the top 100 if it had enough evaluations.  But if you want a real brainbuster, take a look at Ohio.  Inverness is ranked #54 and Double Eagle is #83 and in the best in state their are 3 courses (Kirtland, Firestone South and Brookside) who are in between the Big I and 2 Eagle.  Strange!!

I thought Erin Hills was not in GD rankings because the author does not rank himself.

[David Stewart]

Theodore,

Also in Ohio, Camargo is #3 in state and also not on the list. Apparently they like leaving classic Raynor designs out of the top 100 rankings. And in the state list, Moraine didn't even make the top 25.

And Broadmoor is not in the top 15 in Indiana. Getting beat out by the likes of Otter Creek...

[RJ_Daley]

Ted, raters gonna rate.  Readers gonna believe.  Golf nuts gonna talk.  Magazines gonna sell.  There's just no stoppin'em.   

[Ted Sturges]

Theodore,

Also in Ohio, Camargo is #3 in state and also not on the list. Apparently they like leaving classic Raynor designs out of the top 100 rankings. And in the state list, Moraine didn't even make the top 25.

And Broadmoor is not in the top 15 in Indiana. Getting beat out by the likes of Otter Creek...

Yikes!  

It seems there is considerable evidence that the GD panel is not adept at identifying the highest quality golf courses in this country.  For years I've believed this panel was more of a ruse to create playing access for panelists... the evidence suggests they have gained access to the wrong courses!  I know these lists are nothing more than that...lists.  But this year's GD version seems particularly unpropitious.

TS

[Phil McDade]

Ted,

Matthew is correct.  A course needs 45 evaluations in an 8 year period to be eligible for the Top 100, while it only requires 10 evaluations over that same time to be eligible for best in state.

Erin Hills is also like Yeamans in that it appears it would be in the top 100 if it had enough evaluations.  But if you want a real brainbuster, take a look at Ohio.  Inverness is ranked #54 and Double Eagle is #83 and in the best in state their are 3 courses (Kirtland, Firestone South and Brookside) who are in between the Big I and 2 Eagle.  Strange!!

I thought Erin Hills was not in GD rankings because the author does not rank himself.

Whitten has probably disavowed the current version of Erin Hiils, especially with his beloved Dell hole now a walk from a tee to a fairway.

[Brad Tufts]

Phil - That is correct actually.  Ron W. decided that the current version is not something he feels much connection to, so they added it to the candidate list.

Ted- GD cannot guarantee access for enough panelists at all the theoretical "right courses."  While most clubs are accomodating to panelists at certain times, some do not value the rankings for a variety of reasons, which is certainly their choice.

We all wish that every qualified course could be adequately evaluated for every applicable list, but if that is not physically possible, then how can they be on the list?

GD chooses not to manipulate the lists after evaluations are in, and thus has to exclude courses with too few votes to qualify.

Say what you will if you disagree with the rating criteria, but it seems as good a system as any to me.

[Greg Tallman]

Phil - That is correct actually.  Ron W. decided that the current version is not something he feels much connection to, so they added it to the candidate list.

Ted- GD cannot guarantee access for enough panelists at all the theoretical "right courses."  While most clubs are accomodating to panelists at certain times, some do not value the rankings for a variety of reasons, which is certainly their choice.

We all wish that every qualified course could be adequately evaluated for every applicable list, but if that is not physically possible, then how can they be on the list?

GD chooses not to manipulate the lists after evaluations are in, and thus has to exclude courses with too few votes to qualify.

Say what you will if you disagree with the rating criteria, but it seems as good a system as any to me.

Given that we host perhaps 100 GD panelists annually why does there opinion not matter to GD? That is individual panelists are not asked to submit evaluations when playing internationally.

[Tom_Doak]

Phil - That is correct actually.  Ron W. decided that the current version is not something he feels much connection to, so they added it to the candidate list.

Ted- GD cannot guarantee access for enough panelists at all the theoretical "right courses."  While most clubs are accomodating to panelists at certain times, some do not value the rankings for a variety of reasons, which is certainly their choice.

We all wish that every qualified course could be adequately evaluated for every applicable list, but if that is not physically possible, then how can they be on the list?

GD chooses not to manipulate the lists after evaluations are in, and thus has to exclude courses with too few votes to qualify.

Say what you will if you disagree with the rating criteria, but it seems as good a system as any to me.

The odd thing is that GOLF DIGEST seems to run the only list where there are problems with including every worthwhile course ... the other magazines' systems seem to include everything, except possibly the very remote or very private courses like Ellerston, which might or might not belong in such lists anyway.  [And yet, GOLF DIGEST has NO problem getting plenty of panelists to places like Rich Harvest Farms or Canyata where the owners kiss up to panelists in order to make the top 100.]

Also, since you mentioned it above, Jerry Tarde made a big show years ago of saying that Erin Hills "could never be rated in any of the GOLF DIGEST rankings" as part of his agreement with Whitten over Ron's consulting work and potential conflicts of interest.  Wiping out that agreement because Ron has supposedly disavowed the course now is a ridiculous backtrack ... as if Ron will avoid the place during the U.S. Open, or if it ever does make the top 100 list.

[Brad Tufts]

Hi Tom,

As I am only a panelist for GD, I am not 100% certain how other publications come up with their numbers. 

GW disconnects the individual category numbers from the overall score...why have categories?

Is there a minimum # of evaluations required to make another publication's T100 list?  If not, are they basing the traditional low-panelist-visit course evaluations on only 3 evaluations, or on hearsay?  If there is some secret to getting a good # of panelists to every single worthwhile venue, why isn't it widely known?  I'm guessing if there was, it would be done!

My (oft cited on GCA in the past) point is that every system is flawed, and all we can do is try to get guys to see the worthwhile courses and do the best we can.  As I said above, the category criteria can be argued to eventually present the best list possible for the GCAer, but GD is very transparent about how the rankings are derived....this works better for my brain.  I don't bow down to GD's list either....everyone interested in this stuff has a personal list.

As for the Erin Hills issue, I agree with you that the high-road seems to have disappeared.  Sounds like a question for JT and RW.  Confusion aside, I have played EH and find it to be at least top 50 public in the US, maybe even scratching at the back door of the T100.

Personally, I think the rankings are fun because it gets us all talking about golf courses...that alone makes the exercise worthwhile.

[Brad Tufts]

To Greg's question....I'm not sure why we don't submit evaluations internationally at this moment.

Hopefully this changes, and the well-traveled among us can contribute to the Planet golf, Mexico & Caribbean, etc. lists in the future.

And you should hunt down all 100 and make them submit, under threat of being thrown into a cactus bush...

[jeffwarne]

Phil - That is correct actually.  Ron W. decided that the current version is not something he feels much connection to, so they added it to the candidate list.

Ted- GD cannot guarantee access for enough panelists at all the theoretical "right courses."  While most clubs are accomodating to panelists at certain times, some do not value the rankings for a variety of reasons, which is certainly their choice.

We all wish that every qualified course could be adequately evaluated for every applicable list, but if that is not physically possible, then how can they be on the list?

GD chooses not to manipulate the lists after evaluations are in, and thus has to exclude courses with too few votes to qualify.

Say what you will if you disagree with the rating criteria, but it seems as good a system as any to me.

Given that we host perhaps 100 GD panelists annually why does there opinion not matter to GD? That is individual panelists are not asked to submit evaluations when playing internationally.

Any reason to comp raters who aren't doing evaluations?
and if they don't do evaluations, where do World Top 100 lists come from?

[Andy Troeger]

The odd thing is that GOLF DIGEST seems to run the only list where there are problems with including every worthwhile course ... the other magazines' systems seem to include everything, except possibly the very remote or very private courses like Ellerston, which might or might not belong in such lists anyway.

From my memory, not true. I recall Brad Klein posting that The Alotian could not be included in the GolfWeek list because of a lack of ballots. And in the 2011 issue there were at least a handful of courses at the top of the "2nd 100" with an explanation that they had the scores, but lacked the ballots, to be considered for the top 100. In fairness, some of these were fixed by the next cycle. I admit its a bigger problem under the Digest system, but Digest requires 45 ballots and at the time I believe GolfWeek required 15.

Its not so easy to get 45 guys to a course that is private and doesn't care about the ratings and isn't interested in hosting visitors. There are a lot of panelists that would love to go see Camargo, for example, but its not so easy to do unless you know a member.

[Greg Tallman]

To Greg's question....I'm not sure why we don't submit evaluations internationally at this moment.

Hopefully this changes, and the well-traveled among us can contribute to the Planet golf, Mexico & Caribbean, etc. lists in the future.

And you should hunt down all 100 and make them submit, under threat of being thrown into a cactus bush...

Problem is the mosty interesting man in the world would have to hide his evaluation from his girlfriend!

Don't get me wrong I have no problem hosting the panelists but I can tell you that you first to openly state you were not evaluating the course as it is not in the United States. Honesty works... to the tune of 135 holes!

[Dan Kelly]

Ted, raters gonna rate.  Readers gonna believe.  Golf nuts gonna talk.  Magazines gonna sell.  There's just no stoppin'em.   

World without end, Amen.

[Tom_Doak]

The odd thing is that GOLF DIGEST seems to run the only list where there are problems with including every worthwhile course ... the other magazines' systems seem to include everything, except possibly the very remote or very private courses like Ellerston, which might or might not belong in such lists anyway.

From my memory, not true. I recall Brad Klein posting that The Alotian could not be included in the GolfWeek list because of a lack of ballots. And in the 2011 issue there were at least a handful of courses at the top of the "2nd 100" with an explanation that they had the scores, but lacked the ballots, to be considered for the top 100. In fairness, some of these were fixed by the next cycle. I admit its a bigger problem under the Digest system, but Digest requires 45 ballots and at the time I believe GolfWeek required 15.

Its not so easy to get 45 guys to a course that is private and doesn't care about the ratings and isn't interested in hosting visitors. There are a lot of panelists that would love to go see Camargo, for example, but its not so easy to do unless you know a member.

There is also a minimum number of panelists required for the GOLF Magazine list but I do not know how many it is today.  It was 10 when I was in charge of the panel, and I devised a way for it to be even less than that, if the ballots were strong enough.  You can only do that when you really trust everyone on the panel not to be selling their vote for favors.

So, it's always possible that a course is being overlooked in some remote corner of the world.  But it seems that it's only the GOLF DIGEST rankings where some obvious courses are left off for un-obvious reasons ... which relate to the 45-ballot minimum and to some clubs not wanting to bend their guest policy for panelists.

[Andy Troeger]

How many slam dunk courses are really missing because of the ballot issue? Camargo would be top 50 I believe--so that one certainly qualifies. Yeaman's is comfortably on all the other lists and has the score based on its state placement, so I'd count that one.

Beyond those two, there are other courses without enough ballots to qualify, but would the list be better with Erin Hills, Kirtland, Firestone, etc. than with the current version?

I think as a panel that the next two years should be spent focusing on getting to those courses to get the necessary ballots, but I'm not convinced the sky is falling, either. For the new "2nd 100," I think we can improve that one significantly with getting more courses to 45 ballots.

[Brad Tufts]

I just don't know what the un-obvious reasons would be.

Some clubs just don't think getting panelists out is a high priority...which is their right.

Lowering the minimum could obviously help, but as Tom says above, you have to REALLY trust your panel if a T100 course is going to make the list as the result of only a small # of ballots.  More evaluations = better results.

I'm sure the GD powers at be have looked at what the list would look like with a 10/20/30 minimum # for making the T100...they might look pretty strange compared to the 45 minimum list.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm sure the GD powers at be have looked at what the list would look like with a 10/20/30 minimum # for making the T100...they might look pretty strange compared to the 45 minimum list.

You bet they have.  The problem is that if they lower the minimum, the good older courses in the last 25 spots will be crowded out of the list by modern courses that don't pass the smell test, because the GOLF DIGEST formula is weighted to favor long and difficult modern designs.  All you have to do is go through the state lists and count up all the courses that sit above the lowest-ranked top 100 course in that state ... and then add a few more that are close.

[Brad Tufts]

I'm sure the GD powers at be have looked at what the list would look like with a 10/20/30 minimum # for making the T100...they might look pretty strange compared to the 45 minimum list.

You bet they have.  The problem is that if they lower the minimum, the good older courses in the last 25 spots will be crowded out of the list by modern courses that don't pass the smell test, because the GOLF DIGEST formula is weighted to favor long and difficult modern designs.  All you have to do is go through the state lists and count up all the courses that sit above the lowest-ranked top 100 course in that state ... and then add a few more that are close.

Right, so now we are back to the criteria and not the process, which I agree can certainly be argued.  I wonder how "GCA right" the list becomes without the resistance to scoring category...I don't have the numbers in front of me...were they posted online?

[Greg Tallman]

Can't we just simplify it to

GOLF Magazine is more inclusive of the classic era courses and thus likely represents the "purist" a bit more while Golf Digest is weighted toward the bigger, latest greatest courses and thus likely represents the masses a bit more.


LOL - Of course we could not do that... could we?

[Andy Troeger]

I'm sure the GD powers at be have looked at what the list would look like with a 10/20/30 minimum # for making the T100...they might look pretty strange compared to the 45 minimum list.

You bet they have.  The problem is that if they lower the minimum, the good older courses in the last 25 spots will be crowded out of the list by modern courses that don't pass the smell test, because the GOLF DIGEST formula is weighted to favor long and difficult modern designs.  All you have to do is go through the state lists and count up all the courses that sit above the lowest-ranked top 100 course in that state ... and then add a few more that are close.

Is it surprising that top flight amateur players like long and difficult modern designs? The makeup of that panel is totally different from the average poster here. Its not surprising there are differences--if there was only one way to measure greatness then we wouldn't need this website because there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

I enjoy bits of both "sides" because my individual tastes are probably a hybrid of the two takes. Or maybe I don't belong anywhere--I've never found a published ranking that really matched my own. Although sometimes I we all get too picky when it comes down to expecting every course we like to be in the correct order on a magazine list. As noted on another thread, I can't even make up my own mind on the order that I put courses...