[Jason Thurman]

Tiger Woods is a course architect now. Myth busted.

[Niall C]

Loch Lomond in at 93 and as the blurb states, one of two inland courses from Scotland to make the list, so by a process of elimination, Forfar's in the top 80. Marvellous.

Niall

[Emile Bonfiglio]

I was a participant in the Golf Course Architecture Top 100

One of the rules was that it was a course that I have played on not walked around or seen on TV or magazines. This is probably why Torrey Pines and Fishers Island are in the 91-100 bracket for varying reasons as we know.
 
I suspect that there will be a lot of variations and surprises in the rankings.

Looking forward to the countdown to the no.1 course voted by Golf Course Architects / Designers themselves.

So this is really just a list of your favorite courses that you've played (the pool being 240 designers). I've got to think that some of the more exclusive clubs will rank lower because fewer participants have played them in person. That makes this list less interesting.

[Greg Ohlendorf]

So your telling me there are 91 better golf courses than Fishers Island? I've got some serious work to do then. Wow!

Greg

[Sean_A]

I was a participant in the Golf Course Architecture Top 100

One of the rules was that it was a course that I have played on not walked around or seen on TV or magazines. This is probably why Torrey Pines and Fishers Island are in the 91-100 bracket for varying reasons as we know.
 
I suspect that there will be a lot of variations and surprises in the rankings.

Looking forward to the countdown to the no.1 course voted by Golf Course Architects / Designers themselves.

So this is really just a list of your favorite courses that you've played (the pool being 240 designers). I've got to think that some of the more exclusive clubs will rank lower because fewer participants have played them in person. That makes this list less interesting.

On the contrary, I think the list would be far more interesting if it were derived from top 10 favourites of each archie.

Ciao

[John McCarthy]

Would it not be interesting to see the raw data (names redacted)? 

If someone voted for Torrey, let us see their other picks.

[Emile Bonfiglio]

I was a participant in the Golf Course Architecture Top 100

One of the rules was that it was a course that I have played on not walked around or seen on TV or magazines. This is probably why Torrey Pines and Fishers Island are in the 91-100 bracket for varying reasons as we know.
 
I suspect that there will be a lot of variations and surprises in the rankings.

Looking forward to the countdown to the no.1 course voted by Golf Course Architects / Designers themselves.

So this is really just a list of your favorite courses that you've played (the pool being 240 designers). I've got to think that some of the more exclusive clubs will rank lower because fewer participants have played them in person. That makes this list less interesting.

On the contrary, I think the list would be far more interesting if it were derived from top 10 favourites of each archie.

Ciao

Yes, if they were not limited to courses they have actually played. It would be interesting to see the favorites with no restrictions put on it.

[David_Elvins]

Nice idea but the methodology of announcing a top 100 based on each architect's nomination of a top 10 that they have played  is so hopelessly flawed as to make the list completely useless past selection 20, or so.  

Even after receiving the votes, it may have been prudent to look at the courses near the bottom of the list (berkshire blue!!) and reduce it to a Top 50 list for the sake of the list's credibility.

[Mark Saltzman]

Which is better, 50 votes for no. 10 in the world, or 1 vote for no. 9?  Just curious how the system works.

[Greg Gilson]

Sad that the methodology (each respondent picks their personal Top 10) is so flawed because this would otherwise have been a list I would have genuine interest in. I would really be interested in what professional archies rate highly. Even getting them to each pick a Top 30 would have provided a better sample. That said, I am amazed we didn't just end up with about 20 of the usual suspects listed - I know if you asked a dozen of my friends to rate their World Top 100 you'd not get many more than 20 all up. I know this has been done to death above but how in heavens' name did someone rate Torrey Pines in their World Top 10? I try & respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion but that person needs to get out more.

[David_Elvins]

Which is better, 50 votes for no. 10 in the world, or 1 vote for no. 9?  Just curious how the system works.

Both are better than 200 votes for number 11...

[Scott Warren]

It was kind of you all - before denouncing the list as worthless and the voting process as ridiculous - to enquire with the people behind the list as to the reasoning for it being formulated the way it was and the methodology for boiling raw data into the final results.

[David_Elvins]

It was kind of you all - before denouncing the list as worthless and the voting process as ridiculous - to enquire with the people behind the list as to the reasoning for it being formulated the way it was and the methodology for boiling raw data into the final results.

Scott,

Let's not blow this out of proportion.  The voting process of all golf rankings have been analysed and commented on, on this forum.  No-one had to ask Golf Digest editors for their reasoning behind including a category for "ambience" or "tradition" or whatever before commenting on it's usefulness.  

Just because Adam posts on here, doesn't make what he publishes should be free from honest critique.  

[Ian Andrew]

On the contrary, I think the list would be far more interesting if it were derived from top 10 favourites of each archie.

Agreed.

I always thought a collection of people's "10 places you should Play" makes a better list that a Top 100.

[Scott Warren]

Dave,

Let's not blow this out of proportion.  The voting process of all golf rankings have been analysed and commented on, on this forum.  No-one had to ask Golf Digest editors for their reasoning behind including a category for "ambience" or "tradition" or whatever before commenting on it's usefulness. 

Just because Adam posts on here, doesn't make what he publishes should be free from honest critique.

"The voting process of all golf rankings have been analysed..."

I don't see where that has happened here. Folks have just been told that each architect nominated their top 10, and with no further enquiry of how that was turned into a ranking, the system was denounced by a number of people.

Digest, Golf Mag, GolfWeek etc have established systems that have been explored and understood over a lengthy period of time. This is brand new, but people are just ignorantly dismissing it.

[David_Elvins]

Folks have just been told that each architect nominated their top 10, and with no further enquiry of how that was turned into a ranking, the system was denounced by a number of people.

Scott,

How is this not enough information?  How can you ask a variety of people to name their top 10 courses and from this determine a top 100 ranking?  It doesn't make sense, no matter how you compute the results,

Lets simplify it.  Imagine asking 10 architects what the best course they have played is.  Most are well travelled and of those lets say 4 nominate Pine valley, 2 nominate St Andrews and 2 nominate Royal Melbourne.  Two are less well travelled outside their local area and nominates, say, Seminole and Swinley Forest.

If you were to then conclude that "according to our panel of ten architects, the top 5 courses in the world are 1.Pine Valley, =2.St Andrews, =2. Royal Melbourne, =4. Swinley Forest and =4. Seminole" then you would be misconstruing the information received.  

The bottom end of the list will be just the best courses played by those with the least experience.  The voters with a lot of experience or even moderate experience, will make zero contribution to the bottom end of the list.  

Sorry if I am getting old and grumpy but I was hoping this list would live up to it's potential, which was pretty cool.

[Scott Warren]

That's if you accept that the raw data translates into final list without any filtering. I don't assume to know how those who assembled the list handled the raw data.

Your hypothetical also overlooks the possible influence of the courses named at 2-10 by those 10 architects.

By all means be old and grumpy (I'm not convinced you're either) and contrary, but at least give GCA Magazine the chance to explain and discuss what was actually done, and why, before you get the hatchet out.

[David_Elvins]

That's if you accept that the raw data translates into final list without any filtering. I don't assume to know how those who assembled the list handled the raw data.

Your hypothetical also overlooks the possible influence of the courses named at 2-10 by those 10 architects.

By all means be old and grumpy (I'm not convinced you're either) and contrary, but at least give GCA Magazine the chance to explain and discuss what was actually done, and why, before you get the hatchet out.

Scott,

There is nothing contrary about it. It is a fairly basic statistical concept and filtering or manipulating the raw data cannot fix the problem.  If stats is not your strong point then maybe you shouldn't have jumped the gun and rushed in to criticise people's assessment of the list.  

I tried explaining it to you but obviously I didn't do a good job as you don't seem to see how the scaled down example I gave also applies to the top 100 list.  Hopefully someone else can explain it better or something clicks and you get it.  

EDIT: THe European Club is at No 75 so it looks like the ratings are back on track.  If I am wrong about the quality of the final list, I apologise in advance but Berkshire Blue doesn't make my UK top 10 and I have only played 11 courses in the UK.  If it is making a world top 100 list, there is something wrong, IMO.  I will leave it at that and welcome any explanation from those that assembled the list. 

[Rich Goodale]

If indeed the list was created through the compilation and massaging of ~2,400 data points based on the personal "Top Tens" of 240 self-selected people and extending this to a "Top 100" list is just another example of golf magazine sales strategy.  The raw data would be interesting to see, but I am sure that many (if not most) participants would be embarrased if that were done.

Rich

PS--I wonder if the "Kinloch" of New Zealand mentioned in the 91-100 group might well be have bee confused with the Kinloch of Virginia, which has had more generally positive reviews.

rfg

[Joel_Stewart]

Los Angeles CC at #72?   I'm going to stop following this thread as the results and process are just too flawed.

[Mark Saltzman]

That's if you accept that the raw data translates into final list without any filtering. I don't assume to know how those who assembled the list handled the raw data.

Your hypothetical also overlooks the possible influence of the courses named at 2-10 by those 10 architects.

By all means be old and grumpy (I'm not convinced you're either) and contrary, but at least give GCA Magazine the chance to explain and discuss what was actually done, and why, before you get the hatchet out.

Scott, as I said earlier, I'm very curious how the raw data was used. I'm just surprised this description was not made available at the same time as the posting of the initial results.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Los Angeles CC at #72?   I'm going to stop following this thread as the results and process are just too flawed.

+1.  First i saw TCC at 73... and then LACC North at 72 and nearly threw-up a little in my mouth.   If there are 71 courses better in the world, then these past ten years spent on gca.com have been a colossal waste of time..

Although, i'm sure i'll be checking in tomorrow!

[DMoriarty]

I don't assume to know how those who assembled the list handled the raw data.

Maybe if those who put out the list had explained the process we wouldn't all be guessing.  Isn't that their responsibility?

[Garland Bayley]

I don't assume to know how those who assembled the list handled the raw data.

Maybe if those who put out the list had explained the process we wouldn't all be guessing.  Isn't that their responsibility?

Not if they are putting up a teaser to get online subscribers who will get the whole scoop on July 12.

[Scott Warren]

David,

Maybe if those who put out the list had explained the process we wouldn't all be guessing.  Isn't that their responsibility?

I don't see a lot of guessing about how the numbers might have been handled - what I do see plenty of is dismissal of both the list and the method of gathering votes.

I'm not saying either was good, bad or indifferent, I don't know enough to comment, but I do think it would be fair for people to wait until those facts are clear before shitcanning the process.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()