New Golf Digest Rankings Are Out...

[jeffwarne]

Or hopefully they're simply ignoring all of GD's bullshit criteria like I do.
in my case because I can't understand it

I haven't played Muirfield so I can't comment having only seen it on TV and in pictures.
Given my criteria, it would have to be really incredible for me to put it ahead of Fisher's.

[Ken Fry]

Instead of wondering how certain courses made the list, I'm curious to hear about glaring omissions.  Choose your top 5.  What courses should be on the list, that aren't?

For me, the three biggest omissions would be Mountain Lake, Lawsonia and Ballyhack.

Ken

[Mark Bourgeois]

Or hopefully they're simply ignoring all of GD's bullshit criteria like I do.

If that's found to be the case GD needs to fire those raters. Much worse than putting Mrs Johnson on the cover, which we might not have liked but at least it was honest.

[John Kavanaugh]

Or hopefully they're simply ignoring all of GD's bullshit criteria like I do.

If that's found to be the case GD needs to fire those raters. Much worse than putting Mrs Johnson on the cover, which we might not have liked but at least it was honest.

It's business. Without comps the public courses with the largest advertising budgets wouldn't be the highest ranked. Media can't afford honesty. Or maybe the most expensive courses really are that much better.

[Mark Hissey]

It's interesting that Olympic Club Lake is ahead of San Francisco.

That is a bizarre result to be honest.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Why?

[KMcKeown]

This is my first post as a new member so hopefully it's considered on topic but what courses would be top 100 IF they had enough play by the GD raters?  Nanea comes to mind as one of them that seems like a clear top 100 but goes overlooked bc it's so private and they don't want any play.  Thoughts?

[Matthew Sander]

KMcKeown,

It can be tedious, but often you can look at the Best In State rankings (released later in the year) and figure it out. Since Best In State candidates require far fewer ballots to qualify, you will occasionally see a course not included in the top 100 ranked higher (in Best In State) than a course that is a part of the top 100 list. Now, if a course doesn't even receive enough ballots for the Best In State lists, then there is really no way to get the info you are looking for.

[Steve Lapper]

I had a really good laugh when I read this list.

 Knowing a bit about the rating game, I always find GD to be the least accurate and reliable of the big three. They admittedly seek and desire only low hcp'ers (and then ask them to weigh "resistance to scoring,"), enjoy preferred access to handful of questionably reclusive venues that refuse to host others, and rely on a regional captain system to guide people to certain courses. All of the aforementioned contribute to consistently skew rankings to certain courses over others (i.e. challenge over charm, competitive history over sporty, etc....). I'm not saying all three and their respective methodology(s) don't each have their own inherent skew, but GD's always seems to be the most questionable.

No knock on any particulate GD Rater (and I know and have played with a good number), but the vast majority of those I've teed it up with either lack a wide spectrum of golf architecture experiences or possess a severe predisposition to reward difficultly over most other features. With over a thousand folks paying for such a privilege, I shouldn't be surprised.

Jerry Tarde, Ron Whitten, and Peter Finch....thanks for the laughs....keep'em coming! Cheers!

[Matthew Sander]

With over a thousand folks paying for such a privilege, I shouldn't be surprised.

Hi Steve,

Can you explain the above statement?

[Steve Lapper]

With over a thousand folks paying for such a privilege, I shouldn't be surprised.

Hi Steve,

Can you explain the above statement?

GD and GW raters pay an initial and yearly fee for their participation, thus producing a profit center for their publication.

[Matthew Sander]

With over a thousand folks paying for such a privilege, I shouldn't be surprised.

Hi Steve,

Can you explain the above statement?

GD and GW raters pay an initial and yearly fee for their participation, thus producing a profit center for their publication.

That is false re: Golf Digest panelists.

[Andy Troeger]

I had a really good laugh when I read this list.

 Knowing a bit about the rating game, I always find GD to be the least accurate and reliable of the big three. They admittedly seek and desire only low hcp'ers (and then ask them to weigh "resistance to scoring,"), enjoy preferred access to handful of questionably reclusive venues that refuse to host others, and rely on a regional captain system to guide people to certain courses. All of the aforementioned contribute to consistently skew rankings to certain courses over others (i.e. challenge over charm, competitive history over sporty, etc....). I'm not saying all three and their respective methodology(s) don't each have their own inherent skew, but GD's always seems to be the most questionable.

No knock on any particulate GD Rater (and I know and have played with a good number), but the vast majority of those I've teed it up with either lack a wide spectrum of golf architecture experiences or possess a severe predisposition to reward difficultly over most other features. With over a thousand folks paying for such a privilege, I shouldn't be surprised.

Jerry Tarde, Ron Whitten, and Peter Finch....thanks for the laughs....keep'em coming! Cheers!

Steve,
This is the type of post that I find really frustrating. Others will read this and think you must really know what you're talking about, when you've got at least three errors in the post. Matthew pointed out that Golf Digest raters have never paid to be raters. Peter Finch hasn't been working with the panel for awhile, and the point of the captain program is to ensure coverage (state lists, public lists, top 200, etc.). Most of the courses that panelists are encouraged to see are public courses and ones further down state lists because otherwise they might get skipped to play the usual suspects. I played Mattaponi Springs in VA and The International Oaks in MA on a recent trip for that reason.

GD has its methodology and I understand it isn't popular with everyone, but if you're going to make that kind of post at least use accurate points.

[John Kirk]

To me, the Golf Digest looks much improved over the last 10-15 years, a pretty good representation of the greatest courses in America.  I suppose I could be accused of group think, along with the rest of the Golf Club Atlas folks.

I would sure like to see a continuation of the Fishers Island vs. Muirfield Village debate.  That's an interesting contrast.  I haven't played either one.

 

[Jim Hoak]

I really like both Fishers Island and Muirfield for different reasons.  Fishers is one of the most unique courses I have ever played--from the boat ride to get to it, the unfinished, unwatered, unkept look to it, the truly outstanding architectural features of it, etc.  Muirfield is manicured, lovingly tweaked by Nicklaus, built on rolling Midwestern land with the best grass-growing soil around, beautifully designed, etc.
Any comparison of the two courses is difficult, showing just how different courses can be.  It is apples-to-oranges.
I prefer Fishers, and I think most GCA people would too.  But Muirfield is the best Nicklaus course I have seen--and exceeded my expectations.  They're really very hard to compare fairly. 

[Steve Lapper]

I had a really good laugh when I read this list.

 Knowing a bit about the rating game, I always find GD to be the least accurate and reliable of the big three. They admittedly seek and desire only low hcp'ers (and then ask them to weigh "resistance to scoring,"), enjoy preferred access to handful of questionably reclusive venues that refuse to host others, and rely on a regional captain system to guide people to certain courses. All of the aforementioned contribute to consistently skew rankings to certain courses over others (i.e. challenge over charm, competitive history over sporty, etc....). I'm not saying all three and their respective methodology(s) don't each have their own inherent skew, but GD's always seems to be the most questionable.

No knock on any particulate GD Rater (and I know and have played with a good number), but the vast majority of those I've teed it up with either lack a wide spectrum of golf architecture experiences or possess a severe predisposition to reward difficultly over most other features. With over a thousand folks paying for such a privilege, I shouldn't be surprised.

Jerry Tarde, Ron Whitten, and Peter Finch....thanks for the laughs....keep'em coming! Cheers!

Steve,
This is the type of post that I find really frustrating. Others will read this and think you must really know what you're talking about, when you've got at least three errors in the post. Matthew pointed out that Golf Digest raters have never paid to be raters. Peter Finch hasn't been working with the panel for awhile, and the point of the captain program is to ensure coverage (state lists, public lists, top 200, etc.). Most of the courses that panelists are encouraged to see are public courses and ones further down state lists because otherwise they might get skipped to play the usual suspects. I played Mattaponi Springs in VA and The International Oaks in MA on a recent trip for that reason.

GD has its methodology and I understand it isn't popular with everyone, but if you're going to make that kind of post at least use accurate points.

Andy,

  Are you telling me they've NEVER paid anything? Quite a few guys I know did at some point and also paid to attend past GD events. If that practice has stopped, then great and I stand corrected. Happy to admit I might have it wrong about GD's present policies.
  Maybe your regional captain is more democratic, but I know a few who guided their minions to several sites and absolutely encouraged enough to visit a few selected venues with the affirmative purpose of gathering enough votes to qualify as well as a advocating their own opinions. This is a fact, not an opinion.

  As for Peter Finch's state of present  participation, who really cares, but I do know, again for a fact, that he has advocated for some Rater visits from time-to-time.

  Do want to refute all the other things I noted as well? Does GD not prefer and desire low hcp'ers over others? Does it not favor many courses that have hosted professional tournaments? The primary point of my ongoing entertainment with the GD results isn't really disputable. It's skew glorifies and provides ascendency for the likes of places like Pikewood, Rich Harvest Links, Alotion, etc... to,rank over charming and architecturally important venues like Myopia, Eastwood Ho, Kingsley etc...I do know that the former group have instituted a practice of not allowing raters visits from anyone but GD. Again a fact....not an opinion! I've played a few of those, some with a GD Rater, and even as a 6hcp wouldn't have them inside my top 200!

I've never had a problem admitting a mistake and apologize if some parts of my chuckle are based on past, out-of-date, policies. Personally, I find GD's ratings skew problematic and borderline funny.

[Mark Pritchett]

Hi Steve,

Is it not possible someone might find Alotian, RH or Pikewood charming or is that term only available for GCA favorites? 

Best,

Mark

[Jim Franklin]

It's interesting that Olympic Club Lake is ahead of San Francisco.

That is a bizarre result to be honest.

I played SFGC with another panelist and he did not like it. He thought the conditions were awful (the greens were not "Kinloch perfect"). He thought it was too easy, meanwhile he just three putted again from 20 feet. I loved SFGC. I will say though, Olympic is far better now than it was when I played it 4-5 years ago. And I loved Cal Club too.

[Andy Troeger]

Steve,
There has been absolutely no fee in the last 9 years. I paid to attend a seminar maybe 7 years ago, but I recall it being encouraged but not mandatory. All training in the last five years has been online and free.

The low handicap thing is no secret, it is published in the methodology with the categories. You either like that method or not, and I do understand it is not universally loved    The results certainly are affected by those choices. I love Eastward Ho and Kingsley, so I get what you're saying there.

Courses have the opportunity to be listed as seeking rater visits or not. That is more determined by the course than anyone at the magazine. If certain courses choose to encourage our visits but not other magazines, then that is their choice. I think Pikewood is an excellent golf course and would include Alotian in the top 100 as well, although perhaps not top 30. Rich Harvest is not my favorite place...

I am the state captain for New Mexico. If captains are using that position to help the rating position of certain courses, then that is not the intent of the program (and we're going to continue that discussion please send me a PM). It is meant to help make sure that courses that are close to a minimum threshold of ballots get a few more so that they can be included in the survey. I don't see anything wrong with that, as I said most of the time it helps get panelists to out-of-the-way public courses and those that aren't normally high-priority.

[Jim Franklin]

And the biggest omissions to the top 100 are Rock Creek Cattle Company and Baltimore Country Club. Those two continue to baffle me. After playing Golf Club at Black Rock and RCCC again, there is no way BR can compare. I just don't get it.

And BCC, don't get me started. I can't wait to see how the new greens and fairways are received by future panelists.

Lastly, Steve, I am not sure what you are driving at when talking about state captains. Are you saying some captains are instructing their fellow panelists to rate certain courses higher to get that course in top 100? If so, PM me as that is not what the GD ratings are about. While I certainly do not agree with the entire top 100, I do believe it is their process and what they want. I have played with numerous types of golfers over the years and more than I can count like the eye candy, hard course, Rich Harvest/Canyata type of course. Different strokes for different folks.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim F,

Thanks for that. Looking at the two courses' respective scores, what would be bizarre is if SF actually ranked higher than Oly. Generally, San Fran out scored Oly in nearly every category but by very small margins. Where Oly outshines San Fran is resistance to scoring, and that gap made the difference in the total. I would be interested to see someone argue that San Fran is tougher for a zero from the backs. Ready, set, argue.

Resolved: Oly is a "greater" course than San Fran. It's right there in the most exacting, quantitative ranking system out there.

 

I really like both Fishers Island and Muirfield for different reasons.  Fishers is one of the most unique courses I have ever played--from the boat ride to get to it, the unfinished, unwatered, unkept look to it, the truly outstanding architectural features of it, etc.  Muirfield is manicured, lovingly tweaked by Nicklaus, built on rolling Midwestern land with the best grass-growing soil around, beautifully designed, etc.
Any comparison of the two courses is difficult, showing just how different courses can be.  It is apples-to-oranges.
I prefer Fishers, and I think most GCA people would too.  But Muirfield is the best Nicklaus course I have seen--and exceeded my expectations.  They're really very hard to compare fairly. 

Jim H, with respect I disagree strongly: they are not apples to oranges. The point of GD's system is to rate apples to apples. In this respect it is the only legitimate ranking philosophy of the Unholy Trinity. Anyone who refuses to accept the GD approach is criticizing the foundational assumption of all course rankings: that courses can be lined up next to each other and compared, and thereby be ranked.

If Fishers and Muirfield cannot be compared then rankings are a form of intellectual fraud.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

When playinga golf course that is the upper levels of ratings, to me I pay alot of attention to the natural flow of the land and how the architect was able to adapt his intentions to fit the land given.
Or basically how the course fits its surroundings.
As such Muirfiled Vuillage would not rank very highly to me, too tinkered with, too artificial and too many attempts to make it "perfect"
Whether that be in the resistance to scoring category or anyother.
That category is just one of the criteria and using that criteria it would be very high, even if the resistance is very manufactured and based primarily on man made hazards.

This is not a critisism of the course or its designer just the view of one person who doesnt particularly think it is that outstanding to make man made hazards to make a course difficult, thus my dislike of courses such as Doral, Bay Hill etc...

I like Muifield Village very much, but personally wouldnt even dream of ranking it any higher than it is.

[Jud_T]

I think it's a question of false advertising.  Anyone who's travelled a bit and taken a mid-level math or statistics course can understand what we're getting here if they are presented with the facts in the abstract.  I just think instead of advertising that these are America's 100 Best Golf Courses and having a footnote as to what is actually involved, it would be more instructive if they said these were the "mathematical consensus top 100 difficult, fair, exclusive, tournament tested, expensively maintained courses as determined by a group of low handicap golfers."* ** *** ....*This does not represent the average reader/golfer or the courses they are likely to enjoy, suits their game best or are likely to easily access or afford...** Mathematical averages favor courses that have a higher consensus.  Courses which have a higher volatility of responses, both positive and negative, will not rate as highly in this type of averaging by definition.  *** The difference between the 70th course and the 150th implies little in terms of how the average reader/golfer may perceive the course or the experience of playing there and may confer more importance and statistical significance than is actually born out in the numbers....

Of course this wouldn't push the impulse buyer at the airport kiosk over the hump...

[Andy Troeger]

Jud,
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're talking semantics. Golf Digest clearly states how the courses are rated and what goes into the process, more explicitly than any of the other publications. You aren't the target market and dislike the results, for the 1 millionth time. We get it.

[Jud_T]

Well, I'm a 17 hdcp. middle aged golfer.   I'd say I'm fairly representative of the average golfer.  Perhaps a bit more jaded and well travelled, but average nonetheless.  If I'm not the target market who is?  Upwardly mobile 35 year old 5 handicaps?