New Golf Digest Rankings Are Out...

[JC Jones]

What about not-upwardly mobile 35 year old, 12 handicaps?

[Steve Lapper]

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

Mark,

   You are correct. Someone, especially those affiliated with Club Car, Ez-Go or rural asphalt businesses (not you Barney) might indeed find those above-mentioned courses "charming."

[Mark Pritchett]

I doubt many posters on this forum are representative of "average" golfers, at least in terms of course knowledge and preferences.  Playing ability sure.  

[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

Mark,

   You are correct. Someone, especially those affiliated with Club Car, Ez-Go or rural asphalt businesses (not you Barney) might indeed find those above-mentioned courses "charming."

I walked and carried my bag (not as a rater) at Pikewood National with no problem and found the course to be charming.  Did you walk or ride at Pikewood?
  

[Jud_T]

I doubt many posters on this forum are representative of "average" golfers, at least in terms of course knowledge and preferences.  Playing ability sure.  

So it's a good list for those who have less knowledge or experience? 

[Richard Hetzel]

and Lawsonia doesn't crack the top 200...

I have never even played Lawsonia and I know that should be a CRIME!

[Mark Pritchett]

I doubt many posters on this forum are representative of "average" golfers, at least in terms of course knowledge and preferences.  Playing ability sure.  

So it's a good list for those who have less knowledge or experience? 

Yes, as a starting point. Also it might be a good list for people are not necessarily concerned about template holes, routings, hairy, jagged bunkers, architect's intent, etc.  Perhaps some people actually enjoy playing tournament venues, hitting long iron approach shots, fast greens and (gasp!) riding in carts.

It's a big world out there.  

[Mark Pritchett]

and Lawsonia doesn't crack the top 200...

I have never even played Lawsonia and I know that should be a CRIME!

Based on other people opinions or something else?  

It did enter the Best in State list. 

[JMEvensky]

Also it might be a good list for people are not necessarily concerned about template holes, routings, hairy, jagged bunkers, architect's intent, etc.  Perhaps some people actually enjoy playing tournament venues, hitting long iron approach shots, fast greens and (gasp!) riding in carts.

It's a big world out there.  

Heretic.

[Brent Hutto]

I doubt many posters on this forum are representative of "average" golfers, at least in terms of course knowledge and preferences.  Playing ability sure.  

So it's a good list for those who have less knowledge or experience? 

Yes, as a starting point. Also it might be a good list for people are not necessarily concerned about template holes, routings, hairy, jagged bunkers, architect's intent, etc.  Perhaps some people actually enjoy playing tournament venues, hitting long iron approach shots, fast greens and (gasp!) riding in carts.

It's a big world out there.  

The template holes thing is a good point. If someone points out the template-ness (or not) of a hole on a course I'm playing, well that's cool. But I've never really understood the level of interest it gets around here. And I'm somewhat clued-in to Treehouse-Think. Can't imagine that bulk of raters care at all about template holes.

[Paul OConnor]

Is it possible that this year's rankings are the high water mark for the Mac-Raynor template courses?  With Yeaman's Hall and Camargo now on the list, how much higher collectively can this group move?  Has the GCA fueled sex appeal of these courses peaked?  If it hasn't, I think it's close.

[Andy Troeger]

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?

Jud,
You've chosen not to be the target market by going and investigating courses for yourself. As someone else said, in truth GCA.com are not really average golfers and are more likely to be the raters on these lists than those reading them to "learn" anything. My point is that you don't need a magazine listing to tell you what you want to see, and you also clearly have preferences that don't fit the GD methodology. The list is the courses preferred by lower handicaps based on certain criteria. If you don't care for a list with those categories, then that's ok, but the magazine isn't going to change to fit your tastes. These lists can't fit everyone's preferences. Heck, they don't fit some of mine! I've long said Kingsley is better than a number of courses on the list. 

[Richard Hetzel]

and Lawsonia doesn't crack the top 200...

I have never even played Lawsonia and I know that should be a CRIME!

Based on other people opinions or something else?  

It did enter the Best in State list. 

Based on what I have seen from photos here and elesewhere. I never put any stock into anything GD pumps out list wise anyway.

[Joel_Stewart]

If you click on the link to their #1 course, it's listed as a "Alister Mackenzie/Robert Trent Jones, Jr. ASGCA" course
I'm sure Robert Tyre Jones Jr. wouldn't have as big a problem with that as Trent or Rees
Their #1 course and no one edited the link
but at least the green fee is $0 so that seems like good value.

Just glad to see they got #1 right
Should make tee times a bit easier at Pine Valley, no doubt listed as a George Trump masterpiece

Golf Digest is aware of this mistake and working to fix it.

[Jud_T]

Andy,

Point taken.  I'm honestly not upset about where Kingsley comes in.  It's not exactly a surprise.  If it somehow miraculously shot up 100 places it would eff up my world view too much.  Yes, Golfweek, Planet Golf, the Links 100 and the Confidential Guide skew more towards my personal preferences than Digest or Golf Magazine, but this isn't really the point.  As someone who used to put entirely too much stock in these lists back in the days before I saw the ugly truth that the Emperor has no clothes, I simply think it's our duty to the casual lurker to point out what is obvious to us but likely isn't to the nascent golfer.  End of rant....

[Mark Pritchett]

That makes perfect sense Jud.

Many coffee enthusiasts got their interest from Starbucks! 

[BCowan]

I think its best that the Gems don't get uncovered.  Clutter is not good.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I normally try to stay clear of these discussions because so many post without knowledge.  I have been on the GD panel for over twenty years.  We have never paid to be on the panel.  We have paid to attend national meetings, although they have been discontinued in favor of webinars.  I think the thing that irritates me the most are blanket statements about the integrity of panelists. While there are panelists that may not know as much about the history of architecture as you might want, they are not rating history but the course as it is presented on a particular day according to a set of criteria.  What I find most irritating are statements that certain courses should be on the top 100 list when the poster probably has not played more than a handful of top 100 courses. Argue about the courses.  That is what the list is for, but stay away from calling into question the integrity of panelists.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tommy,

Nice post and help me out: if panelists aren't rating history then why do the courses with the most history score highest in ambience? I want to agree with you but that one's got me stumped, frankly.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's the force of the collective that bothers me, and the shadiness of the goal.

Over the years, several posters have identified themselves as GD raters. In every case, I would happily (and gratefully) take any advice from those individual posters on great courses and good ones and underrated ones, and would readily admit that each of those posters has much more experience with and insight into what makes for a grand golfing experience than I do. And yet, lump their views in with those of hundreds of others (whom I don't know and thus can't 'respect') and suddenly the "collective opinion" annoys me no end. And once annoyed, I find myself asking about the goal of this process. Is it to celebrate great courses? Is it it to raise the profile of lesser known (but quality ones)? Is it to help the average golfer and GD reader make destination decisions? Who is helped, and who is hurt by the process, and why should this be?

Peter

[Tommy Williamsen]

To be honest I think the importance of the rankings has gotten out of hand.  Initially it was to indentify the most difficult courses in the country, then to identify the best.  At the outset there were only a handful of raters but as the list took on greater importance GD felt a wider range of opinions was necessary.  When clubs complained that some panelists were lousy players they instituted a five handicap threshold.  Although as some of us age our handicaps have risen, mine from 2 to 7.  They haven't kicked me off.

Now the rankings seem to be too important.  Clubs are judged by their ranking.  Is Merion really better than Oakmont this year? Why wasn't it two years ago? Should clubs renovate to get a higher ranking? I don't think so.  But it has come to that.  All I know is that I try to be as fair as I can because clubs do take the rankings seriously, even if they don't admit it.  I could care less about clubhouse or comfort stations.  Most of us don't care about those things and they certainly don't enter into our rankings.  I have seen some of the most palatial clubhouses in the world so I am hard to impress anymore.  

When I say that we are not ranking history I mean we don't care whether NGLA's redan is as good as Somerset Hill's or Shinnecock's. We just rate it how it is played on the day we play it.  If the hole is soft that day it may get rated differently than if it is firm and running.

[Eric Smith]

Vanity plays a role in every aspect of the golf course ranking process - and she plays no favorites. Be it the owner, management, the architect, the member, the guest, the rater, the magazines themselves. When was the last time any of us bought a logoless shirt or pullover at a Top 100? Has that ever even happened? I don't think so!

Show us your Mackenzie bag?! Exactly, for I too have sinned. (Emoticon omitted and unnecessary)

[Sean Leary]

What about not-upwardly mobile 35 year old, 12 handicaps?

Don't sell yourself short. You don't look a day over 45....

[Mark Bourgeois]

When was the last time any of us bought a logoless shirt or pullover at a Top 100? Has that ever even happened? I don't think so!

March! 

...and before that, October 2006. 

[Jerry Kluger]

I think it's great that #2 moved up as it shows GD readers that brown is beautiful and courses don't have to be overwatered.

I was fortunate to play in a three day event at Yeamans Hall and everything about it was special. The reaction of some of the other players to the greens was either love or hate them. To me they were fantastic.