Six new additions to Golfs top 100 world

[Mike Bowen]

Rating of golf courses is a 100% subjective task and therefore it's impossible not to have bias.  All things being equal, a private club that offers a rater a tee time is going to finish ahead of a public course every time.  People love being included as much or more than they hate being excluded.  The use of a private facility and everything that goes with it can't be removed from the rating of only the golf course.  Based on this you have to assume private clubs are over rated on these types of lists.


I do like the Michelin style of rating that was mentioned earlier.  But the lack of accessible tee times at most of these courses makes that impossible.

[Matthew Mollica]

At least they updated the language to state accurately that Olympic has hosted five U.S. Opens, but anyone that has played The Lake in the past 10 years should question their ability to count ...

"Laid out on the side of a hill overlooking Lake Merced, its fairways hemmed in by thousands of cypress and eucalyptus trees, its greens and landing areas bracketed by wrist-fracturing rough, Olympic has proved to be an imposing test for five U.S. Opens. On fog-free days, the 247-yard, par-3 third enjoys stellar views of the Golden Gate Bridge."

As a side issue Mike, has the Club done an audit of the trees on the Lake course or the entire property? A species, number and health study by an arborist? It would be beat to be able to reply to the magazine with objective data.

Matthew

[Mike Benham]

How about photographic data ...

Circa 2004




Circa 2014

[Tom_Doak]

Re:  Olympic, you guys are not understanding the issues.  Joe Passov's description has nothing to do with the ranking.  What has to do with the ranking is guys like me rating the course even though I haven't played it for twenty years.  You can tell me they've cut down a lot of trees, but I'm not going to change my rating for the course over that.  [Indeed, based on the picture above of #3, the one tree they didn't cut down is the one that would unfairly knock down a shot.]


Mike Bowen:  I used to think that the cachet of private courses helped them in the rankings, but I don't believe it's so.  My three highest-rated courses are all publicly accessible.  They get much more publicity from the magazines because they are public and I think that helps when it comes time to rate them.

[Wayne_Kozun]

In this thread there have been several comparisons to restaurant ratings.  When rating a restaurant should you solely rank the food and forget about the ambience, the quality and attentiveness of service, and quality of plates, etc?  You probably rate the whole package.  So I would argue that you should do the same for the golf.  A bad golf course won't be overcome by good scores on the other factors, but surely they should be considered when the quality of the courses are similar. 

[Jim Nugent]

Wayne, whatever those other factors are (can you give some examples?), I think they should go in a separate category.  I know I personally was much more interested in the course (though as a 99% public course player I rarely experienced much else). 

[Jim Franklin]

I feel that this is the best place for me to discuss my one run in with a rater this summer. Me and two other gentlemen where playing golf at a course held in good regard by this board and in the top 100 on multiple lists. When behind us comes a cart screaming down the fairway with the caddie clinging to the back and two people riding up front. This being an uncommon sight as the course in question is walking only. Off hops the caddie who rushes over to tell us that this group would be playing though as the only person playing was a rater who needed to see the course and was flying out tomorrow after seeing the newly opened second course. Our group did not care but it would have been nice to be asked rather than told. Then as the rater putts out behind us he whips his camera out. He starts to walk past without acknowledging our group and starts to shoot photos without stopping to frame the shots or examine the hole that he is shooting. All this being said if this is the quality of the person rating courses. There is no wonder why some of these rankings seem out of wack with what is truly going on golf wise.

Would love to know where and who the rater was. This is certainly not the way panelists are supposed to rate a course. I would NEVER expect a course to do this for me either.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne, whatever those other factors are (can you give some examples?), I think they should go in a separate category.  I know I personally was much more interested in the course (though as a 99% public course player I rarely experienced much else).

Courses/resorts that have great clubhouses with excellent food and a great ambience.  A club/course that has wonderful history. 

Kauri Cliffs and Cape Kidnappers are great examples.  They are resort courses and the overall resorts have beautiful vistas, fantastic food and lodging.  That may lead to the golf getting a bit of a higher rating compared to an excellent course in a mundane setting without the other amenities.

Redtail Golf Club is another example.  A very private course with a wonderfully quaint little clubhouse and a fantastic ambience that is all focused around golf.

[Mike Bowen]

Tom - I never thought about the bonus points that a high end public course would receive and that does make sense.  I guess every voter is different and will be swayed by different "extras."


The fact that we all don't agree on what should be factored into a rating shows the difficulty of task at hand.  I find the lists interesting and thought provoking but you could argue that this democratic style of rating isn't the right formula.  I prefer the opinion of an expert over the opinion of the general population.  Bring on volume two.