Anyone talking about Golfweek ratings?

[BCowan]

Vaughn,

   Classic, great post. 

John,

   Is there something wrong with not having it in your top 5?  I have buddies who have played it.  One has played it twice and it isn't in his top 10.

Yes there is something wrong with not having ANGC in the top 5 courses you have played. You lose all credibility and come off as nothing more than a blowhard. You can't discuss religion with someone who tells you about the time he pissed on a crucifix in church.

John,

    He is a blowhard    .  Great last sentence.  You just put down the heartland, did you move to the Northeast?  Big corn is power in Iowa.  There are ANGC members all over the country, even in smaller markets.      

[MCirba]

Nobody cares about the ratings yet these threads always get the most DG activity here, don't they?

[Jim Franklin]

GD has a whole mess of misses for sure, but The Alotian just struck me as funny. It was the poster child for whatever was wrong with the GD ranking and now it is top 20 GW. And NO ONE here is talking about it. Oh the irony.

I do not have an issue with The Alotian. Some of the other courses mentioned maybe. And especially Rock Creek Cattle not being Top 100 still irks me about the GD ratings.

Jim,

I appreciate the good-natured ribbing related to The Alotian and hope you appreciate my attempts at humor in return.   

I haven't played there but understand it must be pretty good if both GW and GD rate it favorably.   Perhaps peace might be possible in the middle east, after all.   

I honestly haven't seen anything compelling from pictures and I'm an inveterate walker but again, I haven't played it so I must be missing something with all the favorable opinions from our respective rating teams.

It's all good. I love Golfweek's ratings issues. I am a loyal subscriber. I know Brad is a passionate guy and it comes through in his writing. Without passion, there is no excellence.

I prefer walking when I play, but certainly don't have an issue with riding in a cart when it is necessary. While requiring a cart may prevent a course from being #1 in my opinion, it won't keep it out of my Top 100.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It's all a big scam in my opinion. Do they rank buildings, or art work? Heck no.  The RCCC is an excellent course, and loads of fun, but what's the point of "ranking" it?  Is it about ego? Is it about money?

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/the-most-beautiful-building-in-every-state


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-travel-picks-museums-idUSSP17187820080229

[Jason Thurman]

It's all a big scam in my opinion. Do they rank buildings, or art work? Heck no.  The RCCC is an excellent course, and loads of fun, but what's the point of "ranking" it?  Is it about ego? Is it about money?

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/the-most-beautiful-building-in-every-state

Churchill Downs over Keeneland on a beautiful buildings list? Give me a break. I saw on Twitter the other day that a Top 100 Top 100 Lists list is in the works. That mistake alone should drop this Thrillist list out of the top 80.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

It's all a big scam in my opinion. Do they rank buildings, or art work? Heck no.  The RCCC is an excellent course, and loads of fun, but what's the point of "ranking" it?  Is it about ego? Is it about money?

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/the-most-beautiful-building-in-every-state

Churchill Downs over Keeneland on a beautiful buildings list? Give me a break. I saw on Twitter the other day that a Top 100 Top 100 Lists list is in the works. That mistake alone should drop this Thrillist list out of the top 80.

Jason,

Is that like a coffee table book, about coffee tables?

[Carl Nichols]

It's all a big scam in my opinion. Do they rank buildings, or art work? Heck no.  The RCCC is an excellent course, and loads of fun, but what's the point of "ranking" it?  Is it about ego? Is it about money?

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/the-most-beautiful-building-in-every-state

Churchill Downs over Keeneland on a beautiful buildings list? Give me a break. I saw on Twitter the other day that a Top 100 Top 100 Lists list is in the works. That mistake alone should drop this Thrillist list out of the top 80.

Jason,

Is that like a coffee table book, about coffee tables?

Or a coffee table book about coffee table books.

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Ratings are opinions expressed in a list.  They stimulate discussion among people interested in golf and GCA.  That's good.  It's also good that people discuss whether Golfweek or Golf Digest does it better.  More discussion, more interest.  For me, that is plenty of justification for rating courses.  But I would agree that there is not a "correct" answer to the question, "which is the best course?" ...or the 99th course.  While I don't have any problem with the methods used by Golfweek or GD, I would also be fine with seeing courses rated in buckets..for example, top 10 or 20.  Second 10 or 20 etc.  Given the differences in numerical scores, which are often small, perhaps less false precision is in order?  I am certain that concept must have been discussed here before.

[Jim Franklin]

Ratings are opinions expressed in a list.  They stimulate discussion among people interested in golf and GCA.  That's good.  It's also good that people discuss whether Golfweek or Golf Digest does it better.  More discussion, more interest.  For me, that is plenty of justification for rating courses.  But I would agree that there is not a "correct" answer to the question, "which is the best course?" ...or the 99th course.  While I don't have any problem with the methods used by Golfweek or GD, I would also be fine with seeing courses rated in buckets..for example, top 10 or 20.  Second 10 or 20 etc.  Given the differences in numerical scores, which are often small, perhaps less false precision is in order?  I am certain that concept must have been discussed here before.

If I'm not mistaken, Golf Digest's first lists were in groups of ten. Personally, I like them as they are. I don't agree with the order, but I like using 1-200.

[PCCraig]

Does Golfweek still expand their list to 200?

[PCCraig]

I don't know why but the phrase that came to mind is "rearranging the deck chairs."


Is it possible we have reached Peak Rankings and crossed over to the downhill slope where people (apart from the raters themselves, of course) stop caring about them anymore?

Tom Doak,


I don't think that's true... I received a group text message yesterday with the link to Golfweek's ratings from a happy member of a course that is listed in the top 30 (and another in the top ~70). When Golf Digest ranked WBYC in the Top 200, my brother-in-law whom is a member was excited and found out via a mass e-mail to the membership from the club itself. So, I think plenty of people still care about the course rankings of the various magazines.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jim Franklin wrote, "If I'm not mistaken, Golf Digest's first lists were in groups of ten. Personally, I like them as they are. I don't agree with the order, but I like using 1-200."



That is correct. It seems to me GD did list them in groups of ten and arranged them in alphabetical order accordingly. I think the first numbered system began in 1985.

[Michael George]

I don't know why but the phrase that came to mind is "rearranging the deck chairs."

Is it possible we have reached Peak Rankings and crossed over to the downhill slope where people (apart from the raters themselves, of course) stop caring about them anymore?

Tom:

I think within this community, they mean very little.  I know that my list of courses that I wish to play is not based on any magazine list.   For instance, I would rather play Cal Club over Olympic, Myopia Hunt over Brookline and Brookside (Canton) over Double Eagle.  Likewise, I would rather play Rock Creek over almost any course that you have designed.....and it remains the unranked one 

However, I think the general golfing public still follows these rankings.  The average golfer's "bucket list" is based on the rankings and for business purposes, it means more to a customer if you bring them to a top 100 course, than a hidden gem.   In fact, for the general golfer, these rankings are probably more followed today than ever.  I am willing to bet that they get a lot more website clicks for their rankings than the average issue.

People love to rank and evaluate courses.  In whatever form, whether it be magazine rankings, the Planet Golf rankings or your Confidential Guides, golfers love it. 

The question that you indirectly pose is with the increased number of outlets to get rankings, is the golfer started to trust some sources over other sources of opinion.  I think sources like Planet Golf and your Confidential Guides have helped provide another opinion that is being more widely followed.



 

[Mike Hendren]

To get our discussion back on track:   

1) Is Glens Falls as good as Holston Hills, MPCC Dunes, Fenway, Cascades and Augusta CC? 

2) Where would you insert Castle Stuart in America's top 100 modern list?  I'm thinking 5th.

3) Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island.

Discuss. 

[Jud_T]

I'd give this thread a 4.

[John Kirk]

I'd give this thread a 4.

Perhaps we should craft a definition for a thread which earns a rating of 4:

"Comprised mostly of brief opinions.  Worthy of modest attention and potential contribution.  In case of Internet service outage, do not travel no more than 5 minutes by car to resume participation."

Potential contribution:

I enjoy these lists, though it's less exciting than it used to be, since there are only a few new courses each decade, let alone year.

The one list I know of that values Old Macdonald as the second best course at Bandon Dunes.

I've balked at making this comment for years, but I will offer that I simply don't understand why The Dunes is considered a top 50 course.  This has to be the single most biased and sentimental choice on the list.  One of my problems seeing this as a great course was my poor health and outlook at the time; I was tired and half drunk much of that trip, which made me less appreciative.  Still, I thought The Dunes was narrow and overgrown with trees.  Strategic choices seemed both limited and ordinary, and greenside short game play was not particularly inspiring or playful.  It's a beautiful, secluded place, but the golf course was merely good to me, and it was only nine holes, so I don't get it.  It has a compelling history; it is Mike Keizer's first golf course project and features a prestigious Midwestern membership.  As a result, I think there is significant bias in its favor.  Apologies to my member friend(s), but I thought it was time to question that ranking.

We're never getting rid of that pesky Sand Hills GC at the #1 spot.  Maybe they can induct it into a new Hall of Fame and retire it.  Sand Hills will always be #1.  The strongest lock in the rankings.

Surprised Kingsley is ahead of Rock Creek, and Dismal River (Red).  Wade Hampton is 10th; it must be very nice.  I think Stone Eagle is better than The Quarry (in La  Quinta), but the raters don't think so.  Fazio courses get more respect in the Golfweek list than they do on Golf Club Atlas.


 

[V_Halyard]

It's all a big scam in my opinion. Do they rank buildings, or art work? Heck no.  The RCCC is an excellent course, and loads of fun, but what's the point of "ranking" it?  Is it about ego? Is it about money?

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/the-most-beautiful-building-in-every-state

Churchill Downs over Keeneland on a beautiful buildings list? Give me a break. I saw on Twitter the other day that a Top 100 Top 100 Lists list is in the works. That mistake alone should drop this Thrillist list out of the top 80.

Jason,

Is that like a coffee table book, about coffee tables?

Or a coffee table book about coffee table books.

Best Coffee to drink whilst reading the coffee table book about the best coffee tables for coffee table books.

Disclaimer: I like the lists. Always have.  Everybody will have disagreements but the lists are like the NCAA beginning of the season rankings. They drive interest, are a good spark for discourse and ignite this chatter within the golf community at large as well as here within GCA that has a number of rater/members within the actual list making rating community.
I like the lists. I love Lamp.

[V_Halyard]

I don't know why but the phrase that came to mind is "rearranging the deck chairs."


Is it possible we have reached Peak Rankings and crossed over to the downhill slope where people (apart from the raters themselves, of course) stop caring about them anymore?

Tom Doak,


I don't think that's true... I received a group text message yesterday with the link to Golfweek's ratings from a happy member of a course that is listed in the top 30 (and another in the top ~70). When Golf Digest ranked WBYC in the Top 200, my brother-in-law whom is a member was excited and found out via a mass e-mail to the membership from the club itself. So, I think plenty of people still care about the course rankings of the various magazines.

Fully agree with Pat here. A listing may mean little to regulars like Kinglsley or Sand Hills but making one of these lists for the first time definitely makes an impression for smaller less known tracks. Getting a mention in Confidential, recognition on GCA, a ranking on one of the lists all deliver pride of membership and relevancy so don't underestimate the mark these lists leave.

[Jim Hoak]

A clarification--Golfweek ranks courses on a Best Classic and Best Modern basis--two separate lists.  Alotian is top 20 on the Best Modern list, which I personally think is appropriate.  Gold Digest did not draw this distinction.

[Gene Greco]

I don't believe an appropriate adjective for Sand Hills Golf Club is "pesky."


Along the lines of that pesky explosion to end Japan's involvement in WW2.


Sand Hills is a behemoth.


Dwarfs just about everything on the planet in scope, size and majesty.

[John Kirk]

Sand Hills is a titan.

Please note that I brought Gene Greco out of hibernation.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

GD has a whole mess of misses for sure, but The Alotian just struck me as funny. It was the poster child for whatever was wrong with the GD ranking and now it is top 20 GW. And NO ONE here is talking about it. Oh the irony.

I do not have an issue with The Alotian. Some of the other courses mentioned maybe. And especially Rock Creek Cattle not being Top 100 still irks me about the GD ratings.

Jim,

I appreciate the good-natured ribbing related to The Alotian and hope you appreciate my attempts at humor in return.   

I haven't played there but understand it must be pretty good if both GW and GD rate it favorably.   Perhaps peace might be possible in the middle east, after all.   

I honestly haven't seen anything compelling from pictures and I'm an inveterate walker but again, I haven't played it so I must be missing something with all the favorable opinions from our respective rating teams.

It's all good. I love Golfweek's ratings issues. I am a loyal subscriber. I know Brad is a passionate guy and it comes through in his writing. Without passion, there is no excellence.

I prefer walking when I play, but certainly don't have an issue with riding in a cart when it is necessary. While requiring a cart may prevent a course from being #1 in my opinion, it won't keep it out of my Top 100.

Agree 100%

[Sean_A]

GD has a whole mess of misses for sure, but The Alotian just struck me as funny. It was the poster child for whatever was wrong with the GD ranking and now it is top 20 GW. And NO ONE here is talking about it. Oh the irony.

I do not have an issue with The Alotian. Some of the other courses mentioned maybe. And especially Rock Creek Cattle not being Top 100 still irks me about the GD ratings.

Jim,

I appreciate the good-natured ribbing related to The Alotian and hope you appreciate my attempts at humor in return.   

I haven't played there but understand it must be pretty good if both GW and GD rate it favorably.   Perhaps peace might be possible in the middle east, after all.   

I honestly haven't seen anything compelling from pictures and I'm an inveterate walker but again, I haven't played it so I must be missing something with all the favorable opinions from our respective rating teams.

It's all good. I love Golfweek's ratings issues. I am a loyal subscriber. I know Brad is a passionate guy and it comes through in his writing. Without passion, there is no excellence.

I prefer walking when I play, but certainly don't have an issue with riding in a cart when it is necessary. While requiring a cart may prevent a course from being #1 in my opinion, it won't keep it out of my Top 100.

I guess I do have an issue with necessary carts for golf.  To me it suggests either the terrain isn't suitable for golf, the project isn't suitable for golf or the design is poor.  I do have a handful of what I call awful walks in my Happy 100, but not many.  When the walk is that bad I automatically tick a course because my ideal course is a good walk. 


Ciao

[Gene Greco]

Sand Hills is a titan.

Please note that I brought Gene Greco out of hibernation.

It is you and me who are "pesky."
Now back to my den.😴

[Jim Franklin]

I'd give this thread a 4.

Perhaps we should craft a definition for a thread which earns a rating of 4:

"Comprised mostly of brief opinions.  Worthy of modest attention and potential contribution.  In case of Internet service outage, do not travel no more than 5 minutes by car to resume participation."

Potential contribution:

I enjoy these lists, though it's less exciting than it used to be, since there are only a few new courses each decade, let alone year.

The one list I know of that values Old Macdonald as the second best course at Bandon Dunes.

I've balked at making this comment for years, but I will offer that I simply don't understand why The Dunes is considered a top 50 course.  This has to be the single most biased and sentimental choice on the list.  One of my problems seeing this as a great course was my poor health and outlook at the time; I was tired and half drunk much of that trip, which made me less appreciative.  Still, I thought The Dunes was narrow and overgrown with trees.  Strategic choices seemed both limited and ordinary, and greenside short game play was not particularly inspiring or playful.  It's a beautiful, secluded place, but the golf course was merely good to me, and it was only nine holes, so I don't get it.  It has a compelling history; it is Mike Keizer's first golf course project and features a prestigious Midwestern membership.  As a result, I think there is significant bias in its favor.  Apologies to my member friend(s), but I thought it was time to question that ranking.

We're never getting rid of that pesky Sand Hills GC at the #1 spot.  Maybe they can induct it into a new Hall of Fame and retire it.  Sand Hills will always be #1.  The strongest lock in the rankings.

Surprised Kingsley is ahead of Rock Creek, and Dismal River (Red).  Wade Hampton is 10th; it must be very nice.  I think Stone Eagle is better than The Quarry (in La  Quinta), but the raters don't think so.  Fazio courses get more respect in the Golfweek list than they do on Golf Club Atlas.

Agree on Stone Eagle, it is best in the desert. Love Kingsley, but have Rock Creek and Dismal Red ahead of it, and love Wade Hampton as well. And you are correct, Fazio is all over the Golfweek ratings. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Old Mac is my #2 in Bandon as well. As for The Dunes, the tree issue is similar to Pine Valley. Both need a little thinning out. It is not in my top 100 for the main reason it is only 9 holes.