Ran vs. Golf Digest

[Ted Sturges]

I took a closer look at the GD US Top 100 list over the weekend.  After my usual criticisms for courses on the list that I felt should not be, and courses not on the list that I felt should be, it got me thinking about how this list of US Top 100 courses would compare to Ran's Top 147 Custodians of the game list.  Ran's list has more courses ranked (147 vs. 100 for GD), and Ran's list is a world list, while the GD Top 100 US list is obviously only US courses.


It was interesting to note that only 21 courses on the GD US Top 100 list made Ran's 147 Custodians of the Game list.  62 US courses made Ran's list, leaving 41 courses identified by Ran as worthy of praise left off of GD's list (among other notable omissions).


I guess this goes to what one values when rating/ranking a golf course.  I personally love Ran's list and methodology.  I have been perplexed for decades as to how GD comes up with their list, and this most recent list might be their most perplexing list (to me). 


I invite the comments of the peanut gallery on this and I present this with no predetermined thesis in mind, just thought this was an interesting comparison.


TS

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Isn't Ran taking over the Golfweek rating panel? I'll be interested to see how that list ends up comparing to the Custodians.

I think the big difference between Golf Digest's list and the custodians, or your preferences, is the resistance to scoring category. Most on the DG here place no value on how difficult a course should be.

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps assessing the courses, and assessment from a realistic rather than purely aspirational perspective (ie not “all of them!”) of how many courses on the DG list do I really, really, really want to play versus how many of Rans 147 do I really, really, really want to play would be worthy.
Atb

[Ran Morrissett]

Two very different sets of criteria are used and therefore, the results should be - and are - wildly different. Depending on which set of criteria you are more in tune with determines which list is more appealing.

Ted and I had a long chat on the recent GD list and in general, a lot of the Golf Digest ones suffer from what I refer to in the 147 as 'conspicuous greenkeeping.' Those who prefer a sterile, overtly artificial environment for a game will prefer the GD list more than the 147. And of course, some big (American) names are off the 147 because policies are in place that cheat me of the simple pleasure of carrying my bag a majority of the time. That's why the goals is to retire to the United Kingdom and away from such nonsense.

I stopped following the GD rankings years ago, as the race to see which course has the best clubhouse wasn't interesting.  In all seriousness, the biggest difference between the two methodologies is that one produces a (mostly) homogeneous list of courses and the other is a dog's breakfast with stuff splattered everywhere of all shapes and sizes.

Best,

PS Ted becomes incensed every two years, exactly when the GD rating are released. Check out his In My Opinion piece from 1999 (!) if you think I am joking.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think the lists do different things. He even leaves out Portrush and Prairie Dunes.

[Jay Mickle]

I think the big difference between Golf Digest's list and the custodians, or your preferences, is the resistance to scoring category. Most on the DG here place no value on how difficult a course should be.

How difficult should a course be?

[Jim Nugent]

Ran can correct me I'm wrong, but I don't think he is trying to identify the 147 best courses.  He leaves out lots of courses that are likely sure things for such a list.  Some examples include Pine Valley, CPC, Shinnie, Oakmont, ANGC and Tara Iti.
A number of years ago, GCA did an unofficial world rating of courses.  Any GCA members could rate any course they chose, using their interpretation of the Doak scale.  The results were tabulated and posted.  It struck me how many courses in the GCA top 100 were also in the GD and GM top 100s.  The order differed somewhat, and there were a few outliers.  But most of our courses were on the mag lists, and vice versa.   

[Ira Fishman]

Jim,


In my limited time here, it has stuck me how ingenious Ran’s indoctrination really has been. He never claims universality for his viewpoint, never does rankings of “best”, and makes it quite clear that his criteria are personal to him. Yet I find myself agreeing increasingly on what I consider a great golf experience. There are quibbles largely over the walk at anytime criterion which apparently excluded CPC and a few more. But on the whole, Ran has moved my thinking without even his probably caring about whether he has done so.


Ira

[Joe Sponcia]

I remember visiting (first and last time) a highly ranked, amazing site with homogenized holes in North Carolina and not being able to eat in the grill(e) room because I wasn't a member.  The lukewarm sandwich outside on makeshift picnic tables and attitude left a larger impression than the nothing-out-of-place Greenscape. 


Some of the best conversations I've ever had were at smaller clubs with an engaging super or head pro that understands what they have on the ground, but few in the town do.  These (((little)))) things make the trips to some places all the more memorable.

[Sean_A]

I invite the comments of the peanut gallery on this and I present this with no predetermined thesis in mind, just thought this was an interesting comparison.

TS

As Ran points out, the two lists are only comporable in that they are lists. 

Comment: I think Ran's list is top heavy with private courses, many of which are not custodians of the game, but custodians of a course...and sometimes they are suspect at doing this. A custodian of the game should ideally be a course which allows golfers to play....though there are obviously exceptions for those clubs which are historically important.  I hope, over time, Ran changes his mind and realizes the basic necessity of access is probably the most important part of being a guardian of the game.

Comment: I applaud the focus of 147 on aspects of golf (the experience of), rather than the myopic insistence that its only the architecture which matters.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

And of course, some big (American) names are off the 147 because policies are in place that cheat me of the simple pleasure of carrying my bag a majority of the time. That's why the goals is to retire to the United Kingdom and away from such nonsense.

'tis far easier to affect change by staying in the tent and pissing out than the other way around, my friend.

[Tom_Doak]

Some of the best conversations I've ever had were at smaller clubs with an engaging super or head pro that understands what they have on the ground, but few in the town do.  These (((little)))) things make the trips to some places all the more memorable.

That was Crystal Downs when I first went there in 1982.  Many other places, too.  That’s one of the hidden effects of these rankings - the change of attitude on the part of clubs.  Maybe it’s inevitable though.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

I think the big difference between Golf Digest's list and the custodians, or your preferences, is the resistance to scoring category. Most on the DG here place no value on how difficult a course should be.

How difficult should a course be?

Well according to Golf Digest's definition - "how difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?" I'd suspect the majority of us on this site are not scratch players and back tees are irrelevant, so that would never factor into what makes a Great course.

I believe there was another thread where a pro said he wasn't impressed by Cypress Point because it was too easy. Seemed ludicrous but to him challenging equated to great.

[Dan_Callahan]

I think where many of the lists run into trouble (and, I would argue, go wrong) is in trying to identify the "best" course.


"Best" needs set criteria so that you can compare apples to apples. "Resistance to scoring" and stuff like that.


I'm far more interested in "favorite," which allows for greater subjectivity (possibly a negative) but can steer away from tangible criteria and leans more heavily on a gut feeling.


I'd be hard pressed to argue that Dornoch is the best course I've ever played, when I stack it up against Shinnecock, The Country Club, Kiawah, Pebble, etc. But it is my favorite.


And at the end of the day, I wonder how many people would say that the best course they've ever played was also their favorite?

[Sean_A]

I'm far more interested in "favorite," which allows for greater subjectivity (possibly a negative) but can steer away from tangible criteria and leans more heavily on a gut feeling.

+1

The only things I would add are

1. deciding on best or favourite is subjective

2. a favourites list from decently travelled golfers will inevitably produce more interesting and informative results

3. Ran's 147 is probably a version of his favourites

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

I invite the comments of the peanut gallery on this and I present this with no predetermined thesis in mind, just thought this was an interesting comparison.

I think the inclusion of the two Maine courses are an indication of Ran's curious mind:


1) You have to actually travel north of Myopia Hunt Club to see them;


2) Cape A is short, tight in spots, and obviously wonderful;


3) Prouts is flattish in general, yet there it is at 108 and ahead of Newport at 110.


There is an "art" to both of those Maine courses and clubs that just don't show up in an app or a database.


Here is Golf Digest Top 10 list - https://www.golfdigest.com/story/maine-best-in-state-rankings


1 . (1) Belgrade Lakes G.C. ([/color]pictured above[/font][/size][/color]) ^[/color]2. (2) Sugarloaf G.C., Carrabassett Valley ★3. (3) Sunday River G.C., Newry ★4. (6) Kebo Valley G.C., Bar Harbor ★5. (5) Portland C.C., Falmouth6. (7) Fox Ridge G.C., Auburn ★7. (4) Samoset Resort G.C., Rockport ★8. (New) Boothbay Harbor C.C.9. ( The Woodlands Club, Falmouth10. (10) The Ledges G.C., York ★


It is just two different worlds, and obviously I prefer Ran's world.

[George Pazin]

I think where many of the lists run into trouble (and, I would argue, go wrong) is in trying to identify the "best" course.


"Best" needs set criteria so that you can compare apples to apples. "Resistance to scoring" and stuff like that.


I'm far more interested in "favorite," which allows for greater subjectivity (possibly a negative) but can steer away from tangible criteria and leans more heavily on a gut feeling.


I'd be hard pressed to argue that Dornoch is the best course I've ever played, when I stack it up against Shinnecock, The Country Club, Kiawah, Pebble, etc. But it is my favorite.


And at the end of the day, I wonder how many people would say that the best course they've ever played was also their favorite?

That was my first thought, favorite versus best.


I keep those lists separate in my head. And I'll always lean towards my friends' favorites, rather than the panels' best.


My #1 is the same in both, no prizes for guessing, but not so much after that.

[Bill Brightly]

My favorite line from Ran's list:


"When people dream of playing golf in Scotland, this is what they are thinking of, even if they don't know it."


I feel like showing this to my belt-notching friends who go on trips to Scotland, drive all over the place to only play Open Rota courses, and miss courses like Brora. But they wouldn't understand. They would prefer playing the great tracks on the Golf Digest top 200...

[Tommy Williamsen]

My favorite line from Ran's list:


"When people dream of playing golf in Scotland, this is what they are thinking of, even if they don't know it."


I feel like showing this to my belt-notching friends who go on trips to Scotland, drive all over the place to only play Open Rota courses, and miss courses like Brora. But they wouldn't understand. They would prefer playing the great tracks on the Golf Digest top 200...

The first couple of times someone makes the long trip most guys do want to play the rota courses and the highest ranked courses. It makes sense. They have been hearing about them and watching them on tv for years. After they have been played then go to the Broras of the world. When they do they truly discover the joys of GB&I golf.

[Ted Sturges]

Best,

PS Ted becomes incensed every two years, exactly when the GD rating are released. Check out his In My Opinion piece from 1999 (!) if you think I am joking.

Hahahaha,  I actually forgot I wrote that letter to GD.  Hard to believe that was 20 years ago.  And...in 20 years, my opinion of them has not changed.


TS

[Jeff Schley]

Best,

PS Ted becomes incensed every two years, exactly when the GD rating are released. Check out his In My Opinion piece from 1999 (!) if you think I am joking.

Hahahaha,  I actually forgot I wrote that letter to GD.  Hard to believe that was 20 years ago.  And...in 20 years, my opinion of them has not changed.


TS

Ted love the letter, and rings true today.  In today's litigious society, I wonder if any physically handicapped person could sue GD for excluding them from being a potential panelist? I think it could be successful as their view of a 4.7 index as mandatory would have a hard time holding up with a large pool of potential witnesses willing to attest to the discrimination they face as being excluded because of their handicap, despite a love of the game and architecture. Just a thought.

[John Kavanaugh]

I played with a Digest rater suffering through MS. Great guy. Couldn't break a hundo. Knew great golf when he saw it.  I can only pray he is still with us.

[Bill Brightly]

The first couple of times someone makes the long trip most guys do want to play the rota courses and the highest ranked courses. It makes sense. They have been hearing about them and watching them on tv for years. After they have been played then go to the Broras of the world. When they do they truly discover the joys of GB&I golf.



I know, Tommy. I was that way myself when I first played overseas. Hanging out on GCA.COM really helped me learn to look for great places to play near rota courses, and not drive myself all over the the place.  Just make more trips!


I recently planned a trip to play Muirfield, North Berwick, Gullane and a few nearby courses. One of the guys in my group figured out a way to cut the trip short and catch a plane to go play Royal Count Down because he heard it is great...   So what do I do with that?