Myopia, and Rye unranked previuosly...oh my
GOLF Magazine is making great strides under Howard Millstein-beautiful paper in the new Magazine as well.
Deep pockets and a passion for golf help.
Golf Digest?.....sinking fast--though I hear Outpost rater memberships are up....
I am very much against the pay for play rater scheme (formerly of Golfweek and now Golf Digest as well). I'll have more to say on that later. The new Golf magazine is certainly a welcome improvement and I commend the work of the new owners and Ran as well. I know there was a big issue with bribery of panelists and panelists profiting off of their being on the panel in the past and that several coursers are gone from the list and the panel is currently quite small as a result of that. I wish Golf Digest would restructure their panel and system as well (*cough* Rich Harvest Farms and Double Eagle *cough*).
That being said, Im not sure the panel in its current form necessarily operates without perceived conflict of interest. Ian Andrew is on the panel and Stanley Thompson is very well represented, perhaps overly so? Tom Doak rejoined the panel and he has more courses in the top 100 than any other modern designer, including a staggering jump for Ballyneal (not sure how many Ballyneal members are on the panel, at least a couple). Don Mahaffey is on the panel and Wolf Point is inexplicably in the Next 50. Im not saying Mr. Mahaffey isnt a well traveled student of architecture, it just raises questions. Likewise Gil Hanse and his potential conflicts. Golf magazine should be commended for publishing their panelist names and being open about those potential conflicts.
Im sure panelists cant vote for their own courses if they have any and there are other chinese walls in place. But to my larger point, every panel will have warts and issues and conflicts and none of these rankings should be taken without context, deemed superior or more noble to others.