[Mike Sweeney]

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.

Nice post from the "frank commentary" era. I would add two other thoughts:


1) GCA.com started out as the anti-rankings website. To Ran's credit, he kept it commercial free for years and years. With Ran's crossover to Golf.com, is GCA.com dead? As stated earlier, #148 Custodian has never been identified.


2) Andrew Green - He seems to the new "worker" of GCA Architects, working on many renovations. I have never met him but we seem to be ignoring his work on GCA.com and Golf.com.

[Rob Marshall]

So I had to laugh when I saw Bethpage Black at 53 after the beating it took here over the summer.


It’s been a number of years since I played it but someone to needs to tell me what makes the Ocean course a top 100 course. I just don’t get it.

[Bill Crane]

Bulldog! Bulldog!
Bow, wow, wow
Eli Yale

Congrats!!!!!!

This is great - and the right thing.  Great 27 hole walk there last month.  Only downside is...............................
Colin Sheehan will be insufferable !! 

Just remember that Raynor went to Princeton !

[Kalen Braley]

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.

JC,

I thought this was an interesting post with some good points, but I didn't quite get your disclaimer at the end.

If Golf Magazine now has a better methodology, unlike the pay to play schemes, and has cleaned up thier act, shouldn't it follow that their ratings are "superior" or "more noble" in some way?  I don't have a dog in the ratings fight, but if cleaning house hasn't resulted in better ratings overall then whats the point?

[Tom_Doak]

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).

Thanks for noticing!   


For the record, I rejoined the panel at Ran's invitation, because I had been an outspoken critic of the previous system, and I wanted to support his involvement as a sign that they were trying to re-establish the legitimacy of the voting.


You are right to say that it will take time to do that.  You are also right that every panelist on every panel has their own personal favorites and biases, so in the end, you have to judge the validity of the rankings by who has been asked to vote.  Personally, I think they could still do better on that front . . . there are a lot of names I don't recognize, and a few more that I do recognize, but never thought of as an expert . . . I wish they would enlist a few more great players, and drop a few of the "career panelists".


Honestly, I don't remember seeing any members of Ballyneal listed among the panel, but I just skimmed it once and might have missed someone.  I guess Kye Goalby could be put into that category, since he lived there for the duration of construction and shaped a few of the greens, but I feel sure he listed that as a conflict of interest in the appropriate spot.

[Ian Andrew]

That being said, I'm 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?

Thanks for throwing the first stone.

[JC Jones]

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.

JC,

I thought this was an interesting post with some good points, but I didn't quite get your disclaimer at the end.

If Golf Magazine now has a better methodology, unlike the pay to play schemes, and has cleaned up thier act, shouldn't it follow that their ratings are "superior" or "more noble" in some way?  I don't have a dog in the ratings fight, but if cleaning house hasn't resulted in better ratings overall then whats the point?

Golf Magazine has their methodology, its subjective whether its better.  My point was, while Golf Magazine did a lot of cleaning up, their panel as currently comprised will still raise questions about conflict of interest.  Therefore, one has to take that into account when assessing the value of their ratings.

[JC Jones]

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).

Thanks for noticing!   


For the record, I rejoined the panel at Ran's invitation, because I had been an outspoken critic of the previous system, and I wanted to support his involvement as a sign that they were trying to re-establish the legitimacy of the voting.


You are right to say that it will take time to do that.  You are also right that every panelist on every panel has their own personal favorites and biases, so in the end, you have to judge the validity of the rankings by who has been asked to vote.  Personally, I think they could still do better on that front . . . there are a lot of names I don't recognize, and a few more that I do recognize, but never thought of as an expert . . . I wish they would enlist a few more great players, and drop a few of the "career panelists".

I am in full agreement and also in full support of what has been done to try and right the ship at Golf Magazine.  I've heard people concerned about the amount of volatility in this ranking and what that might do to the validity if this sort of volatility continues to happen.  I think its short term and a reflection of a new person at the head of the panel. 


I wish Golf Digest would take its role in the discussion as seriously as Golf Magazine does because I think they have an important and quite different role than Golf Magazine does with their rankings.

[JC Jones]

That being said, I'm 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?

Thanks for throwing the first stone.

Downside of having a last name that starts with "A"....

[Tom_Doak]

I've heard people concerned about the amount of volatility in this ranking and what that might do to the validity if this sort of volatility continues to happen.  I think its short term and a reflection of a new person at the head of the panel.

To be honest, I'm surprised there was not more volatility this year.  More than half of the old panel was shown the door, and 20 or 30 new panelists were added . . . that's a tremendous turnover from one year to the next! 


But, assuming they are not going to turn over the panel to the same degree next year, it's a one-time thing and the rankings from here will be fairly stable, as they were before [but more on the up and up].

[Kevin Pallier]

I notice no Streamsong or Sand Valley course made the list?

[Tom_Doak]

I notice no Streamsong or Sand Valley course made the list?

No, but I don't think they had made the top 100 in the world previously.  Ocean frontage is at a premium on that list.  Streamsong Red and Sand Valley made the Next 50 list, so should be comfortably inside the top 100 in the USA next year.  We will have to wait and see about the others.

[John Kirk]

The article "Here's How GOLF Ranked the Top 100 Golf Courses..." says the following:Average number of courses rated in 2019: 191
No way.   That has to be a mistake.

Overall, a fine list, the best of its kind.  Closer to the ideals espoused on our website.  Hopefully the rating panel will be revealed soon.  I'm curious to see who's on the team!
Like Tom, I can't think of any Ballyneal members on the GOLF panel, unless a couple of our guys were added this year.  I wish they had used a better picture of the course on the website.  It's too green and it's fuzzy.

[Kevin Pallier]

I notice no Streamsong or Sand Valley course made the list?

No, but I don't think they had made the top 100 in the world previously.  Ocean frontage is at a premium on that list.  Streamsong Red and Sand Valley made the Next 50 list, so should be comfortably inside the top 100 in the USA next year.  We will have to wait and see about the others.

Tom

That's my point - I haven't seen either of the Sand Valley courses but think at least two of the Streamsong courses could be considered worthy of the Top100 cut. And no - none have ever appeared in GM's Top100 list.

Interestingly, that compares to Bandon where 3 courses are mentioned (Old Mac IMO is unlucky to miss out) and Sheep Ranch will be a contender next time.

[Ian Andrew]

The article "Here's How GOLF Ranked the Top 100 Golf Courses..." says the following:Average number of courses rated in 2019: 191
No way.   That has to be a mistake.

We get a larger list of something like 400 courses to consider.
It's probably relative to that list.

[John Kirk]

Hi Ian,

Yes, I assume it means that everyone rated courses in 2019 based on the big list.

Most golfers who rate 191 new courses in 2019 are no longer married.

[John Kavanaugh]

With apologies I do not remember that hole at Prairie Dunes.

Thank you for the correction and thanks to Andy, who I met out at PD during his visit, for not flying his drone during our club tournament. I'm guessing based on the shadows that picture was taken at sun set, only because the sun can be distracting during breakfast.

[John Mayhugh]

John Kirk,
The panelists are listed in the magazine.





As for the average of 191 courses rated, it does say rated - not played. If the methodology and panel were changed, it stands to reason that panelists rated all of the courses that they had previously played (and were comfortable rating).

[Brent Carlson]

Very good list, and a nice contrast to the other magazine


I'll be interested to see how high Oakland Hills climbs (from 72) after the restoration.

[Mike Nuzzo]

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.   

Are you saying Don Mahaffey has swayed the opinion of Tom Doak, Ian Andrew, Ran Morrissett and all the other visitors over the years?
It was always Al's request to not have it rated in a major publication - he didn't want to be bothered by onlookers. I made every visitor promise to not submit a rating, including Ron Whitten and Mike Keiser. Only one time did I hear someone violated our rules and submitted a rating to Golfweek.
Frankly I'd love for our work to be rated anywhere, if it helps us to make another course, but I've not lifted a finger to make any changes to Al's wishes.
Have you been to Wolf Point?

[Thomas Dai]

I'd be curious to see the annual maintenance budget and number of maintenance crew during the playing season listed against each course.
Another rating of these same 100 courses would also be interesting, a 'photogenic rating'.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

Also since they reorganized their rankings they missed 2019 year as this is good for two more.  The last list was 17-18 and this is 20-21 so we have to be patient another two years to see any movement. 






Also is the next 50 and the raters names available online or only in print?  Can't see them.

[Sean_A]

ATB

Yes, a top list of which high quality/character courses are producing more for less would be of great interest to me.

Maybe I am weird, but I am more interested in the 430 candidates than I am in the final 100. While I realize that publishing this list sort of defeats the purpose of the process of coming up with a top 100, but by chance is the list available to peruse?

Also, I couldn't find a link to the panel. I thought it might be included in the blurb about panelists! Can someone provide the link?

Happy Hockey

[Thomas Dai]

Yes, a top list of which high quality/character courses are producing more for less would be of great interest to me.

Absolutely!
And a rating of courses grazed by animals would be nice as well ... has one ever been produced herein?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thank goodness we finally have the “correct” Top 100 list so we don’t have to go through endless debates on this site about how awful and such a waste of time these lists are.  I hope the other magazines that publish such lists take notice so they can all fall in line 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()