[Jeff Schley]

Anyone have a few hours to kill and can tell us where each of the 147 custodians are ranked, if at all?

[John Sabino]

This is the best list the magazine has ever put out. It was always a head scratcher to me how courses like North Berwick and Prestwick were not on the list for years and years. As Ran points out in his introductory article it appears that the new rating panel favors the ground game and architectural interest more than difficulty. "Short" courses aren't penalized, which is a very good change.


The three best pieces of news are the fact that Myopia Hunt Club, Yale and St. George's Hill are now recognized. I have argued for years that Myopia was the most overlooked course on the planet when it comes to being recognized on this list. St. George's Hill is a new discovery for me, I played it for the first time 60 days ago and came away in awe.


It is also logical to me that Baltusrol and Oak Hill went off the list as they don't really stack up against the other ranked courses. The only item that still sticks out like a sore thumb is Trump Aberdeen, which in my view shouldn't be on the list as the routing is all wrong given the wind along the coast. At least it dropped like a rock and is barely hanging on. One can only hope that in two years it will disappear completely and be replaced by Whippoorwill 


One disappointment is that Ganton dropped off the list. Too bad, I think is is among the 100 best.

[Thomas Dai]

The only item that still sticks out like a sore thumb is Trump Aberdeen, which in my view shouldn't be on the list as the routing is all wrong given the wind along the coast. At least it dropped like a rock and is barely hanging on.

Curious that two NE Scotland courses make the list but that the ‘noble links’ just north of the Granite City doesn’t appear at all. Guess that raters satnavs forgot to tell them to turn right immediatley after crossing the Bridge of Don.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

This is the best list the magazine has ever put out. It was always a head scratcher to me how courses like North Berwick and Prestwick were not on the list for years and years. As Ran points out in his introductory article it appears that the new rating panel favors the ground game and architectural interest more than difficulty. "Short" courses aren't penalized, which is a very good change.


The three best pieces of news are the fact that Myopia Hunt Club, Yale and St. George's Hill are now recognized. I have argued for years that Myopia was the most overlooked course on the planet when it comes to being recognized on this list. St. George's Hill is a new discovery for me, I played it for the first time 60 days ago and came away in awe.


It is also logical to me that Baltusrol and Oak Hill went off the list as they don't really stack up against the other ranked courses. The only item that still sticks out like a sore thumb is Trump Aberdeen, which in my view shouldn't be on the list as the routing is all wrong given the wind along the coast. At least it dropped like a rock and is barely hanging on. One can only hope that in two years it will disappear completely and be replaced by Whippoorwill 


One disappointment is that Ganton dropped off the list. Too bad, I think is is among the 100 best.

With all the work that is being done on Oak Hill East it will be interesting to see if they make it back for the next Top 100 World. Obviously the majority of panelists would need to see the changes.

[JC Jones]

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?

Mike,


I think you took my post to say that Wolf Point is not a good golf course.  That is not the case.  And, in fact, your post helps me explain why I think its inexplicable that Wolf Point is in the next 50.  Given how few people have visited the course (you probably named most of the Golf Magazine panelists who have), it shows a flaw in the methodology that courses can achieve high rankings with so few ratings.  In theory, a course could have a visit from only 3 panelists and if each of them votes it in their top 3, the course will be the best in the world.  Obviously thats not the case because there is no doubt Ran has a "hand" in the post math rating of the courses.


Furthermore, each of the people you listed likely has a personal or professional relationship with Don Mahaffey and may be inclined to over inflate their ratings even if Don cant vote on the course himself.


Long story short, at a very minimum, it raises questions.  Curious, why now are you allowing it to be rated in Golf Magazine?

[JC Jones]

This is the best list the magazine has ever put out. It was always a head scratcher to me how courses like North Berwick and Prestwick were not on the list for years and years. As Ran points out in his introductory article it appears that the new rating panel favors the ground game and architectural interest more than difficulty. "Short" courses aren't penalized, which is a very good change.


The three best pieces of news are the fact that Myopia Hunt Club, Yale and St. George's Hill are now recognized. I have argued for years that Myopia was the most overlooked course on the planet when it comes to being recognized on this list. St. George's Hill is a new discovery for me, I played it for the first time 60 days ago and came away in awe.


It is also logical to me that Baltusrol and Oak Hill went off the list as they don't really stack up against the other ranked courses. The only item that still sticks out like a sore thumb is Trump Aberdeen, which in my view shouldn't be on the list as the routing is all wrong given the wind along the coast. At least it dropped like a rock and is barely hanging on. One can only hope that in two years it will disappear completely and be replaced by Whippoorwill 


One disappointment is that Ganton dropped off the list. Too bad, I think is is among the 100 best.

With all the work that is being done on Oak Hill East it will be interesting to see if they make it back for the next Top 100 World. Obviously the majority of panelists would need to see the changes.

Not sure, given the stated methodology, that a "majority of panelists" would need to see the changes for it to have its ranking affected.

[Jeff_Mingay]

It'd be nice if the GOLF magazine web site worked 

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting thread: I've learned quite a bit. And about exactly what my earlier post referenced, i.e. could Ran's influence be felt so quickly and dramatically? Now I know the answer to that is 'yes', and the reasons why. 
But it also helped 'answer' the 2nd part of my post, i.e. whether I wanted the answer to be yes or no.
I realize I wanted the answer to be 'no' -- because that would mean that this rating-ranking process would reflect something other/more than merely 'opinions'.
But of course, Tom D and many others have been telling me that it's "all opinion" and "all subjective" for more than a decade, so I suppose I should take that as the truth once and for all.
It is vaguely unsettling though. To use a poor analogy & put too fine a point on it:
It would be like having, in 2016, a panel comprised only of Democrats and reading that "Clinton" tops the list as the 100 best politicians of the century; and then in 2018 having the 'same' panel, but this time comprised only of Republicans. and reading about a 'change at the top of the list, i.e. that "Trump" was chosen as the best politician of the century.
Well, yeah - sure. Duh! But what would/could those two sets of ratings possibly tell an undergrad student from some neutral university in Switzerland about which of those two actually *is* the best politician?
I mean, isn't that at least kind-of, sort-of important?

     

[Mike Nuzzo]

Long story short, at a very minimum, it raises questions.  Curious, why now are you allowing it to be rated in Golf Magazine?

I have no idea of how many panelists have played Wolf Point - I don't have the list of panelists.
My point was Don isn't going to persuade them - they have their own opinions.
I am not allowing anything - its not my golf course - I have no knowledge of the panel, panelists, voting or even Don's involvement on the panel.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Considering I can't get access at GOLF's web site, how does the top-10 shake out this time? I'm curious.

[Peter Pallotta]

PS
Very interesting article by Tom D today in GOLF online re Pine Valley at #1.
For me it encapsulated (or at least reflected) my above post perfectly:
It starts with 'subjectivity' & 'opinion', ie why it wouldn't be for Tom the greatest course in the world, because unlike Royal Melbourne (West) and The Old Course it tests the best but isn't at the same time a design that average golfers can equally enjoy.
But then the article moves right into what sure seems to me like 'facts' and 'objectivity', through a crystal clear analysis of how brilliant the design/architecture is -- with even the less talked about holes at PV being the best holes on 99% of all other courses in the world.
To use the same poor analogy again: the first part of the article felt like the talk at a political party convention; the second part like the talk in a graduate student seminar.

[JMEvensky]

PS
Very interesting article by Tom D today in GOLF online re Pine Valley at #1.
For me it encapsulated (or at least reflected) my above post perfectly:
It starts with 'subjectivity' & 'opinion', ie why it wouldn't be for Tom the greatest course in the world, because unlike Royal Melbourne (West) and The Old Course it tests the best but isn't at the same time a design that average golfers can equally enjoy.
But then the article moves right into what sure seems to me like 'facts' and 'objectivity', through a crystal clear analysis of how brilliant the design/architecture is -- with even the less talked about holes at PV being the best holes on 99% of all other courses in the world.
To use the same poor analogy again: the first part of the article felt like the talk at a political party convention; the second part like the talk in a graduate student seminar.

Just read the article and thought the same thing.


The graduate seminar comment is good, and IMO the best thing about Golf Club Atlas. Any time an architect takes the time to explain the design of a golf course it's a graduate seminar. Their opinions are more valuable than most.

[David Jones]

Considering I can't get access at GOLF's web site, how does the top-10 shake out this time? I'm curious.

Hi Jeff, I put the list up here, at the bottom of a wee blog on the subject -


https://www.ukgolfguy.com/golf-blog/the-golf-magazine-world-top-100-putting-the-fun-into-rankings

Does anyone have the list of raters and next 50 courses as I can't see that online anywhere?

[Jeff Schley]

Considering I can't get access at GOLF's web site, how does the top-10 shake out this time? I'm curious.

Jeff I'll answer as yes the site is not working all the time.
1. PV2. Cypress3. TOC4. Shinny5. NGLA6. RCD7. Royal Mel West8. Oakmont9. ANGC10. Royal Dornoch

Edit: I will donate a heck of a lot more money if we can get the formatting of posting to be ironed out. 

[Tom_Doak]

It starts with 'subjectivity' & 'opinion', ie why it wouldn't be for Tom the greatest course in the world, because unlike Royal Melbourne (West) and The Old Course it tests the best but isn't at the same time a design that average golfers can equally enjoy.
 
But then the article moves right into what sure seems to me like 'facts' and 'objectivity', through a crystal clear analysis of how brilliant the design/architecture is -- with even the less talked about holes at PV being the best holes on 99% of all other courses in the world.

How is it any less subjective that the lesser-known holes at PV would be the best hole on most other courses, than that Pine Valley is less playable for the average golfer than Royal Melbourne?  It's just a more granular analysis, all of which is still subjective.


That's always been the problem with the GOLF DIGEST list -- breaking down the subjective into multiple pieces, does NOT make it less subjective.  In fact, I think adding the pieces together makes it MORE subjective.  Simply put, in one system you give one course an 8 and the next a 7 . . . in GOLF DIGEST's you give the one course FIVE 8's the the other one FIVE 7's, and the gap looks less arbitrary.  But it isn't.

[Ira Fishman]

It starts with 'subjectivity' & 'opinion', ie why it wouldn't be for Tom the greatest course in the world, because unlike Royal Melbourne (West) and The Old Course it tests the best but isn't at the same time a design that average golfers can equally enjoy.
 
But then the article moves right into what sure seems to me like 'facts' and 'objectivity', through a crystal clear analysis of how brilliant the design/architecture is -- with even the less talked about holes at PV being the best holes on 99% of all other courses in the world.

How is it any less subjective that the lesser-known holes at PV would be the best hole on most other courses, than that Pine Valley is less playable for the average golfer than Royal Melbourne?  It's just a more granular analysis, all of which is still subjective.


That's always been the problem with the GOLF DIGEST list -- breaking down the subjective into multiple pieces, does NOT make it less subjective.  In fact, I think adding the pieces together makes it MORE subjective.  Simply put, in one system you give one course an 8 and the next a 7 . . . in GOLF DIGEST's you give the one course FIVE 8's the the other one FIVE 7's, and the gap looks less arbitrary.  But it isn't.

David Hume (a Scot by chance) argued that the only non-subjective thing in the world is a mathematical proof.  That may be a bit too extreme, but pretty darn close...in my subjective opinion.


Ira

[John Kirk]

An interesting position is Oakmont at #8.  I played it once, from the back tees because our host thought that's where we should play it.  It was so hard.  I conclude the panel rates Oakmont as a World Top 10 because of a deep admiration for the architecture.  Perhaps this is similar to Pine Valley being the top ranked course, but I haven't played Pine Valley, so I am unqualified to comment.  I would rate Sand Hills above Oakmont.  I place a high premium on natural beauty.  Oakmont is beautiful, but Sand Hills is more beautiful, while also possessing 18 holes of great interest and enjoyment.

I see a couple courses where I disagree with the ranking, but I don't feel like diving in yet.

Congratulations to Ran and the panel for the fine list.  It's great to see these lists evolve positively over (a significant amount of) time.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Ira
I think sometimes experts in a field don't quite know (or fully appreciate) what they know, i.e. how their insights/words end up being truer than they realize.
Einstein's general 'theory' of relativity hasn't ever been 'proven' exactly (I don't think), but it has been 'tested' and shown 'to be true', via its effective application in countless practical ways since 1916.
When you analyze some of the golf holes at PV, it seems analogous: i.e. it isn't 'objective fact', per se, but it's 'true', as demonstrated by the great golf holes of the world that have in principle/theory and in practicality/playing stood the test of time.
To me, that's much different than a particular/personal value system that defines great courses in terms of offering playability & challenge for all. 
P 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


I didn't write it in the article [there was a limit on words], but one of the things that makes, say, the 11th at Pine Valley "better" than any hole on your home course is all the trappings around it . . . the sandy wastes, the nasty native grasses, the sharp contours.  In other words, it's all of the things that make it less playable than any hole on your home course, that the designer of your home course didn't build for precisely that reason.


[Plus, all those features are expensive to maintain.  As the greenkeeper at PV explained to me the first time I was there, they spend way more on maintenance "off" the fairways than "on" them.]


But everyone you play with would quickly identify the 11th at Pine Valley as superior, because it is so much more exciting visually, and there are so many more opportunities to get in trouble.

[BHoover]

I’m a bit confused, and admittedly, I have not been following this closely enough. I thought the general consensus in the past was that “we” did not like lists and thought it was improper to rank golf courses.


But today the consensus seems to be this new list is a great list. So do “we” now like lists?

[Sean_A]

Delete..carry on.

Happy Hockey

[Ira Fishman]

Tom, Ira
I think sometimes experts in a field don't quite know (or fully appreciate) what they know, i.e. how their insights/words end up being truer than they realize.
Einstein's general 'theory' of relativity hasn't ever been 'proven' exactly (I don't think), but it has been 'tested' and shown 'to be true', via its effective application in countless practical ways since 1916.
When you analyze some of the golf holes at PV, it seems analogous: i.e. it isn't 'objective fact', per se, but it's 'true', as demonstrated by the great golf holes of the world that have in principle/theory and in practicality/playing stood the test of time.
To me, that's much different than a particular/personal value system that defines great courses in terms of offering playability & challenge for all. 
P

Peter, a riff on Einstein:  let's do a thought experiment.  It is 1990 and Tom Fazio and RJT Jr. regularly post on some golf course architecture website that has yet to be invented.  They probably would agree that PV is a great course, but probably would disagree with many others on the list (or at least their placement).  The consensus here may not like their architecture, but certainly they qualify as experts under your definition.  You might even be able to expand the thought experiment to include Mr. Dye.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira, thanks
But I've gotten discouraged.
Look at TD's last post/response to mine.
Not only is he smarter than me, but he's trickier - you know, more slippy and subtle in his debating style.
My absolute best shot was the reference/analogy to the theory of relatively.
I was sure it was a knock out punch.   
But Tom ducked and weaved out of the way like it was nothing, and then threw an incisive jab: Ali in his prime up against an aging Sonny Liston.
P

[JMEvensky]

Peter:


I didn't write it in the article [there was a limit on words], but one of the things that makes, say, the 11th at Pine Valley "better" than any hole on your home course is all the trappings around it . . . the sandy wastes, the nasty native grasses, the sharp contours.  In other words, it's all of the things that make it less playable than any hole on your home course, that the designer of your home course didn't build for precisely that reason.


[Plus, all those features are expensive to maintain.  As the greenkeeper at PV explained to me the first time I was there, they spend way more on maintenance "off" the fairways than "on" them.]


But everyone you play with would quickly identify the 11th at Pine Valley as superior, because it is so much more exciting visually, and there are so many more opportunities to get in trouble.

Any chance you could be talked into doing a hole-by-hole of PV?

[Sean_A]

Ira, thanks
But I've gotten discouraged.
Look at TD's last post/response to mine.
Not only is he smarter than me, but he's trickier - you know, more slippy and subtle in his debating style.
My absolute best shot was the reference/analogy to the theory of relatively.
I was sure it was a knock out punch.   
But Tom ducked and weaved out of the way like it was nothing, and then threw an incisive jab: Ali in his prime up against an aging Sonny Liston.
P

Pietro

I must admit to being highly intrigued by your idea of objective golf architecture quality.  I also admit that some part of me wishes that on some level and to some degree objective quality does exists.  Perhaps it is more a question of I wish it existed...can't decide.  However, the other 90% absolutely believes that all artsy fartsy stuff is subjective.  That is made quite clear to me when I see what passes for quality. 

Happy Hockey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()