Golf Magazine Top 100 World List - thanks, Ran

[Daryl David]

Could someone post the link that lists all of the Golf Magazine panelists?


TS

https://www.golf.com/top-one-hundred/2019/11/23/meet-golfs-top-100-course-raters/

Shocked at how many folks I know got the ax. Wonder if they were given a reason for termination. Something like “we want the magazine to move in a different direction and you are not part of that plan”. Being a rater is getting tough!

[Tom_Doak]

Shocked at how many folks I know got the ax. Wonder if they were given a reason for termination. Something like “we want the magazine to move in a different direction and you are not part of that plan”. Being a rater is getting tough!

Well several of them might have attended one too many rater functions in faraway places, on someone else's dime.  And others got lumped in with them because they failed to distinguish themselves as different.


Ran told me I am now the second-oldest person on the panel, which was quite a culture shock for me, TBH.  [From the time I was seven, I was pretty much the youngest person in the room.]  But since then I have met three other panelists, and two are older than I am, so maybe I just look old for my age?

[Peter Pallotta]

Does Ran have a consiglieri, you know, a Tom Hagen type? Or an Luca Brasi type enforcer?
It seems quite a cut-throat business, this ratings game.
Ran always struck me as the kind of Don who didn't want to get his hands dirty.
If there's a horse's head to be severed from the horse, or a troublesome Senator who won't play ball and has secret and unsavoury predilections, he'd send out a lawyer in a fancy suit...and then (washing of the hands emoticon) all the problems would disappear, like they never existed.
So, who is Ran's Luca Brasi?   
(Whoever it is, I sure hope he doesn't meet the same fate...)

[Jeff Schley]

Peter,
I can't screen grab and upload Ran's video where he is sitting in his chair introducting the panelists criteria, but it does remind me of Michael Corleone from The Godfather a bit.

[Peter Pallotta]

 
I can imagine it, Jeff.
Ran and Tom having a serious discussion, including:
R: We're both part of the same hypocrisy, Tom.
T: All right, Ran - some people have to play their little games. You play yours.
R:Uh, Tom, you can have my rating now if you like -- it's nothing. A zero. A course that should never have been built.

[William_G]

TOC is a touchstone for most anything to do with quality golf. While I am entertained by Opens held there I am no longer convinced TOC provides an adequate challenge for Open contestants. IF this is the case, and IF that should mean therefore that being a challenge for pros while remaining playable for decent markers has become too difficult to achieve, what then is the added value a pro golfer brings to the table that warrants a rater diversity imbalance?

Well, who is going to tell you whether The Old Course is still relevant for the best players in the world?  A bunch of 10-handicap amateurs, your own lying eyes, or a couple of pros?

Brooks Koepka says it's his favorite course in the world - unprompted, and not in front of any media.  Not every pro agrees; Scott Hoch thought it sucked.  But are you going to listen to Nicklaus, Tiger and Koepka, or Scott Hoch?

personally, what pros think doesn't really matter, but that is cool for them for sure, just like the NLU gooofers
what does Bill Coore think? Ben Crenshaw? Don Mahaffey? Jim Urbina? Mike Nuzzo? DMK? Mike Keiser? Tommy?


so many things set TOC apart, but what struck me most on my first play there as well as my latest, is the number of blind and semi-blind shots on a flat piece of bay-front sand

[Tom_Doak]

TOC is a touchstone for most anything to do with quality golf. While I am entertained by Opens held there I am no longer convinced TOC provides an adequate challenge for Open contestants. IF this is the case, and IF that should mean therefore that being a challenge for pros while remaining playable for decent markers has become too difficult to achieve, what then is the added value a pro golfer brings to the table that warrants a rater diversity imbalance?

Well, who is going to tell you whether The Old Course is still relevant for the best players in the world?  A bunch of 10-handicap amateurs, your own lying eyes, or a couple of pros?

Brooks Koepka says it's his favorite course in the world - unprompted, and not in front of any media.  Not every pro agrees; Scott Hoch thought it sucked.  But are you going to listen to Nicklaus, Tiger and Koepka, or Scott Hoch?

personally, what pros think doesn't really matter, but that is cool for them for sure, just like the NLU gooofers
what does Bill Coore think? Ben Crenshaw? Don Mahaffey? Jim Urbina? Mike Nuzzo? DMK? Mike Keiser? Tommy?

William:  I don't understand your post.


I trust the opinions of a lot of the guys you listed more than the opinions of most golf pros, about the quality of a golf course overall.  But, Sean had specifically brought up whether "The Old Course still provides an adequate challenge for Open contestants," and I'm going to stick with my premise that Brooks Koepka is a more relevant guy to ask that question than Don Mahaffey, Jim Urbina, Mike Keiser, or David Kidd.  Or myself.

[corey miller]

Does anyone know how Ran handled the courses that did not want to be rated? 

[Tom_Doak]

Does anyone know how Ran handled the courses that did not want to be rated?

Are there any?  In my time I can't recall any club formally or informally requesting not to be considered.

[William_G]

TD


Happy TG



I get that you prefer Brooks or yourself in your opinion, all good and fun as well as JC's opinions. 
Memorial Park and your, Brooks', and Don's thoughtful Astro redo there is something cool, hope to play there soon before the Houston Open.


Trust is one thing that is earned, but for different reasons and needs, as I'm not ITB.


If perusing ratings and opinions, I might be interested in all types of opinions just for fun, Trevino, Watson, Koepka, Mickelson, TW, but not some other pros for instance.


Yet for real design perusing I'd look to others ITB whom I like, BK? As all sparkling wine is not champagne technically, but who cares as it's what you enjoy from the glass. Isn't a sense of place that really matters? I need to taste it. and TOC has that sense and taste.


Some many ratings, so little time, LOL


Cheers

[corey miller]

Friar's Head.... makes the ascension all the more remarkable for such a new club.

[Sean_A]

TOC is a touchstone for most anything to do with quality golf. While I am entertained by Opens held there I am no longer convinced TOC provides an adequate challenge for Open contestants. IF this is the case, and IF that should mean therefore that being a challenge for pros while remaining playable for decent markers has become too difficult to achieve, what then is the added value a pro golfer brings to the table that warrants a rater diversity imbalance?

Well, who is going to tell you whether The Old Course is still relevant for the best players in the world?  A bunch of 10-handicap amateurs, your own lying eyes, or a couple of pros?

Brooks Koepka says it's his favorite course in the world - unprompted, and not in front of any media.  Not every pro agrees; Scott Hoch thought it sucked.  But are you going to listen to Nicklaus, Tiger and Koepka, or Scott Hoch?

personally, what pros think doesn't really matter, but that is cool for them for sure, just like the NLU gooofers
what does Bill Coore think? Ben Crenshaw? Don Mahaffey? Jim Urbina? Mike Nuzzo? DMK? Mike Keiser? Tommy?

William:  I don't understand your post.


I trust the opinions of a lot of the guys you listed more than the opinions of most golf pros, about the quality of a golf course overall.  But, Sean had specifically brought up whether "The Old Course still provides an adequate challenge for Open contestants," and I'm going to stick with my premise that Brooks Koepka is a more relevant guy to ask that question than Don Mahaffey, Jim Urbina, Mike Keiser, or David Kidd.  Or myself.

Tom

Was Keopka asked if TOC is proper challenge for the Open or did he say its his favourite course? To me these are very different things.

Happy Hockey

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Was Keopka asked if TOC is proper challenge for the Open or did he say its his favourite course? To me these are very different things.

He volunteered the latter.  I did not ask him about the former, but I will try to remember to do that the next time I see him.

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like only a couple of the raters were ladies whereas something like 15% of golfers are female.
Makes me wonder what the GM T-100 would look like if there was a more appropriate male-female distribution of raters, and furthermore, what such a list would look all the raters were women.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

Seems like only a couple of the raters were ladies whereas something like 15% of golfers are female.
Makes me wonder what the GM T-100 would look like if there was a more appropriate male-female distribution of raters, and furthermore, what such a list would look all the raters were women.
atb

Thomas this is astute and something any opinion gathering exercise should endeavor to capture. There has to be a turning over stones mentality to identify and recruit this demographic and the ranking will be that much more representative of all and hit closer to the target.

[Ira Fishman]

Seems like only a couple of the raters were ladies whereas something like 15% of golfers are female.
Makes me wonder what the GM T-100 would look like if there was a more appropriate male-female distribution of raters, and furthermore, what such a list would look all the raters were women.
atb

Thomas this is astute and something any opinion gathering exercise should endeavor to capture. There has to be a turning over stones mentality to identify and recruit this demographic and the ranking will be that much more representative of all and hit closer to the target.

Except for the fun they provide, I do not care much one or other about ordinal rankings, but I agree strongly that better representation of women is important. My wife and I generally agree on courses, but the exceptions are notable. She thought much more highly of Caste Stuart and Kingsbarns than I did. Part of that is she puts a higher premium on setting than I do, and part is that she enjoyed the benefit of the courses playing easier than they looked. Conversely, my wife ranked Nairn much lower than I did because there were too many forced carries over bunkers into the greens for her. And she found the greens at Old Mac to be intimidatingly large while I found them terrific even though I am not a good putter. I am not asserting that gender directly affects her perspective, but I do think it would be beneficial for all rankings to have a greater representation of women.


Ira

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Shocked at how many folks I know got the ax. Wonder if they were given a reason for termination. Something like “we want the magazine to move in a different direction and you are not part of that plan”. Being a rater is getting tough!

Well several of them might have attended one too many rater functions in faraway places, on someone else's dime.  And others got lumped in with them because they failed to distinguish themselves as different.


Ran told me I am now the second-oldest person on the panel, which was quite a culture shock for me, TBH.  [From the time I was seven, I was pretty much the youngest person in the room.]  But since then I have met three other panelists, and two are older than I am, so maybe I just look old for my age?

That can't be right. They have the picture of the one rater who, unless he's related to Benjamin Button, is older than you. And I've met another person on the panel who I know is in his 70s. Unless the opposite is true - you look very young for you age.

[corey miller]

Not sure I am buying that a ratings panel needs more women, or that a panel needs fewer women. 


I Know Ira did not assert this but large greens not being "appropriate" or "appealing" are not even close to being gender specific. 


What does matter, and what should be listened to is the play-ability of the course for women. 

[Tom_Doak]

Seems like only a couple of the raters were ladies whereas something like 15% of golfers are female.
Makes me wonder what the GM T-100 would look like if there was a more appropriate male-female distribution of raters, and furthermore, what such a list would look all the raters were women.
atb

There used to be a magazine named Golf Digest Woman and they did do a ranking of courses once.  It was restricted to public and resort courses.


It bore little resemblance to any of the rankings we talk about here.  They were heavily biased toward courses that offered multiple tees and multiple course ratings for women, and certain amenities that most of us would not think about as being part of the criteria for a great golf course.  There HAD to be a set of tees that was under 5300 yards, which eliminates a lot of famous courses.


Only one of my courses was listed:  Old Macdonald was rated #3 in the U.S.A.  Ira's wife would surely object 

ADDING:  here's the link:  https://www.golfdigest.com/story/top-50-courses-for-women


Generally, I do agree that more women should be part of these panels.  As I suggested before, it's just difficult to find women golfers who have traveled and played a good fraction of the courses considered for the rankings.

[Tom_Doak]

That can't be right. They have the picture of the one rater who, unless he's related to Benjamin Button, is older than you. And I've met another person on the panel who I know is in his 70s. Unless the opposite is true - you look very young for you age.

I'm sure it's not right, Ran was probably just teasing me because I'm a couple of years older than he is.  Or maybe I'm the oldest architect on the panel.  I'll be 59 in March, and unfortunately my appearance is starting to catch up to reality.

[Ira Fishman]

Seems like only a couple of the raters were ladies whereas something like 15% of golfers are female.
Makes me wonder what the GM T-100 would look like if there was a more appropriate male-female distribution of raters, and furthermore, what such a list would look all the raters were women.
atb

There used to be a magazine named Golf Digest Woman and they did do a ranking of courses once.  It was restricted to public and resort courses.


It bore little resemblance to any of the rankings we talk about here.  They were heavily biased toward courses that offered multiple tees and multiple course ratings for women, and certain amenities that most of us would not think about as being part of the criteria for a great golf course.  There HAD to be a set of tees that was under 5300 yards, which eliminates a lot of famous courses.


Only one of my courses was listed:  Old Macdonald was rated #3 in the U.S.A.  Ira's wife would surely object 

ADDING:  here's the link:  https://www.golfdigest.com/story/top-50-courses-for-women


Generally, I do agree that more women should be part of these panels.  As I suggested before, it's just difficult to find women golfers who have traveled and played a good fraction of the courses considered for the rankings.

FWIW, my wife would put all the other courses at Bandon, PH2, Streamsong Red and Blue plus several overseas favorites in addition to Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns on here high on her list. But when I told here about the thread, she immediately asked if I included her dislike for North Berwick 13 (she loved the rest of the course). I told her that might disqualify me and indirectly her from GCA.com.


Ira

[Joel_Stewart]

Royal Melbourne West is at #7.  After watching the Presidents Cup, maybe its to low.  Thoughts.

[Mike Sweeney]

Royal Melbourne West is at #7.  After watching the Presidents Cup, maybe its to low.  Thoughts.

I have been on here for a long time. My personal view is that this is the LEAST contentious course in the history of GCA.com.

Everyone - pros, hacks and in between seem to love that course...

[JC Jones]

Royal Melbourne West is at #7.  After watching the Presidents Cup, maybe its to low.  Thoughts.

I have been on here for a long time. My personal view is that this is the LEAST contentious course in the history of GCA.com.

Everyone - pros, hacks and in between seem to love that course...

I was speaking with a friend of mine last night who has seen roughly 90% of the current GOLF world 100 and has seen probably 20 courses in Australia along with a bunch of unranked courses all over the globe.  In his opinion, Royal Melbourne is not a top 10 course, maybe not top 30.  He wont come on here and make the argument himself so its moot to try and discuss it but I really wish he would.

[Tom_Doak]

Royal Melbourne West is at #7.  After watching the Presidents Cup, maybe its to low.  Thoughts.

We are required to vote for a top three in the GOLF Magazine polling . . . if you don't, you can only vote for seven courses in the top ten.  [It's a strange system.]


I voted for Royal Melbourne in the top three.


Or, you could believe JC's anonymous friend.  After all, he or she has seen almost as many of the top 100 as I have.