[Scott Warren]

How can there be "glaring errors" in a subjective exercise?


One actual error is that the picture used to illustrate NSWGC in the online list is of a green that hasn't existed for the best part of a decade.

[Don Mahaffey]

Don,

I cited Wolf Point among several courses as illustrations in my discussion about the system and the methodology.  The very thing you think I should be discussing.  The fact that you and Mike Nuzzo made that general point specific to Wolf Point again shows the issues with the inherent conflict of interest having members of the golf business present on the panel.

Did you happen to catch my questions re your ranking of the course and the contextual questions?

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with conflict of interest.  It just shows that they are new to the process.


They are not used to having anyone try to think up reasons why their course should NOT be ranked.  Before now, as hosts of an unknown and unranked course, they would only hear the positives.

Tom, that’s not it at all. At least for me, I can’t speak for Mike.
When JC first tied the inclusion of Wolf Point - he used a pretty strong adjective in a negative way - I let it go because I knew the absurdity of thinking it was included because I was on the panel. It wasn’t in the last go round and I was on the panel then too.
And I long ago adopted Al’s feeling about reviews of the golf course. He loved it and didn’t care AT ALL if you or anyone else did.
But I do think it’s unique. I’ve also heard plenty of negative critiques...too wide, too firm, greens over the top..,etc. we had a different mandate then most courses and the course reflects that.
But...isn’t that a good reason to have it, and other courses like it, on the ballot? Yes, I suppose the private setting allows for some control of who is allowed to rate the course. And yes I suppose that could be manipulated. But did that happen at WP? No, it didn’t. We had a number of open events and we were a lot more welcoming in those events than just about every highly ranked private on the top 100 list.
So my question to you is, why would you want to exclude any golf course in the world from being reviewed by panelists? Isn’t that up to the course owners and those who manage these lists? Don’t you have faith that if a course was manipulating the system that it would be obvious? I have a hard time reconciling the search for something unique with the idea certain courses should be banned from review because of their ownership structure. After all, isn’t it possible that ownership structure might produce an environment for an un-conventional course?

[JC Jones]

      Don,
 
"Inexplicably" - adverb - in a way that cannot be explained or accounted for
 
This is neither strong nor negative.
 
Here is my response to Mike Nuzzo's emotional post to me:
 

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.

I dont know how many more times I have to say this for you to understand, although maybe your defensiveness about Wold Point will make it impossible for you to do so, but I'll try nonetheless.  My comments are about the methodology and the process, they are not about the golf course.  Wolf Point is but 1 example listed, please stop making this specifically about Wolf Point.
 

[Don Mahaffey]

JC,
As is mine. It’s the example you brought up, not me.
Your use of inexplicably struck me as you saying it didn’t belong. And you used my name as if I somehow had something to do with it other than my one rating.  I think it takes a lot more than one vote.
But my post to TD wasn’t about any course specifically. I am very curious to hear why anyone would want to exclude any course from being rated, minus obvious shenanigans by course reps or panelists. I don’t understand why a course’s ownership structure, or any other reason, should exclude it from being listed so long as the appropriate number of panelists have seen the course.
That’s what my post was about for the most part other than Tom incorrectly telling me how I felt.

[JC Jones]

JC,
As is mine. It’s the example you brought up, not me.
Your use of inexplicably struck me as you saying it didn’t belong. And you used my name as if I somehow had something to do with it other than my one rating.  I think it takes a lot more than one vote.
But my post to TD wasn’t about any course specifically. I am very curious to hear why anyone would want to exclude any course from being rated, minus obvious shenanigans by course reps or panelists. I don’t understand why a course’s ownership structure, or any other reason, should exclude it from being listed so long as the appropriate number of panelists have seen the course.
That’s what my post was about for the most part other than Tom incorrectly telling me how I felt.

Don,


My point about it not belonging had nothing to do with the quality of the golf course itself.  Although, even if it did, its still ok for me to feel that way.  But nonetheless, I was making broad points about methodology and conflicts of interest.


Im inclined to agree with you, in theory, that a ranking of the BEST golf courses in the World should not have qualifiers such as BEST golf courses in the world accessed by a sufficient enough amount of people.  To your point, more lay folk have had the opportunity to play Wolf Point as a result of yours and Mike's generosity than have, say, Augusta National.


If a course is one of the best, it is one of the best regardless of ownership or access.  Otherwise, GOLF Magazine and other magazines should make it clear the qualifications of access exist.


On the other hand, there also exists the flaw in the methodology that I've been talking about in that unless there is a minimum number of votes threshold to make the math somewhat valid, there is the risk I brought up in my post that a course with 3 votes of 100 and zero other votes would be listed as the greatest in the World.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:


I broke up your post so I could comment on it better.  See my comments in red.

But I do think it’s unique. I’ve also heard plenty of negative critiques...too wide, too firm, greens over the top..,etc. we had a different mandate then most courses and the course reflects that.
But...isn’t that a good reason to have it, and other courses like it, on the ballot?
There is no doubt that a private course allows way more flexibility to the designer to try unusual things than a place like Memorial Park, where you've got to get 60,000 golfers through.

Yes, I suppose the private setting allows for some control of who is allowed to rate the course. And yes I suppose that could be manipulated.
Yes, and it HAS BEEN manipulated, by multiple courses, in the very recent history of the GOLF Magazine rankings.  Which is why they ought to have rules in place to minimize the possibility. 

But did that happen at WP? No, it didn’t. We had a number of open events and we were a lot more welcoming in those events than just about every highly ranked private on the top 100 list.
I never said it happened at Wolf Point; I just said Wolf Point would have to be excluded if you want to be consistent about addressing the problem.  Also, you might want to re-word your last sentence if it's meant to say you didn't try to influence the panelists.  [I know, you'll say you did the same for non-panelists, but when everyone is an invited guest and there aren't many of them and a fair % are panelists, that's easy to do.  Shadow Creek doesn't treat panelists differently; they pick up everyone in a limo.]


So my question to you is, why would you want to exclude any golf course in the world from being reviewed by panelists? Isn’t that up to the course owners and those who manage these lists? Don’t you have faith that if a course was manipulating the system that it would be obvious? I have a hard time reconciling the search for something unique with the idea certain courses should be banned from review because of their ownership structure.
It WAS obvious that it was happening.  But nobody wanted to be the guy who disqualified a particular course and turned off the gravy train of access [and free airline tickets!], so it was pretty easy for the manipulator to curry favor with the two or three people who could have been that guy.  That's why it would be much cleaner to just make a rule based on the ownership / guest policy.
 

After all, isn’t it possible that ownership structure might produce an environment for an un-conventional course? 
Again - yes, it does.  That would make a GREAT feature article to accompany the rankings, or even a series of them.  I just don't think it should be a significant part of the rankings, because we keep having more and more of these courses make the rankings, and they are generally a glaring neon warning sign.  See:  Rich Harvest Farms and Canyata on the GOLF DIGEST list, or Ellerston on GOLF Magazine's. 

Note that you don't have to worry about GOLF Magazine ever coming up with a rule like the one I've proposed.  Their panelists and editors [including Ran] have their own favorite places that they don't want to disqualify.

[Don Mahaffey]

Tom,
I don’t have to reword.


I never recruited raters. Not once did I respond positively to a request from a panelist to rate the course. Al didn’t want raters coming out and judging his course.
We’ve had three open “play days” and everyone was welcomed with no +/- if they were a rater.
I know it might be hard to believe for some, but we (Al and I) never cared if the course wad rated. Maybe I should care now because it’ll help get it into the hands of someone who will keep it alive, but even now I really don’t have that feeling.
We built the golf course for one man and he played it as often as he could right up till the day he could no longer play. If it goes away tomorrow I’ll always know we nailed our mandate. And whether is listed in some magazine or not is nothing to me compared to that.

[David Davis]

My glaring omissions:

You can't have ten glaring omissions, and actually you listed more than ten.  Unless you think that everyone who disagrees with your own full list is making a glaring error.


You are a particularly big fan [if not a cheerleader] for two courses that most people will never see:  Ardfin and Santapazienza. 


I would just point out that it's doubly easy to make oversized claims about courses when
(a) they treat you like a member just because you're a panelist and
(b) most people can't argue since they have no access. 


I really don't think such courses should be ranked in major publications, because it's so easy to limit access to people who you think will provide a favorable review.  This was indeed the problem with the previous GOLF Magazine list.  There are others, like Ellerston and Shanqin Bay and Wolf Point, that would have to be thrown out on the same basis; luckily, there are plenty of other deserving courses to fill those spots.


P.S.  I was worried at the start that Tara Iti might fall into the same category, but their unaccompanied guest policy nicely solved that problem.  They made it about money rather than about access!

Tom,


This is JC's thread and his question about glaring omissions. Where did you come up with a maximum number? I listed 13 but was rushed and running out of time so just got lazy with numbering.


And yes of course I only agree with my list, but you clearly didn't read my post before responding as I clearly stated that in advance:


"Since I only agree with my own World top 100 list I'm willing to do that."
[/size][/color]
[/size]About me being a cheerleader for great courses that get overlooked or don't get seen enough, I realize you mean that in as derogatory a way as you can though I don't quite follow you. I've been the biggest cheerleader for Royal Hague and Utrecht de Pan for years and basically taken half of the Golf Magazine Panel to these courses and literally had to talk people into visiting De Pan because it wasn't ranked. Now it's in the rankings. So what is it exactly that you are insinuating? [/color]

[/size]I guess you are saying if you haven't been there then a course shouldn't be included because it's not open enough?[/color]

[/size]Ardfin for one is no different than Tara Iti which you give a pass because it's yours and because they allow people to pay a huge sum of money to visit. Ardfin starting with 2020 season is a pay and play and even with its rather hefty price it's still far cheaper than a trip to NZ for most people and everyone can visit. [/color]

[/size]A course like Santapazienza in Brazil will never be a pay and play however it's a great course worthy of getting the word out so just like De Pan and Ardfin I'm definitely a "cheerleader for it". How is that different than De Pan which nobody wanted to visit since most the panelist drop in to play the 1 course that made it into the new list only before flying away again. Simple fact is a large percentage only go anywhere to tick the box so if other great courses are not helped out nobody bothers to see them.[/color]

[/size]"I really don't think such courses should be ranked in major publications, because it's so easy to limit access to people who you think will provide a favorable review.  This was indeed the problem with the previous GOLF Magazine list."
[/size]
[/size]Was that really the problem or was the problem that huge sums of money were being accepted to buy positions in the magazine rankings by a panelist and thus fix the rankings?  Because the way you phrase it there a ton of private courses could be DQ's from the ranking just as easily.

[Tom_Doak]

Ardfin for one is no different than Tara Iti which you give a pass because it's yours and because they allow people to pay a huge sum of money to visit. Ardfin starting with 2020 season is a pay and play and even with its rather hefty price it's still far cheaper than a trip to NZ for most people and everyone can visit.
A course like Santapazienza in Brazil will never be a pay and play however it's a great course worthy of getting the word out so just like De Pan and Ardfin I'm definitely a "cheerleader for it". How is that different than De Pan which nobody wanted to visit since most the panelist drop in to play the 1 course that made it into the new list only before flying away again. Simple fact is a large percentage only go anywhere to tick the box so if other great courses are not helped out nobody bothers to see them.

Perhaps Ardfin will be no different than Tara Iti once they change their guest policy completely next year - and it's great to hear that they are opening their doors, and if they do, then my objection to it being considered for the list will go away.  But putting that statement is the present tense is not on the level. 


Tara Iti has +/- 150 members and the exact same guest policy as Sand Hills.  Yes the price is higher, because if you are going to New Zealand you have declared that money is not a primary concern.  Also, as far as I know, Tara Iti does not do discounts for panelists . . . I have had many complain to me that the price is too high, seeking some sort of relief, but all I can do is refer them to the club.


I agree with you totally about raters skipping good courses nearby to tick off their own list.  Anyone who's really interested in golf architecture instead of their own ego would not do such a thing; you and I have had that discussion before.


As to what's different between De Pan and Santapazienza, well, one is in your back yard and the other is halfway around the world from you, so it's weird to me that you would adopt the latter as a second home of sorts.  It bothers me because you are well traveled and seem to have a real interest in golf course design, but this seems to cross the line to advocacy.


I will add that I am always skeptical of the story line that a faraway course by a well-known architect is much better than the rest of his work, and would be rated very highly by everyone if only they went and saw it, which, oh, they can't.  I have heard that story before [Valderrama, San Lorenzo, Oitavos Dunes, Nine Bridges] and I have yet to see it pan out as true.

[David Davis]

I will add that I am always skeptical of the story line that a faraway course by a well-known architect is much better than the rest of his work, and would be rated very highly by everyone if only they went and saw it, which, oh, they can't.  I have heard that story before [Valderrama, San Lorenzo, Oitavos Dunes, Nine Bridges] and I have yet to see it pan out as true.

This makes little sense given your best work for most is on the other side of the planet. If you have yet to see something like that pan out as true then you should do a little more self reflection.


I guess most experts would argue that Tom Doak's best work is either Tara Iti or Barnbougle. Maybe Pac Dunes comes into play and for most that is also on another planet given the location.

[Tom_Doak]

I will add that I am always skeptical of the story line that a faraway course by a well-known architect is much better than the rest of his work, and would be rated very highly by everyone if only they went and saw it, which, oh, they can't.  I have heard that story before [Valderrama, San Lorenzo, Oitavos Dunes, Nine Bridges] and I have yet to see it pan out as true.

This makes little sense given your best work for most is on the other side of the planet. If you have yet to see something like that pan out as true then you should do a little more self reflection.

I guess most experts would argue that Tom Doak's best work is either Tara Iti or Barnbougle. Maybe Pac Dunes comes into play and for most that is also on another planet given the location.

I guess I put that into a different category, seeing as how that consensus is based on a ton of people going to each of them and weighing in, and all but Tara Iti being public.  Which is a lot different than me saying "Trust me, Barnbougle is better than anything else I've done."


Nevertheless, the consensus is still (according to GOLF Magazine's panel of experts) that Pacific Dunes is my best work.  And they only play 40,000 rounds a year there, which is more visitors than most other planets receive.   

[William_G]

TD


Is Pacific your best site?
Apologies if already asked?
Worst site?


Bandon! crazy number of rounds per year, but year round 


cheers

[Kalen Braley]

I'm guessing raters have been to PD more than any of your other courses Tom, I'm not surprised that its considered your best work.

P.S.  Whats up with building all these hard to get to remote courses?  Pac Dunes, Old Mac, RCCC, Ballyneal, Dismal, Sand Valley, much less CK or Tara Iti, or heaven forbid Tasmania.  Would it kill it you to build them a bit closer to where everyone is? 

[Tom_Doak]

Is Pacific your best site?
Apologies if already asked?

I'm asked that question a lot and I don't know how to answer it.  I've had maybe ten sites that most architects would kill for.


I do think that the vegetation at Pacific Dunes (and also Barnbougle and Rock Creek) added a dimension to them that Tara Iti, Cape Kidnappers, and Old Macdonald did not have.

[William_G]

Kalen


Good point!


Thank you TD for the reply, just seems that Pacific is a great great site, whether you are playing golf or having lunch during an USGA Amateur Championship.

[Peter Pallotta]

edit:
question moved to Mark's new thread

[Craig Moore]

Lists are all opinions and to me do nothing but get people talking more about the game we all love; which is definitely a good thing. 
In reality an alphabetical list of 500 ‘damn good’ courses around the world with no number associated to them would probably be best. 
With that being said Lawsonia is a damn good course built for our enjoyment by a damn good duo in L&M. It is one of my favorites to play as the strategy of each golf hole is presented in front of you with the bunkering.  If you want a preferred angle you have to challenge the bunkers.  Fun stuff! And when you couple that with the impressive green complexes and vistas it definitely gets me excited for the game. 

[Mike Sweeney]

Mountain Lake

Yes, there clearly aren't enough Raynor courses on the list yet.

There is an argument for Mountain Lake in the Next 50 as it was somewhat pioneering as a "housing community" course, and we all wish that modern housing communities put the course first like Mountain Lake. Full disclosure, I am a former member.


At the risk of being a Doak Fan Boy, I prefer Streamsong Blue to the Red, and I think one of them deserves Top 100 status. The maintenance practices of the resort should give the course(s) some unique status in architecture list. Full disclosure, Kyle is a friend and I have not played The Black.


I will never figure out TPC Sawgrass in any list other than "Modern". Full disclosure, I have never played a compelling Pete Dye course.


Finally, in the Tilly-puzzle of Top 100's, I would list Baltimore Country Club over Quaker Ridge. The land alone is much more compelling at BCC.

[Tom_Doak]

At the risk of being a Doak Fan Boy, I prefer Streamsong Blue to the Red, and I think one of them deserves Top 100 status.

As close as the voting is between the two, it must be that 5 people out of ten think they're equal, three prefer the Red, and two prefer the Blue . . . and that's with the thumb on the scale from day 1 telling everyone the Red is ranked higher.  There really isn't much between them, but the irony is I think that holds both of them back in the rankings a little bit.  They'd be ranked higher if they'd rolled out one of them two years earlier, let it establish a ranking, and then opened the second.

[Ira Fishman]

I preferred Blue slightly over Red because of the strength of the finishing holes. As far as rankings, I would put both ahead of Bandon Dunes and probably Old Mac.


Ira

[JC Jones]

Been on the road the last couple of weeks so just catching back up.


Id be curious to know if the next 50 are the courses that scored 101-150 (like it is in GD for example), or whether this is a hand curated list.  If its the former then I think perhaps that must be a result of the panel, in its current state, not having traveled extensively or seen a lot of depth.  Maybe that will be less of an issue moving forward if the panel is expanded to include those who've seen more courses.  If its the latter then I think it shouldn't be represented as 101-150, but rather, editor's favorites or something along those lines.  To have them ranked as such suggests their scores have placed them in that order.


I continue to maintain that Lawsonia's inclusion is laughable.  This is a World list, I bet many panelists have 20 courses in GB&I ranked ahead of Lawsonia.  It is further laughable to think Lawsonia is included at the expense of Milwaukee Country Club, which is better than a good chunk of the US courses in the Top 100 on the list.


Also, I dont have either Streamsong Blue or Red ranked above a 6.  They are fine for the snow burdened northerner in search of some sunshine and some quirk in the wintertime, but I have a hard time believing either one should be considered world elite. 

[Tom_Doak]

Been on the road the last couple of weeks so just catching back up.


Id be curious to know if the next 50 are the courses that scored 101-150 (like it is in GD for example), or whether this is a hand curated list.  If its the former then I think perhaps that must be a result of the panel, in its current state, not having traveled extensively or seen a lot of depth.  Maybe that will be less of an issue moving forward if the panel is expanded to include those who've seen more courses.  If its the latter then I think it shouldn't be represented as 101-150, but rather, editor's favorites or something along those lines.  To have them ranked as such suggests their scores have placed them in that order.


I continue to maintain that Lawsonia's inclusion is laughable.  This is a World list, I bet many panelists have 20 courses in GB&I ranked ahead of Lawsonia.  It is further laughable to think Lawsonia is included at the expense of Milwaukee Country Club, which is better than a good chunk of the US courses in the Top 100 on the list.


Also, I dont have either Streamsong Blue or Red ranked above a 6.  They are fine for the snow burdened northerner in search of some sunshine and some quirk in the wintertime, but I have a hard time believing either one should be considered world elite.

JC:


While I have agreed with you on many posts in this thread, at the end of the day your opinions above are just your own, and don't prove a damn thing about which courses should be next on the list.  The likelihood that the GOLF Magazine ranking of the top 100 in America is not going to closely resemble the GOLF DIGEST list is not a bad thing . . . for GOLF Magazine at least.


I did take the listing of the "next 50" as being an alphabetical but verbatim report of the tabulation.  If it's not, that would bother me, though I am not sure how I would ever know.  I've gotta trust the editor there.


Honestly, it was more bothersome to me that they put their thumbs on the scale so strongly for Lofoten and for The Sheep Ranch, by including them in the same section with all of the ranked courses.  I am very fond of both places, but I am tired of seeing the editorial thumb on the scale.  A story about either place, in a different issue, would not have signaled to the panel how they should be thinking.

[JC Jones]

JC:


While I have agreed with you on many posts in this thread, at the end of the day your opinions above are just your own, and don't prove a damn thing about which courses should be next on the list. 

I completely agree. 

[Ira Fishman]

Been on the road the last couple of weeks so just catching back up.


Id be curious to know if the next 50 are the courses that scored 101-150 (like it is in GD for example), or whether this is a hand curated list.  If its the former then I think perhaps that must be a result of the panel, in its current state, not having traveled extensively or seen a lot of depth.  Maybe that will be less of an issue moving forward if the panel is expanded to include those who've seen more courses.  If its the latter then I think it shouldn't be represented as 101-150, but rather, editor's favorites or something along those lines.  To have them ranked as such suggests their scores have placed them in that order.


I continue to maintain that Lawsonia's inclusion is laughable.  This is a World list, I bet many panelists have 20 courses in GB&I ranked ahead of Lawsonia.  It is further laughable to think Lawsonia is included at the expense of Milwaukee Country Club, which is better than a good chunk of the US courses in the Top 100 on the list.


Also, I dont have either Streamsong Blue or Red ranked above a 6.  They are fine for the snow burdened northerner in search of some sunshine and some quirk in the wintertime, but I have a hard time believing either one should be considered world elite.

JC,


I have not played as many of the world's elite courses as some on this board because seeking access to privates in the US is not my thing (CPC being the exception), but I have played more than a few of the best in GB&I, and I can assure you that that both Streamsong Blue and Red are among the elite.  And if you think that I am an unqualified fan of C&C and Doak, check out my posts about Kapalua Plantation and PD.


Ira

[Bart Bradley]

JC


Can you elaborate on your feelings about Lawsonia.  It is a lovely walk.  The greens have contour.  The features are bold which makes for interesting shots. 


What in your mind makes Milwaukee clearly better? 


Bart

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()