Golfweek Rankings

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Saw these came out in the last few days and in looking through the lists, in my opinion, they look pretty solid.


Just taking a peak at the Missouri list of public and private I’d say it’s spot on.


I know Ran was in charge for a moment and wondered if this was part of his influence? Was surprised to hear that prior to this edition some votes for courses could be older than 10 years

[jeffwarne]

It would seem publications would delay rankings a year based on the fact that few privates are allowing unaccompanied play in many areas due to the pandemic.
Kind've just a rinse and repeat of two years ago in many cases.

[John Kavanaugh]

Do golf courses even have magazines like Golfweek laying around the bathroom stalls during Covid protocols?

[Cal Seifert]

Do golf courses even have magazines like Golfweek laying around the bathroom stalls during Covid protocols?

If the course is ranked by Golfweek they'll have the magazine in more places than bathroom stalls.

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

It would seem publications would delay rankings a year based on the fact that few privates are allowing unaccompanied play in many areas due to the pandemic.
Kind've just a rinse and repeat of two years ago in many cases.

Jeff


I think these are based on ratings cast in 2019

[John Kavanaugh]

Is there a podcast where I could listen to someone read the rankings? Maybe one with Mahaffey and Nuzzo groaning in the background.

[jeffwarne]

It would seem publications would delay rankings a year based on the fact that few privates are allowing unaccompanied play in many areas due to the pandemic.
Kind've just a rinse and repeat of two years ago in many cases.

Jeff


I think these are based on ratings cast in 2019

makes sense\I know GD is attempting to do rankings this year.
I have been contacted quite a bit, but we aren't doing any unaccompanied as we barely can accommodate our new "local" membership-same with other east end clubs

[John Kavanaugh]

It would seem publications would delay rankings a year based on the fact that few privates are allowing unaccompanied play in many areas due to the pandemic.
Kind've just a rinse and repeat of two years ago in many cases.

Jeff


I think these are based on ratings cast in 2019

makes sense\I know GD is attempting to do rankings this year.
I have been contacted quite a bit, but we aren't doing any unaccompanied as we barely can accommodate our new "local" membership-same with other east end clubs

I thought raters were told not to contact private clubs during this pandemic. How would you know if they had quarantined? One of the beauties of being able to golf at all this year is because there is a certain level of trust amongst members. State to state traveling raters could ruin this for all of us.


Now that this disgusting practice could potentially cost lives perhaps it could be eliminated.

[Edward Glidewell]

There are a few strange rankings on the states I know the best (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina). I wouldn't consider Bear's Best one of the top 5 public courses in the Atlanta metro area, much less the whole state -- and the Atlanta metro area isn't exactly overflowing with great public golf.


Leopard's Chase is another weird one in North Carolina. I suppose if the ranking is based on the course architecture alone it could maybe take a spot (although there are courses not on the list I'd prefer to play), but the course conditions there have been atrocious for several years.


Not that these rankings have any real meaning.

[Bill Seitz]

makes sense\I know GD is attempting to do rankings this year.
I have been contacted quite a bit, but we aren't doing any unaccompanied as we barely can accommodate our new "local" membership-same with other east end clubs

It's been a good time to get to some of the public courses that are candidates that I haven't reviewed yet, but based on my small sample size, I've contacted six clubs in Chicago in the past couple months since things started opening up.  Two said they're swamped and said to ask later in the year.  Two accommodated me.  Two didn't respond to my email.  So a bit of a mixed bag.  I've made it a point to say that given the pandemic, it's completely understandable if they tell me to pound sand.  Seeing what's going on at my club, and in my conversations with people at the clubs I've played, it sounds less like they're reticent to accommodate due to Covid, and more because they're so busy with member play since it's one of the few activities that seems pretty safe. 

[Kyle Harris]

Do golf courses even have magazines like Golfweek laying around the bathroom stalls during Covid protocols?

Hang on, I'll take it from here:

/requisite toilet paper shortage joke
/unrelated vaguely political jab
/MOAR ANGER

That about got it?

[John Kavanaugh]

After giving it some thought members and employees of private clubs have no more right to a safe environment than those of public courses. My apologies.

[Ryan Taylor]

Saw these came out in the last few days and in looking through the lists, in my opinion, they look pretty solid.


Just taking a peak at the Missouri list of public and private I’d say it’s spot on.


I know Ran was in charge for a moment and wondered if this was part of his influence? Was surprised to hear that prior to this edition some votes for courses could be older than 10 years

One noticeable highlight upon review of the GW rankings is that Detroit Metro is quietly sneaking up on other metros not named NYC, Boston, Philla, LA and SF. They now lay claim to seven (7) Top 200 Classic courses ~ Oakland Hills South, Franklin Hills, Indianwood Old, Meadowbrook, Orchard Lake, Barton Hills and Country Club of Detroit. You could argue Inverness in nearby Toledo should be included. How well will the Colt designed Bloomfield Hills Country Club be received after the DeVries/Pont renovation? Will Detroit's Top 10 be stronger overall than Chicago's after Hanse completes Oakland Hills South?? It's at least a discussion now which wasn't the case 5+ years ago.

[Ira Fishman]

I have long thought that Golfweek did a good job in the bizarre world of rankings. Your post prompted a question from when I skimmed them. It seems that restorations often lead to a courses climbing. Is it because the course is that much better or the attention it gets because of the restoration? No way of knowing I know.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I have long thought that Golfweek did a good job in the bizarre world of rankings. Your post prompted a question from when I skimmed them. It seems that restorations often lead to a cours climbing. Is it because the course is that much better or the attention it gets because of the restoration? No way of knowing I know.

I'd say it's about 50/50.


Of course this is the same benefit that tournament sites have always received:  renewed attention, and maybe even a player hitting a great shot at the right time to elevate the course's reputation far above what the other 17 holes provide.

[Ira Fishman]

I have long thought that Golfweek did a good job in the bizarre world of rankings. Your post prompted a question from when I skimmed them. It seems that restorations often lead to a cours climbing. Is it because the course is that much better or the attention it gets because of the restoration? No way of knowing I know.

I'd say it's about 50/50.


Of course this is the same benefit that tournament sites have always received:  renewed attention, and maybe even a player hitting a great shot at the right time to elevate the course's reputation far above what the other 17 holes provide.

I doubt that Harding Park (which I liked) will climb into the Top 200, but if it does,  that will confirm once again the subjectivity of rankings...and the greatness of the shot.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Language has its structures and rules and limitations (as a signifier), and so does music and art etc -- and I suppose so do rankings-ratings. I don't mean the various criteria involved --that's seems to me at the superficial level.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every rater knows the exact score of a course prior to a renovation. It’s only natural to use that score as a baseline and give it a bump for the effort and expense a renovation requires. Anyone would do the same for a course that has treated you like a member of the family.

[Kevin Pallier]

Can someone please explain this for me:

How does Pebble Beach's rating change from list to list?

Classic = 8.78
Resort = 8.85

For mine - it should be the same unless the criteria changes.

[Jay Mickle]

I doubt that Harding Park (which I liked) will climb into the Top 200, but if it does,  that will confirm once again the subjectivity of rankings...and the greatness of the shot.
Ira

All ratings are subjective. For an in-depth look at how ratings are determined read Jonathan Cummings new book “The Ratings Game”.  https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/feature-interview-with-jonathan-cummings/

[John Kavanaugh]

Jay,


That is great advice! As for the question at hand. Would you agree that it would be almost impossible not to rate Mid-Pines higher after the recent renovation?

[Jay Mickle]

Jay,
That is great advice! As for the question at hand. Would you agree that it would be almost impossible not to rate Mid-Pines higher after the recent renovation?

Absolutely, and I am quite sure that Southern Pines will rise significantly after a Kyle Franz makeover. I look much better in airbrushed photos also.

[A.G._Crockett]

There are a few strange rankings on the states I know the best (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina). I wouldn't consider Bear's Best one of the top 5 public courses in the Atlanta metro area, much less the whole state -- and the Atlanta metro area isn't exactly overflowing with great public golf.


Leopard's Chase is another weird one in North Carolina. I suppose if the ranking is based on the course architecture alone it could maybe take a spot (although there are courses not on the list I'd prefer to play), but the course conditions there have been atrocious for several years.


Not that these rankings have any real meaning.

Edward,

I thought the same thing about the NC/SC/GA rankings, also the three I know best.  Arrowhead Pointe in GA disappeared completely, which is VERY hard to understand.  And I agree with you about Leopards Chase; it isn't even the best of the Ocean Ridge Plantation courses, conditions aside; that would be Tigers Eye, at least IMO.  And ranking either Duke or Finley above Southern Pines is puzzling, to say the least, especially seeing that the conditioning of Leopards Chase wasn't taken into account.

The SC list, though, has the two biggest puzzlers to me.  To rank Legends Moorland ANYWHERE is a shock; it's the third best course out of three just at The Legends, and a true train wreck of over-design.  Only slightly less odd to me is ranking the Barefoot Dye course rather than the Love course at the same site. 


Like you, I realize that these don't really mean anything anyway, and that we could quibble endlessly.  But I do struggle a bit to understand rankings that involve courses at the same site. 

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

Jay,
That is great advice! As for the question at hand. Would you agree that it would be almost impossible not to rate Mid-Pines higher after the recent renovation?

Absolutely, and I am quite sure that Southern Pines will rise significantly after a Kyle Franz makeover. I look much better in airbrushed photos also.

That concept didn't seem to work for Cog Hill

[John Kavanaugh]

Who did they hire? And Golfweek scheduled a raters event days after an aeration. Plus the pros bitched.