Golfweek Best Classic

[MCirba]

Perhaps some frank discussion will ensue..
https://golfweek.usatoday.com/lists/best-classic-golf-courses-top-200/

[Mike Worth]

My comment is the same as what I posted about the top 100 Modern — which is to question how courses in the bottom 1/4 make the list.


I’m certain I’ll get a phone call or a text message on this, but I was a member at Atlantic City last year. It’s a fine course, I would’ve rejoined this year except for some family circumstances.


But I’m not sure how AC is good enough to make any list. Is the primary factor the number of ratings (i.e. rater plays). 


Same goes for Leatherstocking, which I played almost 20 years ago—a fine course but how does it end up on a national ranking?


I get the feeling at looking at courses ranked 151-200 that many are like I feel about AC and Leatherstocking.

[corey miller]

I have a different take than Mike.  I have the "bottom" 170-180 on the list as almost interchangeable with the differences being in maintenance: playability (lack of needless high rough), mowing lines, tree work.


One only need to look at the "fun factor" and the perceptions of "greatness" in Westchester County NY. 

[Mike_Trenham]

It’s shocking how little movement there is year to year when .34 points separate 125 and 150.  It would seem that a few submissions could create greater volatility.

[Jeff Schley]

Think the following are too low

• Valley Club of Montecito - 36

• Olympia Fields - 65 (Also the South course at 153 is low)

• Meadow Club -100

Too high

• Skokie 97 - not a fan of the course
• Philly Cricket Club - 38 that is putting it ahead of some very good places
• Also Culver Academies is 9 holes and in the top 100.

Maybe a question is are there any Mackenzie or Raynor courses that AREN'T ranked?

[John Kavanaugh]

Hotchkiss for one.

[J_ Crisham]

Think the following are too low

• Valley Club of Montecito - 36

• Olympia Fields - 65 (Also the South course at 153 is low)

• Meadow Club -100

Too high

• Skokie 97 - not a fan of the course
• Philly Cricket Club - 38 that is putting it ahead of some very good places
• Also Culver Academies is 9 holes and in the top 100.

Maybe a question is are there any Mackenzie or Raynor courses that AREN'T ranked?

Jeff,
  I agree with you regarding The Valley Club- its in my top 25. Very special place. Curious where  you think OFCC North should be? The 2 par 5's are pretty unremarkable. The par 3's are good but not great. Par 4's are very good collectively. Greens are also good but don't blow you away.

[Paul OConnor]

"Curious where  you think OFCC North should be?"   Jack, it should be above Bev.

[J_ Crisham]

"Curious where  you think OFCC North should be?"   Jack, it should be above Bev.

Paul,   
 Great to hear from you! Please explain why you feel OFCC is superior to Bev.

[PCCraig]

"Curious where  you think OFCC North should be?"   Jack, it should be above Bev.

Paul,   
 Great to hear from you! Please explain why you feel OFCC is superior to Bev.

All I know is that when that new Tiger Woods course gets built on Jackson Park it'll be higher than both OFCC and Beverly!!!! 

[J_ Crisham]

"Curious where  you think OFCC North should be?"   Jack, it should be above Bev.

Paul,   
 Great to hear from you! Please explain why you feel OFCC is superior to Bev.

All I know is that when that new Tiger Woods course gets built on Jackson Park it'll be higher than both OFCC and Beverly!!!! 

The positive impact on the area will be priceless. Crime rates will go down and economic prosperity will rule the day. It could be the highlight of Lori Lightfoot's career.

[PCCraig]

"Curious where  you think OFCC North should be?"   Jack, it should be above Bev.

Paul,   
 Great to hear from you! Please explain why you feel OFCC is superior to Bev.

All I know is that when that new Tiger Woods course gets built on Jackson Park it'll be higher than both OFCC and Beverly!!!! 

The positive impact on the area will be priceless. Crime rates will go down and economic prosperity will rule the day. It could be the highlight of Lori Lightfoot's career.

The Golfweek Rater Journal on the course practically writes itself!! 

[John Kavanaugh]

Landscape and tree management could be an issue for the flyover raters.

[Daryl David]

“It could be the highlight of Lori Lightfoot's career”


That’s a low bar.

[J_ Crisham]

"Curious where  you think OFCC North should be?"   Jack, it should be above Bev.

Paul,   
 Great to hear from you! Please explain why you feel OFCC is superior to Bev.

All I know is that when that new Tiger Woods course gets built on Jackson Park it'll be higher than both OFCC and Beverly!!!! 

The positive impact on the area will be priceless. Crime rates will go down and economic prosperity will rule the day. It could be the highlight of Lori Lightfoot's career.

The Golfweek Rater Journal on the course practically writes itself!! 
[/quote
Pat, Hopefully my sarcasm wasn’t too mean spirited. If this boondoggle ever gets to shovel in the ground status I will be shocked. Illinois, Cook County , and the city of Chicago are flat broke . So many greater priorities than a championship golf course in an area that already has an adequate affordable park district course. Let’s start with hiring more police officers and getting violent crimes under control.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Looking it over all I know is I'd be quite happy to regularly play any of the 200 courses on the list.

[Kyle Harris]

I’m glad it gets recognized as a great golf course but Country Club of Orlando is still not a Donald Ross and Tom Bendelow is being robbed of credit for good work. Still and again.

[Mike_Trenham]

I’m glad it gets recognized as a great golf course but Country Club of Orlando is still not a Donald Ross and Tom Bendelow is being robbed of credit for good work. Still and again.

Also Toomey continues to get credit on many of Flynn’s designs.

[Jeff Schley]

Another omission, no Indian Creek CC?  Even in the top 200 from that era?  Only need 25 votes in last 10 years it appears.

[Tim Martin]

Another omission, no Indian Creek CC?  Even in the top 200 from that era?  Only need 25 votes in last 10 years it appears.

Jeff-It’s not easy to access.

[Anthony Fowler]

As a course rater and as someone who does quantitative data analysis for a living, I'm pleasantly surprised that the Golfweek rankings are as sensible as they are. One concern is that very few raters have played all the top courses, and everyone has a different scale, so you'd think there would be a lot of noise (even if every rater does a good job rating the courses on their own personal scale). Another concern is that the average course rater is not nearly as knowledgeable about golf architecture as the average poster on GCA. I was just at a rater retreat with some fellow GCAers, and we were all marveling at the fact that the people we were with (many of whom didn't seem to know much or care much about golf architecture) were able to produce the mostly sensible rankings that we're talking about now.


One explanation is that there is probably some amount of herding. If you don't know much about golf architecture, but you know that other raters regard a course highly, you'll probably give it a high rating. So as long as there are enough knowledgeable people contributing to the early ratings a course receives, it's likely to end up in more-or-less in the right place.


Another explanation is that the leaders of the ranking organizations probably exercise some control over the rankings. I would imagine that if you give a rating that's way out of line with everyone else, you'll get a phone call, and if you do this enough, you'll find yourself off the panel.


This is not to say that reasonable people can't quibble with the rankings. This is an inherently subjective exercise. I can certainly point to a few courses that I think are somewhat overrated (e.g., I suspect there's a major championship bias that causes courses like Olympia North, Medinah No. 3, and even The Country Club to get rated a little higher than they would otherwise be if they hadn't been on television). But I think most GCAers would have a hard time finding a course on this list that they could convincingly argue is 50 places away from where it should be. And that's a remarkable achievement given the inherent subjectivity of this enterprise, the sheer amount of noise involved in this process, and the fact that the courses are often separated by razor-thin margins.

[Anthony Fowler]

My comment is the same as what I posted about the top 100 Modern — which is to question how courses in the bottom 1/4 make the list.


I’m certain I’ll get a phone call or a text message on this, but I was a member at Atlantic City last year. It’s a fine course, I would’ve rejoined this year except for some family circumstances.


But I’m not sure how AC is good enough to make any list. Is the primary factor the number of ratings (i.e. rater plays). 


Same goes for Leatherstocking, which I played almost 20 years ago—a fine course but how does it end up on a national ranking?


I get the feeling at looking at courses ranked 151-200 that many are like I feel about AC and Leatherstocking.

Surely your position isn't that all the courses in the 76-100 range don't deserve their place in the top 100, right? Some courses have to end up in that part of the list, even if they're along a little better than the 101-125 courses. Perhaps you're just pointing out that the difference between #85 and #115 is pretty small and subjective, so maybe we shouldn't make such a big deal out of "top 100" per se. That's fair. I give Golfweek some credit for publishing the top 200 along with the average ratings. That way, great courses like Biltmore Forest, Meadowbrook, Charleston, etc. can get some of the credit that they deserve, and we can see just how small the differences are between different places on the list.

[Anthony Fowler]

It’s shocking how little movement there is year to year when .34 points separate 125 and 150.  It would seem that a few submissions could create greater volatility.

This is a good point, although upon reflection, it makes sense. Consider Longmeadow, which is tied for 150 and has an average rating of 6.7. Suppose it has 50 ratings (I don't know the exact number, but a lot of these courses are in that vicinity). Suppose a new rater plays Longmeadow, thinks it's the greatest course on the planet, and gives it a 10. That would bring its average score up to 6.76, and now Longmeadow is 138 instead of 150.


Furthermore, as much as I like Longmeadow, nobody is going to give it a 10. If a rater did give it such a rating, they would probably get a call from someone at Golfweek asking them to explain their thinking, and they probably couldn't justify such a score. So, fortunately, these courses have enough ratings that one crazy rating isn't going to affect their position much, and you would hope there are safeguards against crazy ratings.


Someone might really love Longmeadow and give it an 8, meaning they personally think it should be in the top 25. That's obviously a really high rating for Longmeadow, but I can imagine one reasonable person who feels that way. Even in this somewhat unlikely scenario, Longmeadow's average score goes up to ~6.725, and it's ranking goes from 150 to 145. So it would take more than a few outlier ratings to meaningfully shift the relative positioning of these courses.


On the flip side, consider Wilshire, which is currently tied for 124. Suppose it also has 50 ratings, and suppose a new rater comes along and gives it a 0. Its average rating goes from 6.87 to ~6.734, and its ranking goes from T124 to 144. In principle, it's easier for one crazy rating to pull a course down than it is to pull it up, but even then, one rater can't move the #125 course very far. And no reasonable person would rate Wilshire a 0. Suppose they really didn't like Wilshire for some reason and were in a really bad mood, maybe they would give it a 4, which would bring its score down to 6.81 and its ranking down to 131.


So if there's enough agreement between the raters and enough raters who have played each course, the rankings won't be very volatile, even if the margins separating courses are small.

[mike_malone]

I suggest two alphabetical lists——9 and 8 and 7 and 6. This would allow some courses above 200 to make the list.


 


I think there are only a few truly outstanding courses which are quite similar in their excellence. There is no need to rank the top 25+/- courses.


The rest of the courses are very close in quality and my suggestion eliminates the idea that number 70 is much better than 135.


The first group would be Outstanding and the second group Very Good.

[Ira Fishman]

Rankings are a fun diversion because people tend to think in terms of best of lists. But to put it in perspective, there are approximately 15,000 courses in the US. Taking the Golfweek Classic and Modern together, the 400 represent 2.5% or so of the courses. Then take the fact that there is less than a 1 point difference among the second 100 in the Classic list (I didn’t check the spread on the Modern list), and we really are talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Yes, a fun diversion, but only that…unless you are the owner of a publc/resort course competing for clients in which case you probably tear your hear out about the flaws in the rankings systems.


Ira