[Ted Sturges]

We all remember the sitcom Gilligan's Island.  Two attractive ladies were important characters on this iconic show, namely Ginger (the glamourous "eye candy" movie star) and Mary Ann (the pretty girl with more substance than her movie star friend).


There are two golf course ratings lists that are the most prominent in the golf world today.  One is run by Golf's Most Beloved Figure (Golf Magazine's list), and the other is offered by Golf Digest.  It's pretty amazing to me how different these lists are.  Ran's list focuses more on classic architecture, courses from the Golden age, courses that present strategic design puzzles to solve, as well as newer courses that have been built to look like they've always been there (let's call this the "Mary Ann list").  The Golf Digest list has nearly 20 Tom Fazio courses, and is clearly more impressed with eye candy and what a course looks like (let's call this the "Ginger list").  The GD list ranks Augusta National near the top (the GM list has it nearer to the bottom of the top 10, marking it down for things like tree planting that have compromised some of the strategic design elements of the course).  Again, GD is more focused on what it looks like in my view than the architecture.


Which list do you prefer and why?


TS

[Steve Lapper]

Ted,

   A great question, framed by one of contemporary mankind's greatest conundrums ( ).

   This comparative conversation should also include how the composition (you've correctly noted leadership) of the panels is created, the direct & indirect effects of $$$ on the lists, the criteria & methodology for voting....etc. Only then does it fully cover the "how and why" for each list.

[PCCraig]

I saw somewhere that GD was patting themselves on the back for making big "changes" to their criteria, therefore there was supposedly a big shake up in their list.


Unfortunately, whatever the criteria as long as you have a big group of unconnected guys who pay "dues" to gain access, then courses that trend as "exclusive" sit far too high on their list(s). Still far too many courses on their list that raise eyebrows, in my opinion.

[John Kavanaugh]

How many instagram followers is equal to being a rater?

[Matt Schoolfield]

far too many courses on their list that raise eyebrows, in my opinion

This has been a conundrum to me for years. Access as de facto currency shows up in essentially every area of reporting: politics, entertainment, business, etc. Do we really want to clutch our pearls and pretend it's not happening in golf media? (present company excepted of course!)

I dunno, maybe I'm missing something, but these lists seem so much like the Pitchfork Music reviews I knew so well in the early 2000's (often gauging audience consensus before even publishing a review!).

Even the fact that a single person could probably not even play all these courses if they tried to calibrate a ranking each year (much less a group of journalists large enough to make a real consensus judgement).

No, I think I'll take the recommendations of someone like Jim Hartsell before ever taking these lists seriously. Ranked lists are dumb anyway: no context, and arbitrary decrementation.

[John Kavanaugh]

far too many courses on their list that raise eyebrows, in my opinion

This has been a conundrum to me for years. Access as de facto currency shows up in essentially very area of reporting: politics, entertainment, business, etc. Do we really want to clutch our pearls and pretend it's not happening in golf media? (present company excepted of course!)

I dunno, maybe I'm missing something, but these lists seem so much like the Pitchfork Music reviews I knew so well in the early 2000's (often gauging audience consensus before even publishing a review!).

Even the fact that a single person could probably not even play all these courses if they tried to calibrate a ranking each year (much less a group of journalists large enough to make a real consensus judgement).

No, I think I'll take the recommendations of someone like Jim Hartsell before ever taking these lists seriously. Ranked lists are dumb anyway: no context, and arbitrary decrementation.

Fix me egg.


https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/quick-post-0-eggs

[Matt Schoolfield]

Fix me egg.

https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/quick-post-0-eggs

This the only article on the blog that I'm still torn about.

The quick posts aren't supposed to be particularly serious, hence the name. The entire point of the title was that if 0 eggs is still a rating a good or great course can get (Oak Hill, Northwood, and Gearhart have all been discussed by them), then I thought their ranking system was actually fine, just not something I thought would be improve golf culture in general.

I initially thought they were just presenting an NYT Food Review format (and I should probably throw in some edits to the effect), and in my defense, they were, themselves, calling the eggs "stars" in their first live discussion about it. I now better understand what TFE are trying to do, and I do think I genuinely think it's a step forward, even if I'm still a bit confused by the eggs (plural) "rating" in general, since each of the eggs is in a different category and is binary.

The name of the blog is Wigs on the Green (an archaic euphemism for a fist fight), because I want to remind myself to write honestly, as if only my close friends were reading (spoiler alert: not to many people are  ). Still, I do stand by my dumb, hippie environmentalism and egalitarianism, and think that's too important to ignore. I also think that value-for-money always seems to be a lens in reviews for public courses which is suddenly forgotten at private courses. It's just as well. I still think their reviews are worth reading sans eggs, and I recommended signing up for TFE right in the article, so I don't feel too bad about it.

I also want to come right out and say I do not think they are in anyway actively influenced by the clubs at all. My previous comment just means, if someone paid me to go play Pine Valley or Augusta and rate it, I honestly don't know if I could trust my own review. I think the influence of just getting access would affect my perception, just like studies show that wines generally considered "the best in the world" suddenly rank as "pretty good" in blind tastings.

[jeffwarne]

Mary Anne was always hotter than Ginger, regardless of "substance"

[Tom_Doak]

Ted,


I’m sorry, but you’ve got this wrong. 


GOLF Magazine panelists like Mary Ann, but they want her to get a nose job and liposuction and maybe a boob job before they will put her on their list.


This is known in the golf business as a $6m restoration. 


Substance does not move the needle in golf course rankings unless it comes in designer label clothes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Substance does not move the needle in golf course rankings unless it comes in designer label clothes.

I was readying myself to say something similar in 5 paragraphs. But Tom seems to have nailed it in one sentence.

[Sean_A]

Fix me egg.

https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/quick-post-0-eggs

This the only article on the blog that I'm still torn about.

The quick posts aren't supposed to be particularly serious, hence the name. The entire point of the title was that if 0 eggs is still a rating a good or great course can get (Oak Hill, Northwood, and Gearhart have all been discussed by them), then I thought their ranking system was actually fine, just not something I thought would be improve golf culture in general.

I initially thought they were just presenting an NYT Food Review format (and I should probably throw in some edits to the effect), and in my defense, they were, themselves, calling the eggs "stars" in their first live discussion about it. I now better understand what TFE are trying to do, and I do think I genuinely think it's a step forward, even if I'm still a bit confused by the eggs (plural) "rating" in general, since each of the eggs is in a different category and is binary.

The name of the blog is Wigs on the Green (an archaic euphemism for a fist fight), because I want to remind myself to write honestly, as if only my close friends were reading (spoiler alert: not to many people are  ). Still, I do stand by my dumb, hippie environmentalism and egalitarianism, and think that's too important to ignore. I also think that value-for-money always seems to be a lens in reviews for public courses which is suddenly forgotten at private courses. It's just as well. I still think their reviews are worth reading sans eggs, and I recommended signing up for TFE right in the article, so I don't feel too bad about it.

I also want to come right out and say I do not think they are in anyway actively influenced by the clubs at all. My previous comment just means, if someone paid me to go play Pine Valley or Augusta and rate it, I honestly don't know if I could trust my own review. I think the influence of just getting access would affect my perception, just like studies show that wines generally considered "the best in the world" suddenly rank as "pretty good" in blind tastings.

Visiting a club on the club's dime VS any other way necessarily must effect one's perception of that club. The same holds for accessing a club in any way VS any other way. It may not matter much because we all have our own likes and dislikes. The bottom line is do you trust the opinion enough to potentially act on it. For the reader or subscriber there is no other reason other than curiosity to bother reading top 100 lists. Is there? If you trust Fried Egg, don't worry so much about how the opinion is delivered.

Ted

I prefer GM, but it doesn't really matter. For the most part it's the same courses pushed around into different order.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Ted,


I’m sorry, but you’ve got this wrong. 


GOLF Magazine panelists like Mary Ann, but they want her to get a nose job and liposuction and maybe a boob job before they will put her on their list.


This is known in the golf business as a $6m restoration. 


Substance does not move the needle in golf course rankings unless it comes in designer label clothes.

You're showing your age Tom.
6 million dollar restorations cost 20M now.


You nailed it though just like the panelist who told me Palmetto would be Top 50 except for the last 4 holes  which I feel are absolutely integral to the heart soul and community of the place.
The Mary Anne loop-leave her as is and save the surgery for Ginger

[Tim Martin]

Fix me egg.

https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/quick-post-0-eggs

This the only article on the blog that I'm still torn about.

The quick posts aren't supposed to be particularly serious, hence the name. The entire point of the title was that if 0 eggs is still a rating a good or great course can get (Oak Hill, Northwood, and Gearhart have all been discussed by them), then I thought their ranking system was actually fine, just not something I thought would be improve golf culture in general.

I initially thought they were just presenting an NYT Food Review format (and I should probably throw in some edits to the effect), and in my defense, they were, themselves, calling the eggs "stars" in their first live discussion about it. I now better understand what TFE are trying to do, and I do think I genuinely think it's a step forward, even if I'm still a bit confused by the eggs (plural) "rating" in general, since each of the eggs is in a different category and is binary.

The name of the blog is Wigs on the Green (an archaic euphemism for a fist fight), because I want to remind myself to write honestly, as if only my close friends were reading (spoiler alert: not to many people are  ). Still, I do stand by my dumb, hippie environmentalism and egalitarianism, and think that's too important to ignore. I also think that value-for-money always seems to be a lens in reviews for public courses which is suddenly forgotten at private courses. It's just as well. I still think their reviews are worth reading sans eggs, and I recommended signing up for TFE right in the article, so I don't feel too bad about it.

I also want to come right out and say I do not think they are in anyway actively influenced by the clubs at all. My previous comment just means, if someone paid me to go play Pine Valley or Augusta and rate it, I honestly don't know if I could trust my own review. I think the influence of just getting access would affect my perception, just like studies show that wines generally considered "the best in the world" suddenly rank as "pretty good" in blind tastings.

Visiting a club on the club's dime VS any other way necessarily must effect one's perception of that club. The same holds for accessing a club in any way VS any other way. It may not matter much because we all have our own likes and dislikes. The bottom line is do you trust the opinion enough to potentially act on it. For the reader or subscriber there is no other reason other than curiosity to bother reading top 100 lists. Is there? If you trust Fried Egg, don't worry so much about how the opinion is delivered.

Ted

I prefer GM, but it doesn't really matter. For the most part it's the same courses pushed around into different order.

Ciao

Sean-Although there is an expected amount of sameness on the two lists GD populates their U.S. Top 100 with more moderns especially toward the back end which has been the case for as long as I can remember. When looking at the World versions I don’t remember Golf Magazine previously having as many moderns and they also seem to be more concentrated toward the back of that list which is a testament to the work done by the current generation of architects in the last twenty five years. Maybe someone that has more statistical insight can comment. Finally I’m with you in that I’ve always felt that Golf Magazine consistently had the better take.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If you add up the number of architects represented on the GD and GM lists, which has the wider spread?


Is that a good thing, bad thing or irrelevant?

[John Kavanaugh]

Digest panelists don’t know anyone, which is why they are Digest panelists. The panel at Golf not only know the architects, they often are one. Just follow the list that best suits your personal situation.

[Kalen Braley]

Interesting thread

I read an article years ago that posited with a tinge of irony the actresses were the opposite in real life. Dawn Wells who played Mary Ann was allegedly difficult to deal with constant drama.  And to Jeff's point, she certainly didn't lack on looks as she was Miss Nevada and appeared in the Miss America pageant.

Tina Louise on the other hand (Ginger) was supposedly very warm and friendly and less of the holier-than-thou Hollywood type. She was also at the forefront of several causes for children's health and development.

P.S.  Toms post gave me a good chuckle and I guess the only thing owners of old timey courses have to decide is if they gonna go the full Joan Rivers! 

[David Kelly]

I've always liked to watch the latest Fazio courses shoot to the top of the list and then gradually sink over the years.  Shadow Creek was the poster boy for this although Flint Hills National and now The Alotian have had steeper drops.  I think GD is too wedded to the idea that Shadow Creek (ranked above Pinehurst #2) is a great course to drop it too far.

[Steve Lapper]

Ted,


I’m sorry, but you’ve got this wrong. 


GOLF Magazine panelists like Mary Ann, but they want her to get a nose job and liposuction and maybe a boob job before they will put her on their list.


This is known in the golf business as a $6m restoration. 


Substance does not move the needle in golf course rankings unless it comes in designer label clothes.

 Tom,


  I guess that makes you quite the busy plastic surgeon.


  Seriously, I don't know how you can believe your missive when plenty of places that you've long been a relative fan of have seen their "needle move" without either a costly renovation or "designer label clothes." A Somerset Hills, Myopia Hunt Club, Eastward Ho, Honors Course White Bear Yacht Club (missing altogether from GD's Top 200) come to mind.


  Do you really think Ran endorses, or even supports, the idea of the "facelift?"

[Tom_Doak]

  I guess that makes you quite the busy plastic surgeon.


  Do you really think Ran endorses, or even supports, the idea of the "facelift?"

I have never done any work that I would consider plastic surgery, and one reason I'm out of the renovation/restoration business entirely now, is to avoid such things.


I am not against clubs doing work to their courses, but I don't like it where a main driving force is marketing and obtaining a higher ranking.


Ran is a huge promoter of restoration.  The difference between a restoration and a facelift is, like everything else in design, a matter of opinion.  But when I see courses going back for a second crack at the egg, or even a third, the facelift analogy becomes more obvious.

[Mike Nuzzo]

What about Natalie Schafer[/size]?[/color]

[Ted Sturges]

Great point Mike.  "Lovey" would clearly represent the Golf Week list, which is less sought after, less sexy, but has both classic and modern points of appeal. 


TS

[jeffwarne]

Interesting thread

I read an article years ago that posited with a tinge of irony the actresses were the opposite in real life. Dawn Wells who played Mary Ann was allegedly difficult to deal with constant drama.  And to Jeff's point, she certainly didn't lack on looks as she was Miss Nevada and appeared in the Miss America pageant.

OK.
Thanks for ruining my day......err.....month

[Richard Hetzel]

In that respect, Mary Ann wins easily for me. But, that doesn't meant that I wouldn't mind sleeping with Ginger every now and then!

[ward peyronnin]

I have actually always preferred the GW list as more aesthetically grounded rather than the degree of difficulty grounded guidelines of GD and the rankings more closely align with my personal preferences. In truth my overall preference is the GW list. Fairplay though I am a panellist for them. But I like the idea of rolliking Ginger just as I love rolling around with Harry Colt.

All these lists are attempts to identify de creme of the overall pool of candidates( decrementation). What really motivates those who decry these efforts? Are other lists like Wine Spectators vapid exercises in elitism too? I submit these vehicles arouse continuing interest and are useful reference points for those learning about the design aspects of the subject. And I submit that critics are often those who attribute the results of focused effort, diligence, and enthusiasm towards an endeavor to luck or access. Panellist provide a service that would cost a lot more money if done as a nuetral paid position and a model that would funnel down opinion to an even tighter circle of "qualified" critics.

I will admit that I have encountered venal and loosely educated fellow raters and that this is a profit center for GW at least. But many structure travel, pay for hotels and extra meals, etc to conscientiously perform our balloting duties. Just yesterday I deviated from my eastern seaboard travels to Keith Hills CC home of the Campellsville University Fighting Camels, an Ellis Maples track. Had a lot of fun with a fellow rater on a very pleasant property and they were kind enough to comp us. Does one really maintain that will affect my review of the course? Those who are critical shoulld propose an alternative rather than bleat about "its not fair that raters have access".

Back to the question: just compare magazine formats between GW and GD. GD has always been flash. Who among us has a prayer of "swinging it like" DeChambeau or Finau or could manage the 58 swing thoughts imbedded in each GD issue but that gets a certain readerships attention.
BTW rather than Luvvee I would like to nominate Samantha of Bewitched as our GW poster girl: smart, sexy, and possessed of a little bit of magic.

[jeffwarne]

Who among us has a prayer of "swinging it like" DeChambeau or Finau or could manage the 58 swing thoughts imbedded in each GD issue but that gets a certain readerships attention.
BTW rather than Luvvee I would like to nominate Samantha of Bewitched as our GW poster girl: smart, sexy, and possessed of a little bit of magic.

You clearly haven't read GD lately.
They are lucky to have 58 pages(especially if you throw out the ads)much less 58 tips...
Samantha a far better choice than Luvvee for sure..., though I was thinking "That Girl"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()