[Tom_Doak]

https://www.golfdigest.com/courses/guides/100-greatest-courses-biggest-movers-2024


The article is paywalled, so my link may not work.


I told Ron Whitten twenty years ago that I thought his descriptions of new courses eligible for the Best New rankings were the equivalent of putting his thumb on the scale . . . some courses got way more description and more flattery than others.


But I've never seen a magazine go so far as to tell everyone - including most importantly its panelists - almost precisely where they think courses should come out in their next ranking.


Why even bother having panelists?

[PCCraig]

https://www.golfdigest.com/courses/guides/100-greatest-courses-biggest-movers-2024


The article is paywalled, so my link may not work.


I told Ron Whitten twenty years ago that I thought his descriptions of new courses eligible for the Best New rankings were the equivalent of putting his thumb on the scale . . . some courses got way more description and more flattery than others.


But I've never seen a magazine go so far as to tell everyone - including most importantly its panelists - almost precisely where they think courses should come out in their next ranking.


Why even bother having panelists?

The fact that Golf Digest thinks that White Bear Yacht Club might need to wait until 2026-27 for it's "big reveal" in the *Top 200* in the US tells you everything you need to know about the collective golf IQ of the Golf Digest Panel. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

Archived version, here, in case anyone hits a paywall.

[Edward Glidewell]

I'll hopefully be playing the renovated East Lake sometime in the next month or so, but it's almost impossible to believe that the changes could make it a top 100 course. I don't think the bones are there for that.


It's a fun round of golf, but it already feels overrated at 150 -- there are probably 6 or 7 courses just in Pinehurst that are better than East Lake.

[PCCraig]

I mean Golf Digest currently has Whispering Pines GC in Trinity, Texas at #51 in the entire United States.


Meanwhile Shoreacres is listed at #55.


What a complete and absolute joke.

[David Kelly]

Why even bother having panelists?

Revenue.

[Daryl David]

Their list has been a joke for years. Now they are trumpeting new versions of the joke. Sad.

[Chris Hughes]

Why even bother having panelists?

Revenue.

Bingo...

[Sam Morrow]

I mean Golf Digest currently has Whispering Pines GC in Trinity, Texas at #51 in the entire United States.


Meanwhile Shoreacres is listed at #55.


What a complete and absolute joke.

Did you like Whispering Pines?

[Jeff Schley]

Way to keep course discussion going in between the release every 2 years, I would have expected something out next year.  Well maybe there will be yet another to trumpet again.  Except for Shoreacres and Interlachen the courses are either restored or new.

[JR Potts]

https://www.golfdigest.com/courses/guides/100-greatest-courses-biggest-movers-2024


The article is paywalled, so my link may not work.


I told Ron Whitten twenty years ago that I thought his descriptions of new courses eligible for the Best New rankings were the equivalent of putting his thumb on the scale . . . some courses got way more description and more flattery than others.


But I've never seen a magazine go so far as to tell everyone - including most importantly its panelists - almost precisely where they think courses should come out in their next ranking.


Why even bother having panelists?

I think this may be an unfair critique.  Rating submissions for this next period of ratings closed on September 30th.  This article came out October 15th, 15 days later.


Maybe, just maybe, since Derek is in charge of the ratings panel, he has an actual front row seat to the numbers that have been submitted.  Thus, maybe (most likely) his comments are based on actual data, and not his "thumb on the scale."


There is enough out there to critique course ratings - and most of that has been properly beat to death on here - but not sure this meets that criteria.

[Sean_A]

https://www.golfdigest.com/courses/guides/100-greatest-courses-biggest-movers-2024


The article is paywalled, so my link may not work.


I told Ron Whitten twenty years ago that I thought his descriptions of new courses eligible for the Best New rankings were the equivalent of putting his thumb on the scale . . . some courses got way more description and more flattery than others.


But I've never seen a magazine go so far as to tell everyone - including most importantly its panelists - almost precisely where they think courses should come out in their next ranking.


Why even bother having panelists?

I think this may be an unfair critique.  Rating submissions for this next period of ratings closed on September 30th.  This article came out October 15th, 15 days later.


Maybe, just maybe, since Derek is in charge of the ratings panel, he has an actual front row seat to the numbers that have been submitted.  Thus, maybe (most likely) his comments are based on actual data, and not his "thumb on the scale."


There is enough out there to critique course ratings - and most of that has been properly beat to death on here - but not sure this meets that criteria.

If this is the case, why is the story set up as guess work?

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

I think this may be an unfair critique.  Rating submissions for this next period of ratings closed on September 30th.  This article came out October 15th, 15 days later.


Maybe, just maybe, since Derek is in charge of the ratings panel, he has an actual front row seat to the numbers that have been submitted.  Thus, maybe (most likely) his comments are based on actual data, and not his "thumb on the scale."


There is enough out there to critique course ratings - and most of that has been properly beat to death on here - but not sure this meets that criteria.

Here's what the article says about timing:

(In full transparency, the majority of panelists’ scores are submitted at the end of the year, so we are simply pontificating and projecting the movement of the below courses. These courses may or may not rank higher than they currently do.)

[Ryan Book]

I like the theory of Derek putting his thumb on the scale, and I don't necessarily disagree with it (Derek Duncan propagandizing to fix golf course ratings on behalf of a private company is philosophically different than Paul Kagame propagandizing to fix Rwanda, no matter the principles of the thing). 


If my social media observations are any indication, the prime factor driving the ratings are the ratings themselves because few raters are inclined to be Juror No. 8, pushing to conversation forward at the cost of falling out of favor with the majority. The second biggest thing driving perception of golf course ratings, in my opinion, is social media, in which case more people are feeding off of Erik Anders Lang's "insights" than Derek's. Even when an individual plays the course, to shed the shackle of peer pressure is a burden for many. Some would rather ask if they actually didn't enjoy a well-ranked course, rather than ask themselves why they didn't like it.


At any rate, if Derek is doing something Machiavellian, I'm fine with it.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have been on the panel since 1992, and current rankings have little or no effect on my ballots. It is the same for this article, and I suspect it is the same for most of the panelists. I do agree that the look isn't the greatest, but he was able to highlight some of the course changes. Some of the courses listed will rise in the rankings, and new ones will do well in the best new category. We knew that before we played them. If they have enough ballots, they might make the top 200 list.

[jeffwarne]

Golf Digest has a pay wall?

[Craig Sweet]

Course ratings seem to be "the hot stove league" for golf. Something to talk about, and argue about during the winter while waiting for the season to begin.

[Will Thrasher]

This is truly absurd, but not altogether surprising. The GD list has been headed the wrong way for a while - I always find it interesting as a Golfweek rater I hear through the grapevine (or a course flat out tells you) that they only accept Digest raters (likely because of preferential ratings treatment). Now they're just saying the quiet part out loud.

[Lou_Duran]

I mean Golf Digest currently has Whispering Pines GC in Trinity, Texas at #51 in the entire United States.


Meanwhile Shoreacres is listed at #55.


What a complete and absolute joke.

Did you like Whispering Pines?

I do like Whispering Pines.  And I like Shoreacres.  Some prefer "old" club courses with famous designers in their history.  Others like more challenging, muscular courses capable of holding important competitions.  I can see how a panel of "experts" can have the former rated 4 spots higher than the latter, considering the very small difference in the total ratings mid-way the top 100.


BTW, look out for new "The Covey" at Big Easy Ranch near Columbus, TX.  It might edge out both!  Chet Williams does not have the street cred among the gca aficionados that Raynor eventually acquired, but I judge him to be every bit as capable and certainly more original.  It will be interesting to see if time will give Chet his due.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think this concern really gets at the heart of what rankings mean.

If rankings are 'just a fun thing to do, and if other people put too much value on them that's on them' then there's nothing wrong with a bit of hype and speculation, promotion, and even thumbing the scale.

If rankings are 'serious and we should to do some lengths for them to be done fairly, because we need them to have integrity and they dramatically affect courses, ' then this sort of thing is generally unacceptable.

We could also land somewhere in the middle.

I think most institutions who do rankings tend to try and have it both ways. I'm quite critical of consensus ratings in general, and much more so of how our major golf ranking institutions do theirs, so I lean toward the former meaning when I'm being generous. I didn't really find anything in the article objectionable that wouldn't, in turn, require me to point to the general uselessness of the entire exercise when it is taken seriously.

[Joel_Stewart]

I like the theory of Derek putting his thumb on the scale, and I don't necessarily disagree with it (Derek Duncan propagandizing to fix golf course ratings on behalf of a private company is philosophically different than Paul Kagame propagandizing to fix Rwanda, no matter the principles of the thing). 


If my social media observations are any indication, the prime factor driving the ratings are the ratings themselves because few raters are inclined to be Juror No. 8, pushing to conversation forward at the cost of falling out of favor with the majority. The second biggest thing driving perception of golf course ratings, in my opinion, is social media, in which case more people are feeding off of Erik Anders Lang's "insights" than Derek's. Even when an individual plays the course, to shed the shackle of peer pressure is a burden for many. Some would rather ask if they actually didn't enjoy a well-ranked course, rather than ask themselves why they didn't like it.


At any rate, if Derek is doing something Machiavellian, I'm fine with it.

The criteria that GD uses will never change until Jerry Tarde leaves.  Ron Whitten was able to get only small changes and Derek doesn't have the pull like Ron.  They might not admit it but Jerry runs the panel and the ratings.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()