[Ally Mcintosh]

If all of our memories and history of all lists & media were wiped (without wiping our knowledge or memory of the courses we had seen), it would be absolutely fascinating to see everyone’s individually created list.


Each would be so different it would be hilarious.


EDIT: You may as well wipe all knowledge of architects as well. That would create further hilarity and chaos.

[Mark_Fine]

If there exercise was objective there would be no need for panelists.  You would key in the criteria to a computer and the answers would be spit out.  AI could rank golf courses but again comes down to the criteria.  What GD is doing is making sure as best they can that the criteria is architecture based and not how good are the showers, was the staff curious, did the burger taste great, did I play well,…

[Tom_Doak]

If all of our memories and history of all lists & media were wiped (without wiping our knowledge or memory of the courses we had seen), it would be absolutely fascinating to see everyone’s individually created list.

Each would be so different it would be hilarious.

EDIT: You may as well wipe all knowledge of architects as well. That would create further hilarity and chaos.

Somewhere deep in the files at Doakgolf, Inc., are the GOLF Magazine ballots from 1983, the first time anyone tried to rank all of the courses in order. 


[In fact, the panelists did not try to rank the courses in order . . . they were asked whether each course belonged in the top 10, top 50, top 100, top 200, or not, and then we averaged the votes, just as all of these ratings do today . . . as far as I know, there is no ranking where all the panelists submit their own list in order.]


Obviously, none of the courses built in the past 40 years were there to be ranked.  But when there was no consensus of what the #1 course should be, here were the top four:


t1.  Muirfield
t1.  Pebble Beach
3.   Royal County Down
4.   Pine Valley


I can't remember it clearly after that, I should go look it up when I have the time.  But that will have to be after the Renaissance Cup at Pinehurst . . . by chance, I am headed to play two of the newest entries in the top 100 in the coming week!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don’t know how you do your own personal rankings of courses.  I presonally love your Doak scale. Do you still use that yourself?  If you do, is for example a 7 a 7 or do you split hairs and say one 7 is better than another 7?  If so aren’t you are effectively saying one is a 7.0 and another is a 7.1 or 7.2,…

[Michael Morandi]

I was out at Cal Club a few weeks ago. The club started a caddy program this year per the golf rating. That is what I was told from a friend who is a member. Wonder if that accounts for 1 step up?


Ridgewood's drop of 11 is a surprise. The club spent a lot of money revamping the practice area and built a new golf center.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I don’t know how you do your own personal rankings of courses.  I presonally love your Doak scale. Do you still use that yourself?  If you do, is for example a 7 a 7 or do you split hairs and say one 7 is better than another 7?  If so aren’t you are effectively saying one is a 7.0 and another is a 7.1 or 7.2,…

Mark:


The Doak Scale is my personal ranking system.  I don't split hairs.  Of course, there are some courses where it's harder for me to decide whether it's an 8 or a 9, but I don't give those an 8.5 and call it good; I will sit with it for a while but eventually I'll decide.


I used to cast my votes for GOLF Magazine that way, too -- rank all of the 10s evenly, and then all the 9s and so forth.  But then Joe Passov developed a spreadsheet which INSISTS that we rate a top 3 [and you can't vote for more than 3] and then 7 more to round out the top 10 and then no more than 15 more for the top 25, etc.  And Ran kept that.  And I have fourteen courses [worldwide - nine in the USA] I rate as a "10", which doesn't fit their spreadsheet at all.  So I have trouble fitting my real opinions into their boxes.


The difference between 10th and 11th is completely arbitrary.  There is no magic in a top ten . . . I have fourteen courses equal at the top, but you could have three, or thirty.  [Pete Dye used to say he had about 40 of them above the rest, and he was proud to have built a couple that he felt belonged; Peter Thomson told me he had two, The Old Course and Royal Melbourne.]  However, the emphasis on the top ten in the scoring system is what keeps everyone centered around the same results over time:  why there is only one modern course in the top ten, and how can you vote Pine Valley out of the top ten?, and so forth.  You're an outlier if you vote more than a couple of the status quo out of the top ten, and not many people are comfortable sticking their neck out even that far, whatever they really believe.

[Michael Chadwick]

Given the spate of new courses in the last 20 or so years (many of them being quite good), it's a boon to us that the quality of what's missing from the 100 is increasingly improving. I'd like to see the next 100, whether it be alphabetical, organized by state, or even forced ranked 101-200. Hopefully GOLF releases something like that. 


A few courses that come to mind that didn't appear on this list, but are new or have been worked on. Some may be too new still:


Lake Merced
Tree Farm
Sedge Valley
Any Apogee
Fall Line
Cabot Florida   


I adhere to the Doak Score, so it's interesting to see how plentiful and interchangeable 7's are on US and even World 100 lists. There's arguably a 7 in the US top 30, and then a number of them not in the 100. The lowest ranked 9 from the published guides is likely Rock Creek, but then 8's are scattered about even to Gamble Sands. I don't think there's a genuine 6 on this list, though, which I'm not sure holds for a Digest list.

[Brian Finn]

Given the spate of new courses in the last 20 or so years (many of them being quite good), it's a boon to us that the quality of what's missing from the 100 is increasingly improving. I'd like to see the next 100, whether it be alphabetical, organized by state, or even forced ranked 101-200. Hopefully GOLF releases something like that. 

A few courses that come to mind that didn't appear on this list, but are new or have been worked on. Some may be too new still:

Lake Merced
Tree Farm
Sedge Valley
Any Apogee
Fall Line
Cabot Florida   

I adhere to the Doak Score, so it's interesting to see how plentiful and interchangeable 7's are on US and even World 100 lists. There's arguably a 7 in the US top 30, and then a number of them not in the 100. The lowest ranked 9 from the published guides is likely Rock Creek, but then 8's are scattered about even to Gamble Sands. I don't think there's a genuine 6 on this list, though, which I'm not sure holds for a Digest list.

For context on the above - when you say you adhere to the Doak scale, do you mean you use Tom's actual rating or you apply his criteria/definitions yourself?

[Michael Chadwick]

Given the spate of new courses in the last 20 or so years (many of them being quite good), it's a boon to us that the quality of what's missing from the 100 is increasingly improving. I'd like to see the next 100, whether it be alphabetical, organized by state, or even forced ranked 101-200. Hopefully GOLF releases something like that. 

A few courses that come to mind that didn't appear on this list, but are new or have been worked on. Some may be too new still:

Lake Merced
Tree Farm
Sedge Valley
Any Apogee
Fall Line
Cabot Florida   

I adhere to the Doak Score, so it's interesting to see how plentiful and interchangeable 7's are on US and even World 100 lists. There's arguably a 7 in the US top 30, and then a number of them not in the 100. The lowest ranked 9 from the published guides is likely Rock Creek, but then 8's are scattered about even to Gamble Sands. I don't think there's a genuine 6 on this list, though, which I'm not sure holds for a Digest list.

For context on the above - when you say you adhere to the Doak scale, do you mean you use Tom's actual rating or you apply his criteria/definitions yourself?

I do both, Brian. But the references above to where scores appear on the list are implied from the books. But yes, when I play CapRock, for instance, I come up with a number of my own. 

[David Wuthrich]

Wouldn’t it be great if the Top 100 lists were just that, a Top 100 list in say alphabetical order!  Problem then would be we would have much less to argue about.  Plus we all need to know which course is #31 vs which course is #32 (like anyone really knows that for sure)  

By way does anyone know how many of the same courses GD has on their Top 100 list that GM has on theirs?  Probably should look at GD’s Top 200 for comparison as the difference between #100 and #101 on their lists is almost negligible.

Getting hung up on one course being #63 and another being #78 is silly.  They are both in the Top 100.  They are both winners at least as far as that particular list is concerned. 

Golf course rankings are based on ordinal data. If you want to learn more about these rankings look up the term. Kind of like ranking wines.  Good luck with that

Mark, 


After a little research, I think this is correct.


Courses on new Golf Magazine Top 100 in US that are not on Golf Digest Top 100
Old Barnwell
The Creek
Harbour Town
Hollywood
Moraine
Fox Chapel
Sankaty Head
St. Louis
Old Elm
Baltimore 5 Farms
Streamsong Red
Phily Cricket
Kingsley
Gamble Sands


All of the above are on the Golf Digest Top 200 list


Here are the ones that are on the new Golf Magazine Top 100 US list that are not on Golf Digest Top 200
White Bear Yacht
Ladera
Pinehurst #10
Lawsonia Links
Trinity Forest


So, to answer your question, there are 18 courses on the new Golf Magazine Top 100 US that are not on the Golf Digest Top 100.

[zachary_car]

I still remain baffled by Bethpage Black's ability to stick so high in these rankings, considering both its current architectural (mis) shape and that of nearly all of those around it, particularly the others of its close vintage. Sure, there are great moments, but, to me, the negatives far, far out-weight the positives right now. It has tremendous potential, of that there's no doubt, but the list is dated 2024, meaning that the golf course should be judged as it is now, not hypothetically.


Perhaps this is a hot take that may ruffle some feathers, but until it gets de-Jonesed, I'm not even sure if it's a top 100 course in America. And I know others, whose opinions I quite respect, who think likewise

[Bruce Katona]

I just compelted reading this thread and thought of the very recent annual constitutional right of selection (voting) here in the good old US of A.


Given the vey real feelings of some of the participants in this discussion - perhaps we need to go to ranked choice voting like some places allow. Ranked choice voting is defined as:


 "ranked choice voting [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.95)]allows voters to rank candidates by preference, meaning they can submit ballots that list not only their first-choice candidate for a position, but also their second, third and so on"..................ranked choice course rating would certainly spur on even more discussion![/color]

[Mike Hendren]

This is fun.

[MCirba]

I still remain baffled by Bethpage Black's ability to stick so high in these rankings, considering both its current architectural (mis) shape and that of nearly all of those around it, particularly the others of its close vintage. Sure, there are great moments, but, to me, the negatives far, far out-weight the positives right now. It has tremendous potential, of that there's no doubt, but the list is dated 2024, meaning that the golf course should be judged as it is now, not hypothetically.


Perhaps this is a hot take that may ruffle some feathers, but until it gets de-Jonesed, I'm not even sure if it's a top 100 course in America. And I know others, whose opinions I quite respect, who think likewise

Zac,


There should be a special category called something like the "Huntsville Award" where the combination of really good golf land and a decent routing atop is ultimately stifled by the banality or excessiveness of the golf features such that you're torn between an 8 or a 5.


Your post reminded me of those rare animals but yes, they do exist.

[Ira Fishman]

I agree with those who say that ratings and therefore rankings are subjective. However, I do think that there are some break points among groupings. In the CG, for courses worldwide where at least three of the authors rated:


10 DS average: 5 courses
9 or above: 15 courses
8 or above: 34
7 or above: 93


Now, that is less demarcated than it appears because some in the 9, 8, and 7 above categories were closer to the category above than the numerical category average. But it still seems clear that the number of truly outstanding courses is relatively small and that the best of the best is better than the rest of the best.

[zachary_car]

Well put Mike! To me, its placement amidst a number of other really well restored or preserved golden-age golf courses sticks out like a sore thumb. Had it fallen a dozen places, I would understand its general disfavorable trend in the ranking. But it's doggedly staying about where it has for 20 some years now, which, considering what the panel tends to favor in general, is strange.


I think its set of greens, in and of themselves, should disqualify it from a top 50 ranking, at least; nevermind the other blatant issues all around the golf course

[Mark_Fine]

None of us can measure the difference between an 8 and 9 vs a 7 and an 8.  Furthermore, even Tom says he doesn’t do decimal points. As such a 7 is a 7 and when a course jumps to an 8 it is purely subjective and relative to his own criteria or experience. 


I could list a few hundred courses that I would call 7s and maybe 50 or so I would call 8s,… but would never be able to list them in any meaningful order outside of alphabetical as to which is better than the other.  There might be some I like more than the other but that is purely personal preference for one reason or the other.  Once again ordinal data is rankable but not with any meaningful measurement.  It is not like ranking weights from heaviest to lightest.  That ranking is measurable. 


Certain lists try to get everyone to rank the same criteria which helps but at the end of the day, it comes down to what that person has seen and experienced and their own personal opinions.  You can set standards for comparison but if you haven’t seen and experienced all those standards for yourself, how can you judge and compare accurately?


Can anyone here quantify why so many consider Pine Valley #1?  If it is because it has the most numbers of trees or the most grains of sand, then something like that is measurable. Otherwise it is just consensus of opinions.  I love when someone tells me the views at one course are better than the views at another?  How do you know or measure that?  I recall one time someone telling me they loved the backdrop of a hole because there was a shopping mall behind it???  When I shook my head and asked why, they said they owned a shopping mall 

[Charlie Goerges]

I recall one time someone telling me they loved the backdrop of a hole because there was a shopping mall behind it???  When I shook my head and asked why, they said they owned a shopping mall 

That is pretty funny. Very absurdist, though I'm sure you're not making it up!

[Simon Barrington]

This panel Video with Tom Doak, Bill Coore, Andrew Green & Rob Collins that was issued is a really enjoyable perspective.

What was said was of course not surprising at all (especially to folk on here), but every post now needs a clikbait headline to break through...

https://golf.com/travel/architects-course-ratings-answers-surprising/

Cheers

[Tommy Williamsen]

Wouldn’t it be great if the Top 100 lists were just that, a Top 100 list in say alphabetical order!  Problem then would be we would have much less to argue about.  Plus we all need to know which course is #31 vs which course is #32 (like anyone really knows that for sure)  

By way does anyone know how many of the same courses GD has on their Top 100 list that GM has on theirs?  Probably should look at GD’s Top 200 for comparison as the difference between #100 and #101 on their lists is almost negligible.

Getting hung up on one course being #63 and another being #78 is silly.  They are both in the Top 100.  They are both winners at least as far as that particular list is concerned. 

Golf course rankings are based on ordinal data. If you want to learn more about these rankings look up the term. Kind of like ranking wines.  Good luck with that

Mark, 


After a little research, I think this is correct.


Courses on new Golf Magazine Top 100 in US that are not on Golf Digest Top 100
Old Barnwell
The Creek
Harbour Town
Hollywood
Moraine
Fox Chapel
Sankaty Head
St. Louis
Old Elm
Baltimore 5 Farms
Streamsong Red
Phily Cricket
Kingsley
Gamble Sands


All of the above are on the Golf Digest Top 200 list


Here are the ones that are on the new Golf Magazine Top 100 US list that are not on Golf Digest Top 200
White Bear Yacht
Ladera
Pinehurst #10
Lawsonia Links
Trinity Forest


So, to answer your question, there are 18 courses on the new Golf Magazine Top 100 US that are not on the Golf Digest Top 100.

Old Barnwell, Ladera, and #10 will be eligible for GD's List next year. They weren't built when the last list. was published.

[Mark_Fine]

The overlap of the major lists is significant.  The order of the courses is irrelevant but people like to make a big deal about one being ahead or behind the other.  So be it.

[Tom_Doak]

Was Lido on the GOLF DIGEST list yet?  (That’s how much attention I pay to it anymore - I really have no idea.)  Lido and Ladera presumably have a lot of favorable votes from GD panelists since they won the best new awards last year.  This year’s Best New will give a sneak peek at where Old Barnwell and Pinehurst #10 and a lot of other new courses stand.


Personally I’d love to see Sedge Valley get more love in the rankings, because I think it would be significant for these rankings to embrace golf in a smaller footprint - but that’s certainly not how the trend has been going - they might as well just rename the GOLF DIGEST award “Biggest New Course of the year”. If I hear the word “Scale” one more time from a panelist I think I will barf.

[Kyle Casella]

Interesting that Sankaty snuck onto the list, along with Old Elm the only "older" course to gain "New Entry" status. I love the place, fantastic club and very fun golf course to play on a warm and windy summer's day. In the last printing of the Confidential Guide, Tom gave it a 5 and the others had not played.

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting that Sankaty snuck onto the list, along with Old Elm the only "older" course to gain "New Entry" status. I love the place, fantastic club and very fun golf course to play on a warm and windy summer's day. In the last printing of the Confidential Guide, Tom gave it a 5 and the others had not played.

I know that Jim Urbina has done work there since I saw it - it must have been more extensive than I thought to take it from a 5 into the top 100!

[Tim Martin]

Interesting that Sankaty snuck onto the list, along with Old Elm the only "older" course to gain "New Entry" status. I love the place, fantastic club and very fun golf course to play on a warm and windy summer's day. In the last printing of the Confidential Guide, Tom gave it a 5 and the others had not played.

I know that Jim Urbina has done work there since I saw it - it must have been more extensive than I thought to take it from a 5 into the top 100!

Tom-I remember you saying at one point that a restoration should not have more than a one point upward move on the Doak scale. Does this still hold? Thanks!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()