golf vs. gd vs. golfweek rankings: whose do you agree with most?

[astavrides]

I know 'rankings' is somewhat of a dirty word here, but there are certainly differences among the magazines in their rankings.

for example, in the top 100 US public course lists, golf digest seems to tilt to the eastern US, while golf mag has a lot of arizona courses.  

golfweek's seem to me to be more like the kind of architecture preferred here.  for example apache stronghold #1 public in AZ whereas #4 in AZ by golf and not in gd top 10 in AZ (!).

what explains these discrepancies--the rating criteria, the kind of people they get to rate,...?

[Jeff Fortson]

Golfweek.  Their ratings are much closer to how I see it than the others.

Plus, I can't put stock in any publication that has ever had Pebble Beach as #1 in the country, let alone in the world.  That is a total rim-jobbing, travesty in my mind.


Jeff F.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Golfweek by far. GD second and golf magazine last.

[coniferator]

Golfweek®


That Klein guy understands trees.

[Jim Franklin]

Golfweek, I like the Classical/Modern distinction.
Golf Digest, it's the oldest and tradition is important to the game.
Golf Magazine.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Golfweek & Golf Magazine (Because The Ocean Course is moving in the right direction -- GW 56-36-22-15 - GM 92-72-65-44)
Then, Golf Digest (Because The Ocean Course keeps falling back (GD 41-56-67-70)

Go figure...

[Jonathan Cummings]

Rating System

GW and GM are tied (1-10, A-E)
GD far behind (mathematically adding categories doesn't work, tradition and walking should not be used)

Statistics

GD (good national coverage)
GW (marginal national coverage)
GM (inadequate national and international coverage)

Approach

GW (modern/classic distinction exposes second 100 courses)
GD (Best new, resorts, public lists, best in state - good additions)
GM (too much self interest using golfing illuminaries and architects as raters)

Rating panel

GW (interview process, monitoring, training, camaraderie, events)
GD (regional emphasis effective)
GM  

[Ross_Tartan]

Golfweek...

Monitoring: Would that be when Brad Klein emails panelists telling them to lower or raise their scores for certain courses he likes and dislikes?

Interview process: Merely state that you like certain courses Klein likes and you are in baby! Definitely say you like his Connecticut design with Tim Liddy even if you haven't seen it.

Events: Golfweek profits off its panel by requiring them to come to at least one of these camaraderie builders.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I'm sorry Ross, you are incorrect on all three things you say..

[Ross_Tartan]

Jonathon,

I'm afraid I'm not wrong. Perhaps you could identify yourself. Are you a panelist for Golfweek?

Emails documenting the above statements are making the rounds in the golf architecture world. Rather humorous stuff really.

It is quite entertaining to read in an email about Mr. Klein urging a panelist to back off of a high score for a course Mr. Klein doesn't care for, while also asking someone else to redo all of their scores because they were not to his liking. So enjoyable to read how he reiterates that the troops must come to at least one of Golfweek's (for profit) events or else, have to stand in the corner of the room or face expulsion!  

Also, is it true that one must pay to join the panel? What does one get for this privilege?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Ross - probably best to let Brad answer this....

[Michael Dugger]

Good topic!

I totally ignore Golf Digest even though their lists possess some familiar names.

The biggest difference between Golf Week and Golf Magazine, IMHO, is the distinction between classic and modern.  THus their modern courses is more comprehensive.

My inclination falls with Golf magazine, for the most part, with a hybrid strain of Doak scale and Golfweek thrown in for spice.

SOme things befuddle me, though, any help?

Why don't ANY of Mike Strantz's courses get run?
What the hell with Kingsley Club getting ignored?
Why is NGLA always behind Augusta?
Is Muirfield Village really that good?

 

[Tim Liddy]

Golfweek and Brad Klein have been significant in the past few years in changing the perception of what constitutes good golf course architecture (similar opinions with this web site –which can’t be all bad). This important shift in opinion has been championed by Dr. K.  and his haggard band of raters.

[ian]

Mdugger,

I'm definately not a big Nicklaus fan in general, but yes it is. The routing is very good, and there are a lot of great holes.

Ian

[Coral_Ridge]

I enjoy looking at all the magazine rankings.  The Golfweek rankings intrigue me  with their Modern and Classic lists.  That being said, I would love to see GW combine the lists into a top 200.

[Brad Klein]

Ross Tartan,

the one-time $100 registration fee covers subscriptions to Golfweek and SuperNews for the duration of the rater's membership as a rater. It also offsets costs of developing a dedicated Website and a 6-time a year printed newsletter that focuses exclusively on the rating process. In neither case does it come close to meeting the true costs of the enterprise.

Raters are required to attend one national meeting every other year. The rate they pay is way below market rate and we break even on the events. The function of these rater events is to educate raters, expose them to three nights of rating-related programming and lectures, and to standardize an understanding of what the ratings are about.

Of course I monitor ratings. I never disagree with a particular course rating but will take raters to task for having dramatically higher or lower than average ratings when it comes to generic categories such as all Modern couirses or all Classical ciourses.

You are grievously misinformed and have no idea what you are talking about.

Brad Klein

[Andrew Summerell]

Of the courses designated to be rated, is there a requirement on raters to have played a certain percentage in the last year or two ?

[A_Clay_Man]

Clearly if there's an email floating around the archie circle that does state the things the poster above says it states, then you know you have touched a nerve of the establishment.

And that is a good thing!

I hope I get it so I could pass it along and have the GW lawyers take a look at it's path and origin. I bet then we'd all get a good laugh on who would use this kind of marketing tool.

[brad_miller]

GW and GM come closest to my own thinking, GM could use a larger pannel IMHO, but my view is that what comes out of GD is way behind these other two. Although in most circles GD still carries the most weight.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Ross, you might work on your bomb throwing before you do it in a public forum. Brad has many more responsibilities in life than trying to micro manage how a rater views each course. I appreciate the time he has given me. I have enjoyed getting to know him and learn from him. I find great pleasure and satisfaction in meeting other raters, sharing thoughts and learning from each other.

[Jim Franklin]

Brad Klein -

That's great that you require your raters to attend events to help them better understand architecture. I know most of the raters are amateurs that love the game so that is a HUGE benefit in my opinion. Are these meetings open to the general public or GCA in particular because I would love to learn more?

I don't care what Ross says, you guys do a good job.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Mr Hurricane,
Some of the events are open to the public.  If you go to Golfweek.com and look under events, you should find listings for some of these activities in 2004.  I will tell you that there are events only open to raters.  

These have been great in the past.  Good Golf, good comeraderie and I might add you are given the opportunity to place your thinking cap firmly on your head.  The evening education sessions can be fascinating.  They have provided the panel with basics of Golf Architecture, budgeting course change, environmental concerns, long term residential/golf development and the direction of golf.  Conversations with Tim Liddy, Tom Fazio and Pete Dye(to name a few) have occurred.  

Each panel has a difficult yet fun task, The GOLFWEEK group has made every attempt to create an educated group.  I might add that I have made great friends with many both the GW and GD panel.  Common interests go a long way to help the conversation.

[Jim Franklin]

Thanks Cos, I will check out the dates for 2004.

[Steve Lapper]

I personally think Maxim and  Victoria's Secret are the ONLY raters I'll ever trust.

That certainly goes for Institutional Investor as well!

[TEPaul]

Golfweek without question.

Belay that--I'd have to say I do question Golfweek too as they actually made me a rater for about a year. Unfortunately, I failed to rate anything during that time and when they asked me why I had to tell them I'd have to resign as a rater as they staunchly refused to pay me the six figure fee I asked for!