GOLF Magazine's Top 100

[Clark]

I just received the Top 100 issue of Golf Magazine.  Quite a disappointment -- it looks like they too have sold out to the Rees Jones crowd.  It is absoultely ridiculous that East Lake, Ocean Forest and Nantucket are in the world top 100.  Is one of those even close to Huntingdon Valley, Philly CC, The Creek, Piping Rock, etc.?!?  Is there not even ONE legit ranking out there??

[Ran Morrissett]

Are you sure that is GOLF Magazine's rankings you are talking about?? Their world rankings have always come out in the October issue, and mid August just seems awfully early.

[Sandy_Barrens_Jr.]

The only one with any real accuracy is Golfweek's America's Best Top 100 Modern and Classical.The rest are nothing more then travel logs for courses wanting publicity in the rankings.Can you imagine, Rees' Nantucket over the Valley Club at Montecito or Crystal Downs?  That is a real accurate rating for sure! Ugh!

[John Morrissett]

I just picked up a copy at the newstand last night.  While it is good to see some deserving courses getting their due (e.g., Cruden Bay at #52 in the world), the rankings do, overall, appear to be becoming more similar to the dreaded Golf Digest list, with modern, undeserving designs attracting more than their share of the attention. (Maybe I'm overreacting as most of these are toward the bottom of the list -- the top 43 seem awfully solid.)I was quite surprised to see Bethpage (Black) shoot up to #49 in the world.  While some can't stand Rees's work to it, I think it's good.  It certainly deserves to be among the world Top 100, but the Top 50?  Would you really prefer to play Bethpage over Maidstone on your next trip to Long Island???  

[Charles Ebains]

Unfortunately for all of those who would like to see a list of the 100 best without George Peper's biased input we'll have to look elsewhere.  Rees Jones and George are nearly best friends. I have played East Lake, Ocean Forest, Bethpage Black, Nantucket, Haig Point, Congressional Blue, and Hazeltine.  They all are boring.  Clearly his reputation has been falsely enhanced by his "Open Doctor" label.  Don't be surprised if George and Rees are seen playing a future U. S. Open site with their other best friend, David Fay.  Fay recommends to the future site they hire Rees to renovate the course (at the club's expense) and Peper writes about it in his magazine.  Quite a business they've got.  

[Ran Morrissett]

I take it that the first GolfClubAtlas Retreat will not be held at Haig Point.A part from the Rees factor, what are the other surprises (good and bad) from GOLF's latest effort?

[Scott Kraus]

I haven't seen it yet but a friend read some of the rankings to me over the phone. The courses with spectacular settings - Whistling Straits, Banden Dunes, and Old Head in Ireland - all made it in. Basically, my take on the three magazines is this:Golf Digest: hopeless. Use "tradition" as a way to manipulate their rankings to their satisfaction. Trying to use any point system is a joke. One good attribute: they provide a chart that shows how courses fare in the poll over time.Golf Week: good end result largely because Klein manipulates the end ballot (no way it is a coincidence that Pete Dye GC finishes second in the modern courses and his book jacket features a hole from there). GOLF Magazine: Only mag to do a world ranking, plus they have assembled the best panel of the three. Who cares what Golf Digest's 600 idiots think? Generally, GOLF treats the classics (Yale, Bethpage, etc.) with the respect they deserve. For that reason alone, they are the best, but we will have to see the new issue.  

[Chuck Price]

Golf Magazine has the best panel? Excuse, committee as the editor calls it now. So, how about Matt Lauer and Bryant Gumbel? Why isn't Charles Gibson from Good Morning America a panelist?? Then all three networks would be covered.Art Hills and Rees Jones? Herb Kohler? Hal Philips the a PR guy for several architects? How about just golfers who know architecture and have a keen eye? Drop the celebs and people with agendas, huh?

[Scott Kraus]

Are you kidding? Matt Lauer and Gumbel? Are they new? What is going on?

[Tony Dowling]

Would any of you Yanks let me know how we fared down here? Last go-around, Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, Victoria, Royal Adelaide, and NSW made it in with Commonwealth and Hope Island closing fast.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tony,The Aussie courses fared as follows: RM No.9 (down 4), Kingston Heath (27, down 2), NSW (steady at 43), Royal Adelaide (85, down 13), and Victoria dropped off the list. No new ones were added. Paraparaumu Beach remained at no. 79.Cheers,

[Charles Ebain]

I have just seen "Golf Magazines's" course rankings.  I also saw their list of panelists.  I don't know which list is more out of wack.  Having architects like Alliss, Cupp, Doak, (Alice) Dye, Fry, Rees Jones, Bob Jones, Nicklaus, Norman, Palmer, Player, Weiskopf and several developers as well as magazine staff such as Peper, McCallen and Strange clearly presents a conflict of interest.  No way Ocean Forest, East Lake, Nantucket, Atlantic, Bethpage Black, Congressional Blue or any Rees Jones' course is top 100 in this country much less the world. And what about ranking Baltusrol Lower, Oak Hill East, Southern Hills, TPC at Sawgrass, Inverness as high as they do?  Are they nuts? At least "Golf Digest" dropped Bethpage Black from its top 100.  Looks like Peper is vindicating GD's ranking and the USGA's Open choice in 2002.  What a pity.  Yes, it's a very good (public) course, but what does Rees really accomplish with his landscaping techniques?  When is the Walker Cup going to be played at Nantucket, in 2009 instead of Merion?[Note:  David]

[TJ]

Charles,I agree and disagree.I agree with your points on championship courses: places like Southern Hills, Inverness, Baltusrol Lower don't turn me on either. Give me the Valley Club or Cruden Bay or Lahinch any day!! Championship courses with their insistence on perfect line of sight, etc lack inspiration.I also agree with your point on Rees Jones for the same reason above - he provides perfect visuals but a sense of adventure is absent from any of his courses. Clearly though, others like it, which makes me wonder if they have seen all the wild and rugged courses in the UK that make the game so great. Their opinions may change after they  enjoy the kind of heightened fun that only a "Lahinch-type" course can bring. I disagree with your points about Peper, MaCallen etc being on the ballot. They have seen hundreds and hundreds of courses; who better than them to cast a vote? They also have a vested interest in the magazine and if the result is a joke, they are the one's who lose.  Peper certainly doesn't receive anything different from running the Top 100 than he does simply by being the Editor.Also, your comment on architects and developers being on the Committee. I assume you know that nobody is allowed to vote on a course that they designed or have a large financial stake in? Thus, Herb Kohler cannot vote for Whistling and Nicklaus can't vote for Cabo del Sol. However, since you listed them out, I will say there does indeed appear to be too many architects for the Committee's own good.

[Ben DeLow]

Ocean Forest goes up 41 spots on the US Gofl list in two years?? Rees is a nice guy, but come on!

[Charles Ebain]

In response to TJ, I did realize that no architect may cast a vote for his own work...but do you think Rees Jones would ever cast a vote for any other living architect?  I know him and can tell you that he is not one to applaud anyone else's work.  Insofar as Peper and McCallen, why even have a panel?  Peper is going to rank everything the way he wants.  I see he's still trying to get in Pine Valley by ranking it first.  He must be an R&A member as the Old Course is higher than Muirfield.Glad that atleast one panelist is legit: Ran Morrissett!

[T. Doak]

I wish everyone would stop assuming that everything connected with golf course rankings is political.  I'm not sure I like the direction the additions to the panel are taking, but the thing's not fixed.I spent the last four years telling them the panel was getting top-heavy with architects, but they are all among the most well-traveled of panelists.  And their presence does buffer against too many modern courses -- as you said, Rees isn't likely to vote for Spanish Bay.  But if that's too much influence, how do you explain all the modern courses which made the list?All modern courses tend to come on high, then fade down the list as more panelists go to see them.  Just like Tony Gwynn can hit .400 through June some years, but eventually falls back to .350.Herb Kohler is a good guy, but he never should have participated in this, because it makes Whistling Straits' lofty position look suspicious.  And I know a lot about charges of conflict of interest!

[John Sessions]

Mr. Doak,You started the world top 100 in or around 1982. My guess is the panel was "stronger" (ie more knowledgeable) then than now. Would you agree? Was Bob McCoy hanging around like bad breath then as well?  Also what would constitute the ideal panel? To me, it would more around 35-40 people than the present 100. Of those 35, 4-5 would be architects, 4-5 journalists, 15-20 good single digit players from all over the world, 4-5 professionals, and the rest others.

[Ted_Sturges]

To Mr. Sessions,Why does one need to be a low handicap player to be considered a good panelist?  Just curious.

[Ran Morrissett]

Ted,I personally agree with John. My answer to your question would be this: by and large, low markers can better appreciate intricate details and nuasances. I can prove it: the people who don't "get" Pinehurst No. 2 and St. Andrews are invariably high markers where a two foot mound near or in a green complex doesn't hold any terror (and as we know, something that innocuous can be the most diabolical of challenges).

[Ben DeLow]

Your argument regarding low handicappers makes sense. On the other hand, most good players I know analyze a course in terms of "fairness" and how it matches up with their game, and often aren't aware of certain subtlties. Particularly modern day low handicappers who have very little appreciation for the game and who have grown up on Fazio's bland courses or Nicklaus's recent stuff. And most low handicappers can only judge a course on difficulty and what they shoot. Just look at the Golf Digest list. Mostly low handicappers. They love the hard, pretty stuff that is "fair."

[Ran Morrissett]

Ben,I agree. Maybe the full correct description  is a "low handicap tradionalist"? Or maybe the easiest thing to do is ask them their thoughts on Lahinch. If they don't love it, you can inform them a village is being deprived of an idiot somewhere.

[E. Quinox]

Why are you guys so surprised that Golf Magazine has turned into a Rees Jones schmoozefest? The "Contributing Editor" who compiled the ranking did consulting work with Rees at a nice old Travis course in Vermont! I'm just surprised they didn't get  Equinox ranked so it could be listed as a Rees Jones/Gary Galyean redesign. The consulting combination must not have reestored it good enough.

[Ted_Sturges]

Ran,Under your theory, Seth Raynor and Dr. MacKenzie would not have been qualified to be on your panel.  What a pity.  

[Cliff R.]

And there is no way that gruff old Scot MacKenzie could have been unbiased! He'd make a lousy panelist!

[George Blunt]

RanIn your view should the low handicapper be required to actually play to their handicap to qualify as a panelist?  Golf Magazine may end up one panelist short if this was the case, unless of course 3 foot downhill putts really are gimmees!  My own inability to play within 10 shots of my handicap need not be mentioned in your reply.