Golf Digest: Places to Play

[Doug Ralston]

Apparently GD has not yet [are they going to?] put out the book, as in the past. But it is available on the website. I found lots to love/hate about their rankings ..... and further evidence [to my mind] that they do not always send people. Some of the head-scratchers are to the point of absurdity.

You will love Michigan. 5* includes only Arcadia, Tullymore, and Timberstone. Angel's Crossing got a nice 4.5*, as did Black Lake, Eagle Eye, Red Hawk, and others you hate or love. Doak gets two 4*, Hight Pointe and Black Forest. Greywalls was also 4*. Any head-scratchers for you? Look at my beloved Kentucky and imagine how I feel  . Ranking courses is a weird job, I have to think.

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/places?page=2&sort=&sortDirection=1&query=&limit=&country=USA&region=MI&nearestCity=&cost=&starRating=4&designer=

Doug

[Chip Gaskins]

how is Wild Horse not even ranked in their top 100?

another interesting observation...10 courses are from the myrtle beach region...hmmmm, interesting, interesting

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Nothing more than a popularity contest with ballot stuffing available for owners.

[Cliff Hamm]

Quick comment....many, many courses now ranked 4.5 stars that are clearly not close to 4 stars..

[Richard Hetzel]

To be honest High Pointe is somewhat overrated at 4 *. I played there 2 years ago one day after playing The Bear (which was waaaay overrated, but I digress). Highpointe is a pretty nice course at a great price, but is probably most well known for being Tom's first work of art, rather than one of his better works of art. GD rankings are quite subjective. On the flip side, how in the h*** did MB get 10 courses on there?

Highpointe, June 2006

[Tommy Williamsen]

These are not rankings by GD panelists.  They are observations by any who log on to their site and fill out a questionarre.  It does not pretend to be anything other than a record of how well people like the course, pace of play, etc.

[Carl Nichols]

These are not rankings by GD panelists.  They are observations by any who log on to their site and fill out a questionarre.  It does not pretend to be anything other than a record of how well people like the course, pace of play, etc.

That's exactly right.  As questionnaires go, I find the Zagat course rankings much more useful for the courses in their list (which is a much smaller group than the GD one). 

[John_Conley]

These are not rankings by GD panelists.  They are observations by any who log on to their site and fill out a questionarre.  It does not pretend to be anything other than a record of how well people like the course, pace of play, etc.

Yes Tommy, and it was just a week ago those deriding the GOLFWEEK Municipal list said it would be better to give everyone a voice and pretty much let the process run unchecked.

The GD Places to Play is decent, but not perfect.  That other list I posted two days ago is in another category.

[Andy Troeger]

Apparently GD has not yet [are they going to?] put out the book, as in the past. But it is available on the website. I found lots to love/hate about their rankings ..... and further evidence [to my mind] that they do not always send people. Some of the head-scratchers are to the point of absurdity.

You will love Michigan. 5* includes only Arcadia, Tullymore, and Timberstone. Angel's Crossing got a nice 4.5*, as did Black Lake, Eagle Eye, Red Hawk, and others you hate or love. Doak gets two 4*, Hight Pointe and Black Forest. Greywalls was also 4*. Any head-scratchers for you? Look at my beloved Kentucky and imagine how I feel  . Ranking courses is a weird job, I have to think.

http://www.golfdigest.com/courses/places?page=2&sort=&sortDirection=1&query=&limit=&country=USA&region=MI&nearestCity=&cost=&starRating=4&designer=

Doug

Doug,
As Tommy and others just mentioned, all Golf Digest does for this book is compile the thoughts of thousands of readers like you. Go to the website and submit your ratings, I used to do that occasionally, one of my comments actually made the book, although it wasn't very flattering for the course mentioned.

Unfortunately as time has gone on there's been pretty significant "star" inflation. The great courses might still get a 5, but very mediocre ones get a 4. If truly average facilities got a 3 then it would be a better resource, but that's hard to control when most folks probably rate their home courses and want them to get good scores.

[Greg Chambers]

These rankings never fail to show how stupid the majority of golfers really are.