Why does "Best New" matter?

[Thomas Dai]

Ego and vanity seem pretty common in golf (life?) and what is seen as old style by one generation was once the new style of another.
Atb

[Derek_Duncan]

I don't know if "Best New" matters other than to those involved in the course's creation, but I personally enjoy and look forward to all the golf course lists.


It's entertaining to me, I'm smart enough to apply my own filters and raitonale to the results, and it gets plenty of people excited about golf courses and maybe traveling somewhere new to play them.

[Dave Doxey]

With so few new courses, 'best new' list could be replaced with reviews & ranking of all of the handfull of new courses.


Golf mags used to contain well-written & well-researched content.  Now they mostly have 'best equipment from manufacturers who might buy ads here', or 'best resort courses advertising in this issue'. Ever see a review of a $20 putter?  I stopped readlng online golf mag sites when they started including articles on non-golf sports, like NFL football.


The '100 best of all time' lists are interesting the first time that one reads them, but the annual repeat publication seems to have minor changes that statistically don't mean much. Ranking changes might be driven by any number of reasons, most unrelated to the course itself.

[JESII]

Miss America was also voted Most Attractive in her high school class of 25 kids...my class had 500.

[Peter Pallotta]

Miss America was also voted Most Attractive in her high school class of 25 kids...my class had 500.

[JESII]

Didn’t leave you speechless, did I brother?

[Mike_Young]

With so few new courses, 'best new' list could be replaced with reviews & ranking of all of the handfull of new courses.


Golf mags used to contain well-written & well-researched content.  Now they mostly have 'best equipment from manufacturers who might buy ads here', or 'best resort courses advertising in this issue'. Ever see a review of a $20 putter?  I stopped readlng online golf mag sites when they started including articles on non-golf sports, like NFL football.


The '100 best of all time' lists are interesting the first time that one reads them, but the annual repeat publication seems to have minor changes that statistically don't mean much. Ranking changes might be driven by any number of reasons, most unrelated to the course itself.

That's what I'm getting to...just ell everyone about what's new and don't hype it as "Best" etc...

[Peter Pallotta]

Didn’t leave you speechless, did I brother?

I had a long, windy post there - quoting you and then riffing on it.
But you know how I've often written that you can say more in one line than I do in ten?
Well, this time at least, I decided to erase all proof of that fact, and just leave in your "one line".
Trust me: nothing lost...
Best
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

We all know the world runs on lists and I would venture to say everyone here uses lists of some kind every day (also ranked lists).  From what you do first when you get up in the morning to what is most important for you to do or accomplish that day. 


It might be silly to rank "the best" new courses with such a small number of participants but human nature loves rankings and winners.  Many of us will watch the Super Bowl.  Why not call it a tie for the best with the final two teams that make it there 😊


People need a winner.  That gives them something to talk about. 

[JMEvensky]

Didn’t leave you speechless, did I brother?

I had a long, windy post there - quoting you and then riffing on it.
But you know how I've often written that you can say more in one line than I do in ten?
Well, this time at least, I decided to erase all proof of that fact, and just leave in your "one line".
Trust me: nothing lost...
Best
Peter

I read it and thought it was one of your better stream of consciousness riffs--but what do I know?

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike - my wife says it matters because America is currently ruled by old white men. And to old white men, if you can’t count “it”, or weight “it”, or measure “it”, or rank “it”... “it” doesn’t mean anything.

It’s the way we give “meaning” to things, don’t you know!

[Sean_A]

With so few new courses, 'best new' list could be replaced with reviews & ranking of all of the handfull of new courses.


Golf mags used to contain well-written & well-researched content.  Now they mostly have 'best equipment from manufacturers who might buy ads here', or 'best resort courses advertising in this issue'. Ever see a review of a $20 putter?  I stopped readlng online golf mag sites when they started including articles on non-golf sports, like NFL football.


The '100 best of all time' lists are interesting the first time that one reads them, but the annual repeat publication seems to have minor changes that statistically don't mean much. Ranking changes might be driven by any number of reasons, most unrelated to the course itself.

That's what I'm getting to...just ell everyone about what's new and don't hype it as "Best" etc...

I like this, but wouldn't mind if the writers added their thoughts. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

What bothers me about that list (or all the other rankings) is that they have stifled and supplanted actual discussion about golf architecture.  The courses are discussed in vague general terms, but there are no details.  Tara Iti is rated #6 outside the USA and there is a long article on GOLF DIGEST's online platform that discusses it, without mention of a single golf hole or feature of the course; it's all about our client and the site and the view.


When Ballyneal opened it was the #6 Best New Private Course of that YEAR, according to GOLF DIGEST.  I don't know what were [size=78%]the five that beat it, but they aren't beating it now, and the reason is all about the golf holes.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]It is sad that rankings have taken the place of actual reviews and criticism.[/size]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Don't hype things?  In a Utopian world, maybe, but not this one.


Tom,


It would be interesting to try to compare the 1920's to today in terms of actual discussion.  Yes, you had a dozen writers or so that would focus on architecture sometimes. But in those days, there were very few response mechanisms.


I don't see more discussion coming any time soon.  Call it the USA Today syndrome if you will.  Attention spans have dropped a bunch in the last decade. Cite the influence of the current political climate, where politicians don't discuss more....but it seems they discuss louder. 


Even on this gca specific discussion site, as I write this, 3 of the current top 10 threads are related to rankings - This one, MN course rankings, and Precedence for more acclaim.  Others are about top ranked courses, probably over hyped courses, like PGA West.


If you, Mike or I started an esoteric thread on design philosophy, few would answer.  Many would do so by posting examples from a top ranked course.......

[Mark Pritchett]

When Ballyneal opened it was the #6 Best New Private Course of that YEAR, according to GOLF DIGEST.  I don't know what were the five that beat it, but they aren't beating it now, and the reason is all about the golf holes.

Concession
Forest Creek-North
Carlton Woods
Champions Retreat
3 Creek Ranch

[Sean_A]

If you, Mike or I started an esoteric thread on design philosophy, few would answer.  Many would do so by posting examples from a top ranked course.......

Isn't the nature of esoteric that few people understand the subject matter?  The subject of golf architecture is obscure enough  ...why try to make things more obfuscated?  Then again, if so many real examples exist, maybe the topic isn't terribly esoteric.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Best New is not Best Gonna Be. If I am going to trust a magazine editor I would like the courses he tells me to play have grass on the fairways and greens.

[JESII]

But it could...


How many courses were built the year Pine Valley opened?

[Kalen Braley]

Tom D,


Not to be a negative nellie here, but I don't think most people are really interested in getting into the specifics like we are.


Consider GCA.com.  Membership of 1500 and perhaps only 150-200 are actively participating at any given point in time.  I haven't spoken with Ran on this, but I suspect there isn't a waiting list to join the site.

[Tom_Doak]

When Ballyneal opened it was the #6 Best New Private Course of that YEAR, according to GOLF DIGEST.  I don't know what were the five that beat it, but they aren't beating it now, and the reason is all about the golf holes.

Concession
Forest Creek-North
Carlton Woods
Champions Retreat
3 Creek Ranch

Wow.  Thanks for looking that up; I've always said I'm not on board with GOLF DIGEST's definition of greatness and I guess that proves it.


Tumble Creek was 7th best New that year - they sent me a sweater to commemorate it   Stone Eagle was 9th.  We were actually building Sebonack the same time as these, but it wasn't voted on til the next year.

[Tom_Doak]

Best New is not Best Gonna Be. If I am going to trust a magazine editor I would like the courses he tells me to play have grass on the fairways and greens.

FWIW, conditioning scores are omitted by GOLF DIGEST in the Best New rankings.


I've played award winners that had a green or two with no grass on them ... Stonehouse because of shade issues, and Cape Wickham due to salt spray. 

[jeffwarne]

there is a long article on GOLF DIGEST's online platform that discusses it, without mention of a single golf hole or feature of the course; it's all about our client and the site and the view.

You forgot to mention "experience" and exclusivity.