Golf Digest's 2003 Ratings

[Bob_Heafy]

Does anyone have the advance word on Golf Digest's 2003 top-100 course ratings?  I called the magazine, but they wouldn't give me the ratings.  The issue will hit the streets in a couple of days.

[Mike_Cirba]

I believe their #1 course will start with the letter "P".  

Hope they get the right one this time.  

[THuckaby2]

It's gonna be very interesting to see, Mike.  The way I look at it, I win either way!  If it's "our P", I chortle about being #1... if it's "your P", I chortle about GD getting things "right"...

Jeez I love win-win situations and I do so love to chortle.  

I gather you're back to the real world?

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Yes, back to the salt mines for me this week.   Still, it was nice to spend a week in heaven.  

At least if GD is going to pick a course of "yours", it should start with a C, wouldn't you agree??  I walked Pebble last week and it's certainly a fine course, but it's certainly no C or "my" P by a long stretch!

Thanks again for your help last week.  I'll share more about Bandon soon.  

Also, it will be VERY interesting to see where Bandon and Pacific fall respectively on the new GD list.  My somewhat dubious prediction is that Bandon will come out ahead.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Also, I'd even settle for "our" S, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell, given it's current laughable languishing spot somewhere around 35 on that list.  

How can one of the most traditional courses on the planet get almost no "tradition" points?  Sheesh!  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Mike Cirba....does PD qualify under the Golf Digest rules for years open prior to inclusion?  

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bandon ahead of Pacific on the dubious use of 'Resistance to Scoring'.  Resistance is one of the most damaging of all rating qualifications.  It has resulted in a pursuit of length and resulting boredom in much of course design in the last couple of decades of the 20th century.  

The idea that GD can muster enough players to judge difficulty from the tips of 7300 yard golf courses is ludicrous.

[THuckaby2]

The situation re OUR "S" continues to mystify me, Mike.  I've heard all the same justifications you have and none make sense to me either.  Oh well....

Now re the certain C that we played in Mr. Huntley's "stiff breeze", well... I believe you know my feelings there.  It rotates with our S and our N as to #1 on my personal list, depending on my mood.  Oh yes, if that jumped to #1 it would make home-boy me very happy... not as happy as if OUR S somehow got this distinction, as it should, but certainly I'd let out a chortle.

But as for MY P, well... we've bludgeoned it to death too much already.  Let's just say I do love it so, playing there is a joy always, and if it did remain #1 in the GD list, it would make me happy just for the anguised sigh I'd hear from redanman.  

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Cos;

I'm not sure if Pacific is old enough to qualify.  I know courses used to have to wait something like five years for the GD list, but in 2001 they included Bandon Dunes (opened in 1999) at number 41, so obviously that's changed.  I'm not sure what the new requirement is, though.

As far as "resistance to scoring", I found it funny that despite almost 700 yards in difference from the tips, as well as the somewhat dubious 150 slope rating of BD from there, most of the people I spoke with at our outing last week (including low handicappers) found PD to be tougher, and more "resistant" to medal scoring.  

[THuckaby2]

Hmmm... as for BD v. PD... I truly doubt BD will come out ahead.  We'll see.  Looking at ALL the criteria, PD wins on most.  Yes, maybe BD does come out ahead on Resistance to Scoring, although I didn't rate it that way, I can see how some might.  But that's just one out of 10 criteria....  The main point is I have to believe BOTH will make the top 100, both ranked damn high, and that in and of itself is a great thing.  

BTW Cos, GD raters are required to have a 3 index or less.  Not saying this is right or good or anything, but it is the rule.  Of course I personally push that as the putts fall and I range into the 4's, but let's leave me out of this...    The point is I find it VERY easy to believe that GD raters can assess resistance to scoring from the tips, being the good players they are.  You'd have a much better argument saying we can't do "fun from the whites" or "fun for all players" if such criteria existed.

TH

[THuckaby2]

redanman:  I know, I do so love to tweak you though about this one.  It goes both ways, so very cool.  

Mike - interesting you guys generally found PD to be tougher.. the relative ratings would indicate that at least from the tips, BD is two strokes tougher.  Of course ratings are done with "normal summer" conditions in mind, so that means summer wind... JV did the ratings there, as redanman said he did comment on this.  But when I was there, we all found BD to be significantly tougher, particularly from the back tees.  Of course we got normal wind and relative warmth - not the brutal wind and rain and low temps you guys apparently got.  I could see how in SEVERE conditions, PD might be tougher, as you'd make no putts and pay dearly for missing greens... but in normal conditions I have to believe BD is the tougher course.

TH

[JohnV]

Tom,  Bandon has been re-rated since I was there so I don't accept any blame or credit for the current numbers.  I know that one other person who was on that original rating team has some questions about the current rating.  I really haven't thought much about the correctness of it because like the rankings of courses there is some amount of personal taste involved.

[THuckaby2]

Very cool, understood JV.  Damn that must have been a tough rating to do... so much going on, so much wind to consider...

TH

[JohnV]

Tom When we did the rating, it was in pouring rain in October of 1998.  After getting soaked for 9 holes the men came up with a great way to do the rating.  We took a couple of waterproof radios and 2 of us went on the course and radioed all the information back to 2 others who staying in the little trailer that was all they had in those days.  They looked up the numbers in the books and recorded them.  It worked great, but the women still think we cheated.  But, the next day it was sunny and we got to play while they finished the 8 holes they didn't get to on the first day.  The got especially made when we came up to the 17th tee and they were still there arguing about their numbers for 16 and I asked, "Mind if we play through."

The first guesses for the wind were wrong, but I looked them up on the Cape Arago Lighthouse web site and we got the correct numbers.

[THuckaby2]

That is absolutely CLASSIC and a lesson for us all in practical, creative thinking, JV.  Hurrah and huzzah for the OGA course rating team!

Interesting side-note:  here in NorCal, the women do their ratings backwards - that is, start at the green and work back.  Very viable way to do it, as you know.  What was interesting was the day both groups were at Silver Creek Valley last summer, and we intersected... I choose that word purposefully and carefully... It was actually very fun.  Lots of good natured crap-giving, as you can imagine.  

TH

[JohnV]

We would do ratings backwards if there were a lot of players on the course.  It meant you didn't disturb a group more than once.  Otherwise you can get stuck with the same group for 2 or 3 holes which is unfair to them.  Sometimes I liked doing it that way, but I think I prefer going forward if the prep work has been done properly.

[THuckaby2]

Based on my limited year of experience, I'm with you, JV - normal forward direction makes better sense.  That is good advice for a crowded course though... I'll tactfully remind the captains of that next time that occurs.  We had one horrifying one last year where sticking with one group is exactly what happened... not exactly good for association/player relations!

TH