Course Rankings - A Different Take

[Bill_McBride]

To be honest, I don't think I knew what magazine used those categories when I replied. They don't make sense to me for any rankings. It is not a golf digest thing with me. GD may be the best, I don't know. I just know that the ability to walk a course does not make it any better than one that you can't.

I guess that depends on whether you have to ride because of club policies (i.e. income stream?) or because of a housing development routing with 1/2 mile between green and next tee.  The ability to walk a course means a lot to me either way.  All the great courses I've played, with a few exceptions, are very walkable.

[Jim Nugent]

I brought up Riviera.  I'm not qualified to rank these courses, as I haven't seen or played enough of them.  Still it really interests me that GD ranks Riv 61, while GM ranks it 19.  How big an actual difference is there supposed to be between 61 and 19 on the GD or GM list?   

[John Kavanaugh]

I brought up Riviera.  I'm not qualified to rank these courses, as I haven't seen or played enough of them.  Still it really interests me that GD ranks Riv 61, while GM ranks it 19.  How big an actual difference is there supposed to be between 61 and 19 on the GD or GM list?   

The difference is that Golf Digest raters read Geoff Shackelford's blog while Geoff reads Golf Magazine raters bylines.