Highly ranked courses considering all the controversy vs places you just enjoyed

[Dan Byrnes]

Well I am a new member here, so be gentle.  I have been a guest lurker for a long while and read with interest the controversy surrounding the rankings by the golf magazines.  While I don't yet have the knowledge of architecture that many here do and likely never will,  I have played  a couple of handfulls of these highly rated courses.  In the end I guess with my lack of knowledge how to rate a course I walk away with the thought if I lived here would I want to be a member of this place as my yard stick.  Some of my most enjoyable golf experiences have been at more unheralded gems than top ranked courses.

I can't ever see how any ranking system can really work.  There seems all sorts of bias.  While I'll likely never play it can there really be any doubt part of Alotian's high initial rating is tied to the family who built it and it's ties to a famous course that is holding a little invitational this week?  It very well may be a terrific place but I can bet if it was owned by me it wouldn't see such a lofty rank.  

[Mac Plumart]

All the rankings systems have specific criteria that help determine which courses will make their list.  I believe the year maintenance became a Golf Digest criteria Augusta National became #1.  That makes sense to me. 

There are a lot of issues with the ratings/rankings, but I find most people bash them without studying them to find out why certain courses places differently on different lists.  Having said that, are there issues.  Sure.  Always will be.

On the Alotian, I've only seen pictures.  It looks darn good to me.  I think there is a real golf course there.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

Welcome! It comes down to the difference between best and favorite.  Your favorite course might be a quirky little gem that has a great membership and atmosphere and is a ton of fun to play for your game but might be too short or easy to test big-hitters, etc....