Jordan,

Could you be a sweetheart and do some research for me...Which of the 5 star courses mentioned above are also in one of Golfweek's top 100 lists...also, is Kapalua...

I was also dismayed to see that they ignored Tobacco Road and Black Mesa...among others.

No question, a few headscratchers got in, more often than not, some Fazios...like TPC MB.  That is not a five star course...unless you use a seven star rating system.

I am a little surprised that TPC Myrtle Beach got 5 stars from the readers. I have played there a handful of times and liked it, but not 5 stars worth.

Jordan:  I've never submitted "ratings" for Places to Play.  I am a course rating panelist for the Best New Courses and Top 100 in the US lists, and I figure that's enough.  In that context, yes I did submit a form for Kapalua Plantation course and it got damn near all high marks.  It got among the lowest I've ever given for walkability, but that's to be expected.

The Places to Play list is done completely differently, as you've seen.  I do continue to believe it has value.  If I were to submit something for that, man lots of the 5 stars I see wouldn't get such because they're too damn expensive.  Remember "value" is supposed to count.  It's tough for me to give high value ratings for courses that cost $250+ to play... But I've harped on that way too much elsewhere.

Jay:  it's quite possible not enough people submitted ratings for Black Mesa or Tobacco Road - Places to Play does remain a total crapshoot.  Take it for what it's worth - a decent barometer only.

TH

As others have stated, "Places to Play" is a place to start and compiled by the readers. I remember playing my friend's course in Howie-in-the-hills FL and two people got hit in the head by wayward shots that day. The course was built in a relatively small area. When I got back home, "Places to Play" was in my mailbox and I looked up his course and one of the quotes was "where a helmet". I would say he was pretty accurate.

I think I know that course.

Take it for what it's worth - a decent barometer only.

TH

Exactly.

Please remember...

The purpose of the list is NOT to provide a barometer for golf course architecture.

 

Aye, but here's the rub... if I'm going to a given area and either can't or won't rely on connections to set me up... meaning I'm in the public realm, on my own dime... Especially considering my reality (normal for many) that I also have not much TIME available to play....

I'd rely on Places to Play far more than any recommendation based on golf course architecture alone.

And therein lies the worth.

TH

There seems to be some glitches in the rating system though.
I checked out the profile for Pacific Grove http://www.golfdigest.com/placestoplay/index.ssf?COURSE_ID=5547 and discovered that it got 2.0 in walkability rating.

Maybe it is something wrong with me... but I look on PG as a really walkable course.

...but perhaps ratings were submitted by a solid group of folks who just hated going through the parking lot and across the street from 9 green to 10 tee.

The first rule about Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club  

SL:

Wise counsel.  Just understand it's tough to leave undefended someone (thing) that one values who (which) is having his (its) integrity impugned, for completely invalid reasons.  Jordan and others keep saying Golf Digest did this, Golf Digest missed that.  I'm just trying to get them to assess this based on how it actually works, not on how they THINK it does.

 

In any case, when have we EVER considered courses based on architecture alone?  And more importantly, why should we?

TH

The Digest "Places to Play" booklet is nothing more than the collective wisdom (I wince when typing that) of Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass.

I take it for what it's worth -- very little.

Too much of the assessment comes in areas that have little direct tie to the design qualities associated with the courses. I mean some people get off if the beer isn't cold or if there name isn't remembered by everyone from the time they enter the grounds until they get into the car.

I salute some of the winners because their architecture supports it (e.g. Pacific Dunes, to name just one).

Andy / Cary are both correct. Use the info at your peril because too many of the "rated" gems are there for nothing more than style and hype. The substance of quality architecture is simply included among the many items that were weighed. Frankly, if Paa-Ko Ridge is a five-star layout than Black Mesa deserves nothing less.

Let me give a perfect example...I think Bandon Trails is a better course than Bandon Dunes.  Bandon Dunes will forever be loved by the public more...All that makes me is a pompous ass, not more clever, not smarter...just an ass.  I'm starting to get sick of my own voice telling my friends how great Bandon Trails is when I know they will like Bandon Dunes more...I'm done with it..

Jordan,

Are you sure Arcadia and Paa-Ko aren't on the list...

John:

You're are soooooo right.

Mea culpa on my part.

I tip my hat to the tastes of the Joe Sixpacks of this world. How dare I presume a remote ability to be above such a collective sense of enlightment on golf courses.