Is there any mention of the new criteria Joe said he was going to implement in 2006..

Looks like Pete Dye is doing well on the public side with 7 of the top 30 courses.

Throw in a couple of former Dye employees at your up to at least 11 of the top 30. (3 C&C, 1 Doak)

Not bad for an insurance agent.  

Or a guy on the panel..Here is a rater quandry...All raters should always pay...Pete Dye should never pay...what to do, what to do..

Mike,

You can only play the Crosswater at Sunriver by staying at one of the lodges on the property, so the general public cannot just walk up to pay and play. Does that still count?

I too am surprised by the omission of Tobacco Road and Barona.

For those staunch defenders of Chicago golf, this list says it all.

From what I can tell, there's only the one.

Since i'm not up to date on the likes of a "Dancing Rabbit", I don't know what state it's in. If there's another course on this list from the Chicago area, my point will still hold.

Now, if we can get it up to 3%, I may retract.

Since i'm not up to date on the likes of a "Dancing Rabbit", I don't know what state it's in.

That's okay Adam.  I doubt many people in Mississippi have heard of Ballyneal.

Craig,

Stay + Play = Public

Mike

Bandon now lays claim to almost 1/3 of the top ten public courses (according to Golf Magazine).  That's a fantastic achievement.  Kudos Mike Keiser et al.

A remarkable achievement.  A hearty congratulations to all involved with Bandon!

A couple of observations:

I'm very glad to see Pasatiempo moving up to such a lofty spot.  Ditto for Cuscowilla and Black Mesa.  Where is Talking Stick North?

Like others, I would love to see a Top 100 under $50.

Bandon is an expensive trip, but not when compared to Pebble or Pinehurst.

One further thought:  could we collectively give the rater controversy a two week sabbatical?  It is tired and badly needs a vacation.       Disclaimer:  I am not, have never been, and don't want to be a rater.    

I have many friends that are raters, I hope I don't lose any by this post.

I cannot for the life of me understand why a private club, with no need to raise money for improvements or to assist their members in lowering costs, would want to have their course rated or ranked.

A commercial enterprise yes, but an old line club, no.

I could care less if my club was ranked number one or a thousand and one.

To grant access and freebies to the over one thousand raters of the three major golf periodicals, whose commercial success is tied into this service does grate on this writer.

When my children visit, if I want them to play at a discounted rate we wait until the afternoon. For some reason raters play for free. I find this unacceptable.

Am I being a curmudgeon?

Bob

The short answer is EGO. Bragging to one's friend about jumping his club in the ratings... priceless.

I can attest that of these 1000+ raters the manner in which each approach their assignment can be at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. There are those who you never know they were there until after the round when they come in and discuss the course and freely share their thoughts and those that request reservaitons months in advance and consideration for their position on panel X. Not saying either or is right or wrong but little or no uniformity to the process which, honestly, is probably best.

For the gentlemen who implied Pinehurst #2 at No. 6 on the list is too high please elaborate. In your elaboration please provide a single example of a golf course that can accommodate 200+ average players per day without beating them up and at the same time, with minimal preparations, provide one of the sternest tests for today's rouring professional. in my book that constitutes a great course. Just one guy's opinion.
 

In their section entitled "Ten to Watch" they list the following:

The Tribute

What course is this?  Are they talking about the C&C course near Bend, OR, which doesn't open until at least 2007?

Interesting list.  I haven't gotten my magazine yet -do they say HOW these rankings were arrived at?  Is it same Golf Mag panel as always, same criteria?  

Just curious.

As for PD being better than PB, well... it's close enough so that no huge argument can be made either way.  Hats off to the Bandon folks as this is one hell of an honor.  And yes, make your tee-times NOW.  If 2007 wasn't already fully-booked (and last we checked it was damn close) it will be once this gets out and is more widespread.

It will also be very interesting to watch how the prices go up there... might not they start charging a premium for PD?  We shall see....

As for Mr. Huntley's lament - no, you are not being a curmudgeon at all, Bob.  Just understand that most "old-line" clubs don't kow-tow to and comp raters, because they don't need to, don't give a hoot - and that's how it should be.  Yours just did for a little while because someone there apparently decided they did care to see how the Shore re-do stacked up.  Now that that course is no longer "new", this is no longer an issue.  The club will be quite justified to tell raters to take a hike.

Just don't do such to us NCGA raters, OK?  You do want course rating and slope still.

 

Public is public...  If anyone can walk up and plunk down the coin and play the course (providing they are property dressed  !), then it's a public course.  Last I checked we're still dealing with a free-market system where prices are set by demand.  

By that measure if Pebble has no available tee times (which generally is the case) then it is setting the price too low as demand>supply.  Scotsman Adam Smith would nae be happy

Wayne,

That is all very well if your membership is trolling for new members, we are not. We have a waiting list of some four to five years. In fact the Board has not increased the inititiation fee for something like seven years , much to the chagrin of some members.

Bob