Huck,

I do understand your reluctance perfectly.  I do wish that more GD panelists would participate here and defend the list and then we'd have some pretty good debate.  

Before you get upset with David Carroll, please remember that he's good friends with Jim Franklin, another GD panelist.

We all like bustin' balls a bit and you love it yourself.    

Mike  

Quote from: David Stamm on March 28, 2007, 10:46:29 AM

Well, to just name two Hucks, and mind you, I haven't played hardly any of these, Riviera 61? Is Victoria National (no disrespect JK) 40 spots better than Riviera? Muirfield Village at 18? Is that 20 spots better than SFGC? I'm not sure.

And James, we'll see how long I last.  As one of the few and the proud Golf Digest panelists participating here, I usually defend our list for an hour or two before I get beaten down.  I may not even try that hard this time... it's rather counterproductive - like being a Christian missionary in Baghdad.  But we'll see.....

 

Tom,
Gotta agree with you there, I'm going to give this a shot but don't plan on lasting too long myself

I've said many times on here (as has Jim Franklin) that I loved Kingsley and think its worthy of the top 100. However, a course is not going to jump from #20 in Michigan to the top 100 in two years. There's unfortunately too many panelists that evidently did not like the place for it to jump much until their ratings expire...at least that's my guess. The sooner the better though...

some others which fails to explain BCC omission in terms of comparabilty especially as they are Tillies and ranked around BCC in GW:

Winged Foot East
GD 43
GW 36

Baltusrol Lower
GD 44
GW 38

BCC (east)
GD nr
GW 31

AGAIN, PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS JOKE OF A MAGAZINE AND THE STUPID PROCESS.

Quote from: Ryan Farrow on March 28, 2007, 11:35:19 AM

Has anyone else noticed the ARCHITECTS are getting no love on the public side? I guess who designs the course is of no importance to these guys.

Why should the architect be important?  Shouldn't this be all about the product?

Yea who am I kidding. These guys deserve no credit for what they are doing.

Huck

Keep on yuckin'!  We need you on this fateful day......

In the interim, can anybody who has played both tell me why Riviera might possibly be better than Dallas National?  "Just because!" is not a valid answer.

Paging Lou Duran.

Farnsworth,

 I think the intamcies and strategies are much better in the Pallisaides.

 

Thanks, Adam

But say something more meaningful, please, i.e. because..........

Ryan.

How do you know that Dallas National is not better than both Oakmont and Riviera?  And if you do know, please tell us how and why.....

Again, "Just because" is not a reply which is likely to gain my respect, if you care.  "...intamcies and strategies are much better...." is not much better, BTW

<<<<<<<<see emoticon to the left

Hmmm, let's see...

Lost Dunes debuted at 63.  Pretty good!  Tom Doak now has two courses on the list.  Pacific Dunes made a big move from 22 to 14, and is now among a very elite group.

Pretty funny that Medinah #3 moved up to 11, given all the criticisms Ryan Potts has been deflecting since he joined GCA.  Sorry, Ryan, fairways too narrow and greens too flat for me.

Kinloch moved from 33 to 29.  My biased opinion says it deserves that position.  Great place.

Eugene moved from 100 to 64.  This baffles me.  It's a very nice course, and very tough, with fast, sloped greens.  Once again, I find the tree corridors much too narrow for my liking.  Although Eugene may be a better overall test of golf, I strongly prefer Pasatiempo.

I need to understand better why Tom Fazio's courses dominate the top 100.  Wade Hampton, at 15, looks awfully pretty in pictures.  Is it walkable?  Isn't it always too wet?

There's a fairly large discrepancy between Golf Digest (99) and Golfweek (4 modern) regarding Pete Dye Golf Club.

The Kingsley Club was recently mentioned as the 37th best "retreat" by Golf Digest.  In the last rankings, it was 20th best in Michigan.  Although not in the top 100, my guess is Kingsley moved up significantly in Michigan state rankings.      

If there are only 48 golf courses in the United States better than Flint Hills National I will eat my collection of bucket hats.

By having Flint Hills National at #49 so close to Prairie Dunes at #30 the GD people are saying that those courses are essentially a wash.  To me that is insane.

and Canterbury at #100 in GW classic, #94 in GD overall?  How can it be possible that BCC, Wannamoisett, Yale, Yeaman's, Myopia, Newport etc are left out?  They all were top 50 in GW classic.

I don't think the list is that bad for the courses I have played.  My differences would largely be a matter of taste rather than any reasonably objective standard of quality.

Except . . .

Wild Horse not even in the top 100 public?  

Why does Tom Huckaby have explaining to do?  He is just one person and has been quite candid in his assesments on this site.  Would it be breaking protocol if Mr. Huckaby posted his top 100?