Does this constitute "sucking up"?  If so, Gib would be "appauled"!  

Dave,

It has become very obvious to the rest of us, through this Fruedian, subliminal misspelling, that you are suffering from an acute attack of Tompaulitis, which is a malady that causes one to post messages on an internet forum in an attempt to gain respect and honor among his peers. By sheer number of posts, the stricken feels he has influence over the rest of the participants of the discussion forum.

Calling Dr. Katz!

Joe

Is it me, or does it seem that Fazio doesn't show up on the modern list as much as he does in the Golf Digest or Golf Magazine rankings.  Granted, I think he was on 17 of the top 100, but when the best new courses come out every year with these mags, he seems to dominate.

Joe

Another symptom is when you write words like "appauled"...............

Shivas:

The stars must be aligned in a very odd position -- guess that's why I agree with you (one of those rarest of circumstances) on the overall position of Wild Horse.

Agreed it's a bit too high. I'd still keep it in the top 100 but closer to the rear rather than the front. Frankly, remoteness has become a very telling ingredient for some raters. My guess is that if a layout is placed in Mars it too will be rated very high. The same thing holds true for me regarding Sutton Bay and my reasons for that have previously been posted.

All kidding aside Wild Horse is a wonderful layout but I have always believed the manner by which the course is
prepared -- in conjunction with its remoteness -- are two big time factors on why the course is held in such esteem. Ditto the low price to play the course. There are a number of fine holes but the totality of what is there doesn't go beyond a number of other recently opened new courses IMHO.

Not meant to inflame Tommy but...The rankings do not have value as a category and they do have Walk in the Park (Although it is not factored in).  Below Rustic Canyon are (Among others) SouthShore, Southern Highlands, and Cascata (Among the Vegas courses).  If offered one round of golf tomorrow (Remember cost is not a factor in rankings), would raters really pick RC over one of those three?

What about Valhalla, Challenge at Manele, Flint Hills National.  Most strange to me is Old Memorial.  If Old Memorial and RC were next to each other and I had unlimited access to both, I imagine the ratio would be 8:2 OM over RC.  Of all the rankings on the list, RC as high as it is shocks me the most - Of course I have expressed this before and the sentiment seems to be that I just do not get it.

Funny thing is I think these rankings are damn good.  Wussy factor is only true shit I can give.

Tom,

As you've played many of these courses, I think GolfWeek Raters should say "thank you" for such a nice compliment.

You know how hard it is to get general agreement, but at least if the people who've played a lot of golf courses think the list is "damn good", then that's about as good as anyone could expect.

I'm hoping that your influence on the rankings for that other magazine (the one with 50% ads and 50% instruction) yields such quality results in the future.  

JES,

I would assume the reason for two lists is to avoid the howls of protest that would arise each time a new list comes out and people find that those two or three special new courses that get built have been placed in the list ahead of their established club, moving them slowly down the list.  Especially loud would be the screams from the members of clubs that were #99 but get pushed off the list entirely, never to return.

Its not realistic, because when Sand Hills got built just about every course on an overall top 100 would have to move down a spot to make room.  But I'm sure it avoids a lot of hate mail and cancelled subscriptions to only worry about moving down a list that includes a lot of resort courses and newer clubs that are less likely to be a membership that was handed down to the current holder from his father and his grandfather before him.

Look at how much whining about the college FB top 25 goes on when one team moves ahead of another after both won or both lost.  The top 100 rankings probably have a lot in common the college FB top 25 voting.  And we all know the problems inherent in that (better to lose early than lose late, a win over a team ranked high early counts for more than that same team who proves themselves at the end of the season to be unworthy, etc)

Mike:

You're still a bunch of pansies.

 

TH

Tom,

Devereaux Emmett's we are not!  

Besides, I've already shared my Top 10 with you, including both modern and classic courses.  

I'd rather see GD drop their "tradition points" and "walking points" which is used to purposefully skew their rater's ballots, personally.  Until that is done, I really can't see anyone legitimately criticizing keeping modern and classic separate, can you?

Except perhaps for Golf Magazine, but they have their own issues needing refinement.

Today is not the day to debate the merits of the Golf Digest system.  Suffice to say that these GD criteria have every bit as much (or little) merit as some fictitious, highly feminine "walk in the park" test.  

But YOU are on the hot seat for now, not me.  I'll take my battering again the next time GD comes out with a list.

So to this end, hell yes I can and will criticize your wussier than wuss separation of lists.  Oh I know YOU, Mike Cirba, have definite huevos maximos and have made your top 10 list.  Shivas does also and would make a list if he weren't in such a defensive shilling for GW mode right now.  So get your powers that be to get some nads, will ya?

TH

I would agree with Mike that Sutton Bay will probably settle somewhere around the 20s, but I'll also agree with Paul Thomas that Spyglass is rated too high. I've played them both, and my experience is that Sutton Bay delivers way more pleasure and excitement per hole than Spyglass.

Wow!

That's ALL the criticism of the actual list itself that this group can garner??

Like Alister Mackenzie when nobody had any criticisms of Cypress Point after he built it, I wonder what's wrong.  

Could it be that the list is getting pretty damn close to reflecting reality?

Could it be that the list is getting pretty damn close to reflecting reality?

Mike - that's one possibility.

Another is that it's a fair guess that of the participants here who post on a regular basis, the composition goes like this:

50% are GW raters
25% are angling to be GW raters
10% don't give a rats ass about ratings
10% think the list is decent enough, not worth commenting on
5% disagree with something and find it worth commenting on.

Wait till the GD ratings come out again... that 75% at the top all of a sudden have a lot to say.

 

Huck

I'm too damned lazy to type too much - and I notice that I have not had any dissentions on my brazen comments so far...........

No, I haven't.

That's because:

a) I don't find much in what you said to disagree with; and
b) if truth be told I'm in the 10% who doesn't give a rats ass about ratings, at least in the particulars of what course falls at what number.  It's all good to me.  I do like to give my friends shit, though.