News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Down

THuckaby2

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #150 on: April 06, 2005, 03:04:04 PM »
JK - gotcha.

I think we could do with a lot FEWER lists, myself.  I kinda thought the whole idea was to rank the best of the best, not to quibble and freak out when one course is #62 and another is #77 and wonder how it can be so much better...

But that's just me.

 ;D
Logged

texsport

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #151 on: April 06, 2005, 03:35:12 PM »
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on April 06, 2005, 03:04:04 PM
JK - gotcha.

I think we could do with a lot FEWER lists, myself.  I kinda thought the whole idea was to rank the best of the best, not to quibble and freak out when one course is #62 and another is #77 and wonder how it can be so much better...

But that's just me.

 ;D

Ditto!
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #152 on: April 06, 2005, 04:17:45 PM »
>Tom Doak,

Your comments are spot on.  The criteria here lead to a certain type of result that is fairly unlikely to lead to the "best" courses being identified. Frankly, I am not sure what these lists have identified.  I used to believe that any course that was ever ranked by any of the magazines was probably worth seeing if one were interested in seeing quality architecture. I don't think I can make that statement any more.


Jeff,

Your comments are 'spot-on, spot-on'.

.

 ;)
« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 04:18:27 PM by Paul Richards »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #153 on: April 06, 2005, 04:27:40 PM »
I would still like to play each and every course on the GD list ;D. Some more than once.
Logged
Mr Hurricane

THuckaby2

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #154 on: April 06, 2005, 04:30:51 PM »
That Jim Franklin is spot on, spot on, spot on.

One has to have some high or very specific standards indeed not to want to play any of the courses on these lists.  To each his own....



Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #155 on: April 06, 2005, 04:31:49 PM »
Matt

>The issue with Digest is that they have rapidly expanded their panel in a Zagat's Guide to Dining approach. More people have simply not produced the kind of insightful results that a publication of the stature that Digest should be producing.


I cannot agree more.

The problem, as you see it, and as I agree with you, is that Golf Digest has limited themselves by choosing ONLY those raters with a handicap of about 3 or less.

This severely limits input.  

Do you really have to be a 3-handicap to know what is good golf architecture?

I know a friend who is widely traveled, played most of the best courses in the world and was asked by 2 other publications to become a rater for them.  He then decided to check into GD as well.  Because his handicap was in the low-double-digits, GD said 'thanks but no thanks' and he went to one of the other publications.

From my experience, playing with many different partners on many different courses, I can tell you with certainty that you don't need to be a scratch player to know architecture.  In fact, I've found most of these type of players are too much 'into' their own games and walk off the course without having really 'seen', while grinding out a score.  

Give me some knowledgeable players anyday as raters.

Time for GD to stop limiting the skill of their raters if they truly want a representative group and list.

Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #156 on: April 06, 2005, 04:33:40 PM »
Tom Doak

> I don't have any idea who is on the GOLF DIGEST panel anymore, although I'm told it's full of Joe one-handicappers who are not the only audience I'm building for.


Great statement.

As I state above, having scratch players is fine for a golf tournament.  Having golfers of various abilities but who understand golf course architecture would be much better.

 ;)
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #157 on: April 06, 2005, 04:35:29 PM »
Jim

>I would still like to play each and every course on the GD list . Some more than once.


I totally agree.  I have played 90 of the GD top 100 from the 2003 list, and with all of the substantial changes this year, figured that number would have dropped tremendously.

However, I was proud to say that I still have played 89 of those on the 2005 list.

 ;)
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Mike_Cirba

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #158 on: April 06, 2005, 04:38:02 PM »
Given GD's low-handicap qualification, one wonders if Herbert Warren Wind, Bernard Darwin, and Jim Finegan would have been summarily rejected as raters?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 04:38:20 PM by Mike_Cirba »
Logged

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #159 on: April 06, 2005, 04:43:50 PM »
Probably, what do they know? ;)
Logged
Mr Hurricane

JakaB

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #160 on: April 06, 2005, 04:46:31 PM »
I really wish you raters would leave your talking bad about each other to your little tea parties....I'm really sick of it.  I like every Golfweek or Golf Digest raters I have ever met but this petty bashing of each other, as one sided as it may be, is an embarrassment to this site and the game of golf in general....you guys have a great deal going and you bitch like a bunch of crack whores stuck in Salt Lake City during a GCSAA meeting..
Logged

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #161 on: April 06, 2005, 04:47:02 PM »
Quote from: Tom_Doak on April 06, 2005, 02:12:06 PM
They're mostly two-handicaps who can't get their minds around a course with fairways 80 yards wide ... they think that's a weakness in "shot values".  

The problem with GOLF DIGEST is that they have a lot of people who think the same way, and who dismiss courses like the Plantation because it doesn't quite fit their interpretation of Bill Davis's definition.

Tom:

Your theory doesn't hold up, just look at the top 20 courses.  Furthermore, why would Pacific Dunes rank so high if this was the case?

I've hosted a lot of panelists and they are young, old and really old.  When I played Whisper Rock two years ago the pro told me he had played with 20 panelists that year and I was the best player of all 20, and I stink.

The voting is so close that decimal points seperate #25 from #75.  The cream has risen to the top with the elimination of tradition.  I still can't understand how Trump International or some of the other mediocre courses made it to the bottom 50 but I still think you have to respect some people (from all the panels) like modern designs.
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #162 on: April 06, 2005, 04:51:30 PM »
Quote from: John B. Kavanaugh on April 06, 2005, 04:46:31 PM
I really wish you raters would leave your talking bad about each other to your little tea parties....I'm really sick of it.  I like every Golfweek or Golf Digest raters I have ever met but this petty bashing of each other, as one sided as it may be, is an embarrassment to this site and the game of golf in general....you guys have a great deal going and you bitch like a bunch of crack whores stuck in Salt Lake City during a GCSAA meeting..

Oh John, you love it.

Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #163 on: April 06, 2005, 04:57:38 PM »
JakaB


> you bitch like a bunch of crack whores


OUCHHHH!!!!


 ??? ::) :-[
« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 04:58:18 PM by Paul Richards »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

JakaB

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #164 on: April 06, 2005, 04:57:39 PM »
Mike,

I really don't like how this site has turned good and bad into smart and stupid.....
Logged

THuckaby2

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #165 on: April 06, 2005, 05:20:07 PM »
This is one hell of a hallmark day.

John Kavanaugh steps in as the voice of reason.

Mark this day as a great one in GCA history.

 ;D ;D ;D

Good to read your name here, John.  Where the heck have you been?

TH
Logged

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #166 on: April 06, 2005, 07:18:55 PM »
Winchester doesn't make the top 15 in Mass?

It looks like whatever was number 4 in 2003 didn't crack the top 15 this time.  I think it might have been Winchester..
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #167 on: April 06, 2005, 10:01:24 PM »
I don't know about Jim Finegan, but both Herb Wind and Bernard Darwin were very-low single digit handicappers. Herb once made it to about round four of the 1950 British Amateur, as I rceall, and Darwin held his own in an early version of a Walker Cup held at National Golf Links of America.
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #168 on: April 06, 2005, 10:58:26 PM »
Brad

Glad they were low, single-digit players or else they would be kicked off the panel.

 :-[ :P
« Last Edit: April 06, 2005, 10:58:44 PM by Paul Richards »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Gerry B

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #169 on: April 07, 2005, 02:46:09 AM »
hard to find words to describe my opinion of many of the included courses / excluded courses , and some very disturbing rankings - but again opinion. my one major beef is those courses that receive consideration for  hosting tournaments  - it is about the course not a popularity contest.

possible good analogy - some boxing matches over the years that ended in controversial decisions when they went to the scorecards - ala chavez vs whitaker in san antonio  and rosario vs camacho at MSG both of which I attended - and perhaps the  biggest robbery of all time which I watched on TV - rocky lockridge vs wilfredo gomez which was held in san juan (gomez's hometown). I thought Lockridge won all 15 rounds as did my friends and they gave the decision to Gomez - go figure?

a couple  of the rankings that l agreed with other than the obvious rota of top contenders that need no defence were NGLA  / Fishers - getting their due

The call the cops award as there has been a robbery  should have been awarded to Shoreacres  - no it is not top 10 but #93 - what fight were they watching? and Baltimore CC Five Farms  - not even on the list  

goodnight!
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #170 on: April 07, 2005, 07:04:57 AM »
Maybe GD panelists have it in for "Ross" courses, or at least ones who are looking to do/have done restoration projects?

The anecdotal evidence is the following:

Beverly CC - #100 in the US Classic, 2005 by Golfweek

   #7 in state as recently as 1999 by Golf Digest, falls from #10 in 2003 to #17 in 2005


Franklin Hills CC - #79 in the US Classic, 2005 by Golfweek

    #6 in state as recently as 1999 by Golf Digest, falls from #11 in state in 2003 to #21 in 2005



Can someone please explain this dichotomy to me?

How can one publication think them so 'worthy' and another think them both as 'falling stars'???



Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #171 on: April 07, 2005, 07:12:43 AM »
Seriously, when I ask:

>Can someone please explain this dichotomy to me?

>How can one publication think them so 'worthy' and another think them both as 'falling stars'???


It is really more that I am perplexed by this and would really like someone to provide some type of reasonal explanation.

 ??? ??? ???
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #172 on: April 07, 2005, 07:51:05 AM »
Paul, if you could develop more evidence along these lines it would be very helpful. My sense is that the Golf Digest raters show little regard for restoration; in fact, it seems to go the opposite way!

Evidence: Baltimore CC, Beverly, Desert Forest, Fenway, Plainfield, Salem, Shoreacres.

Logged

JakaB

Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #173 on: April 07, 2005, 08:13:11 AM »
The intellectualistas have to love the bashing of Riviera after the Fazio butcher job...
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Golf Digest's Ranking's Are Out
« Reply #174 on: April 07, 2005, 08:55:27 AM »
I wonder how many of the GD raters are regular or even occasional visitors to this site. Based upon the ratings results, not many. Maybe these guys are so busy honing their golf games they don't have time for Web indulgence.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Up
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back