Golf Magazine's Top 100

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom

Every list of golf courses is flawed in some way.  If Golf Magazine can't get a quorum of raters to Kingsley Club yet they can to Tazmania then that is one flaw in their process. Maybe they need more raters and a statistician to analyze their database. I am not complaining about politics or any other aspect of Golf's process but I am pointing out what I see as potential flaws.  Its not my business how they arrive at their lists but I am curious why obvious omissions occur.

Would people here on GCA think that the omission of Hidden Creek this time after its inclusion two years ago is an example as you say "of the first few panelists being over enthusiastic"?

I like most everone else have only so much time for travel and golf and I need to be selective.  However, there is also a responsibility to make an effort to see at least some "out of the way" courses during the year.  Most of the raters I know also feel that way.

[Matthew MacKay]

Rob et al, what effect (if any) does the fact that St. George's and Hamilton are in Canada have on the ratings?  I only ask this because almost everyone I speak to who has played St. George's and Oak Hill or Oakland Hills claims that St. George's blows them away.

Highlands likely benefits from its exotic location.

[Tony_Chapman]

Can Tom Doak vote for his own courses?

[Don Herdrich]

There is an easy answer to the raters continued high ranking of PV even with the overgrowth of trees/brush etc.....ACCESS.  If they voted down PV, their access would be limited.  It is just one big game people.......just like with the Trump courses and Bridge....they gain access to these ultra-private clubs and then rank them highly.  It doesn't take a genius to figure it out....

[Geoffrey Childs]

There is an easy answer to the raters continued high ranking of PV even with the overgrowth of trees/brush etc.....ACCESS.  If they voted down PV, their access would be limited.  It is just one big game people.......just like with the Trump courses and Bridge....they gain access to these ultra-private clubs and then rank them highly.  It doesn't take a genius to figure it out....

Don - do you know of a single rater who has gained access to Pine Valley through their status as a Magazine Rater?  I don't.

[Mike_Cirba]

There is an easy answer to the raters continued high ranking of PV even with the overgrowth of trees/brush etc.....ACCESS.  If they voted down PV, their access would be limited.  It is just one big game people.......just like with the Trump courses and Bridge....they gain access to these ultra-private clubs and then rank them highly.  It doesn't take a genius to figure it out....

Don,

With all due respect, that's patently ridiculous.

First of all, NO rater can call a Pine Valley, or Cypress Point, or many other courses that guard their privacy zealously and say, "I'm rater X from magazine Y...let me play your course."

If you get to play one of those clubs it's like everybody else...as a guest of a member.

Second, all ballots are private.  Members at Pine Valley wouldn't know if an individual rater gave them the 10 or a 0.  So, they wouldn't be barred future access because it's confidential and the club wouldn't even know which of their member's guests were raters.

Third, most raters don't have time or inclination to return to courses they think aren't very good.  Why would someone who thought The Bridge was lousy mark them highly?   To ensure their ability to return to a course that they don't like??

Anyone who takes their rating responsibility seriously tries to see new and varied courses.  Time and geographic constraints unfortunately don't permit return visits, even on courses a rater might love.

[Sean_A]

Why do people find it surprising that others disagree with their opinions?  It is the nature of the beast.  I played with a chap on Tuesday who astounded me with his proclamation that St. Enodoc was absolute llllaaannnnddddrrrryyy or some other such Welsh nonsense.  One list cannot please all people.  As for a world list, there can't be more than a handful of people that play that many courses around the world to offer a balanced assessment.  I would think just doing it for the US is nearly impossible, as is evidenced by all the complaints no matter who makes the list.  

Ciao

Sean

[Brian_Gracely]

Shouldn't there be a limit to the number of causes that Dr.Childs is actively promoting at a time?  The Yale cause is still in it's infancy and now he's on the Kingsley cause.  Will worlds collide if they both make Top <whatever> and he's forced to decide which cause to support?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have to jump on the Kingsley bandwagon here.
Having just played 5 rounds there, I cannot imagine 100 better courses in the US, and having played many of such courses, I would certainly place Kingsley comfortably in the top 100.

However, I understand what TD is saying and of couirse no list is ever going to satisfy everybody.

Patrick, I understand your pain on the PV tree issue. and I am determined to take a more critical look when I get the privelage of playing in a few weeks time.
You have certainly alerted me to a potential critisism opening which I am excited about investigating

I have not played either or Trumps courses, but did get a good look at the one in Florida...and was not overly impressed..more of the usual high dollar modern stuff..but that is just mho

[Mike_Cirba]

Michael,

I completely agree with you about the Kingsley Club.  It is clearly the the most underrated course in the country by both Golf Digest and Golf Magazine.

When you visit New Jersey in a few weeks, I would recommend you make arrangements to play Trump National, if time permits.  I would really enjoy hearing your impressions.

Mike

[Geoffrey Childs]

Shouldn't there be a limit to the number of causes that Dr.Childs is actively promoting at a time?  The Yale cause is still in it's infancy and now he's on the Kingsley cause.  Will worlds collide if they both make Top <whatever> and he's forced to decide which cause to support?

Just what is your problem?
Have you been to Yale (ever)?
Have you been to The Kingsley Club (ever)?
Am I the only one critical of the work done at Yale?
Am I the only one happy with the recent work done being done at the Yale course?
Am I the only one who praises The Kingsley Club here on GCA?

Perhaps you should do someting constructive here yourself for a change.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike C:

Another way to look at it is that Kingsley is clearly the most overrated course in the country, by GW.  In fact the evidence goes far more to that conclusion.  Two magazines to one, you know.

Sorry, had to say it.  Kingsley looks great to me.  Hope to get there some day.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike C:

Another way to look at it is that Kingsley is clearly the most overrated course in the country, by GW.  In fact the evidence goes far more to that conclusion.  Two magazines to one, you know.

Sorry, had to say it.  Kingsley looks great to me.  Hope to get there some day.

 

Yes, Tom...Golf Digest is correct.

The Kingsley Club is the 20th best course in the state of Michigan.  Who's on your ratings panel up there, Larry, Darryl, and Darryl?  

 

[THuckaby2]

Mike, in the end, these are opinions.  Now I've never been to Kingsley and in fact I doubt I ever will get there.  However, it does look pretty cool to me, and I trust the opinions of you and the MANY participants here who sing its praises.

On the other hand, those who saw it and submitted ratings for it for GD are not complete idiots, I have to believe.

So what we have here is an honest difference of opinion.

And now we have GM raters also seemingly not rating it as highly as did GW. I say seemingly because of course we don't know for sure, given GM does this is a manly fashion as opposed to the effeminate separation of old and new done by GW.  

Thus more evidence that perhaps GW takes it too far.

Heck, in the end I have little doubt that if I personally saw it, I'd agree with you guys.

But I'm not prepare to say anyone is RIGHT or WRONG about this... and I really don't think it's clear at all that the course is underrated.

Different strokes for different folks.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm confident that if at least one intrepid traveller who is also a Golf Digest rater visited the fair state of Michigan, he would also seriously wonder about the "opinions" of his fellow brethren.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Huck

Tom Doak seemed to imply that The Kingsley Club did not receive enough votes from GM raters.  They seem to have a different deficiency then the GD raters with respect to this course  

Mike- carefull about praising TKC as Mr Gracely seems to have a problem with advocates especially if they actually have discussed something about architecture at any time on here.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  sure, but that's a given.  I stipulate that, so to speak.  

The point here is that you're assuming one side is right and the other clearly wrong, and you just can't do that.

Especially now that more evidence is coming from the other side...

[THuckaby2]

GC:  I noticed that.  But implications are not facts.  We really don't know for sure.

In any case, that's not the point either.

To me it's just plain wrong to make the leap that one set of opinions is necessarily right and another necessarily wrong.  Of course that is the coin of the realm here, so I grin and bear it all the time....

I just expect more from rational folks like Mr. Cirba.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Now you've taken to calling me "rational"?!!?!

That's it...we're through!  

[THuckaby2]

 

I knew that would be the greatest insult... or at least back-handed compliment... I could come up with!

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Only two new courses have started out on GOLF's top 100 list and climbed higher over time ... Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes.

When did the ratings start?  The Ocean Course was first on 1997, debuting at 92nd place.  In 1999 it want to 72nd.  In 2001, 65th.  In 2003, 44th.  And this year it was 33rd.  Happily, always moving in the right direction...

[Bob_Huntley]

I am starting a new rating list....... of Old Masters.

I am not sure whether to start with a Rubens or a Vermeer. Can anyone help me out here? How would one start? Is it an exercise in futility, rather like rating superb golf courses?

Just musing.

Bob

[Geoffrey Childs]

GC:  I noticed that.  But implications are not facts.  We really don't know for sure.

In any case, that's not the point either.

To me it's just plain wrong to make the leap that one set of opinions is necessarily right and another necessarily wrong.  Of course that is the coin of the realm here, so I grin and bear it all the time....

I just expect more from rational folks like Mr. Cirba.

 

Huck

I have personally seen your big grin at Sand Hills, NGLA, Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point and Yale. If you were by chance lucky enough to get a pass to travel to Michigan rest assured that the Huckaby grin from ear to ear that is reserved for golfing heaven would return. Something like  

or

[Don Herdrich]

my comment on access might be on the extreme side, but I do know of a rater who is no longer accepted at some of the top clubs......and I know of a few clubs in the south who refuse to play  the rating game.....no raters allowed (as invites or guests of members)

as far as the Bridge/Trump courses.......I know for a fact some raters have been invited to NJ and West Palm and given the full VIP treatment....I have no idea what has happened out in Bridgehampton so I apologize if I offended them in anyway

I really hope 99% of the raters take their jobs seriously, but I have come in contact with the few who don't

[Mike_Cirba]

my comment on access might be on the extreme side, but I do know of a rater who is no longer accepted at some of the top clubs......and I know of a few clubs in the south who refuse to play  the rating game.....no raters allowed (as invites or guests of members)

as far as the Bridge/Trump courses.......I know for a fact some raters have been invited to NJ and West Palm and given the full VIP treatment....I have no idea what has happened out in Bridgehampton so I apologize if I offended them in anyway

I really hope 99% of the raters take their jobs seriously, but I have come in contact with the few who don't

Don,

There are always a few bad apples in every bunch and unfortunately, they tend to taint the overall impression in a negative manner.

It's a shame that some people are like that, because it certainly is a privilege.  Most raters I know consider it as such and bend over backwards to do things the right way and avoid any appearance of impropriety.