Golf Digest Best New Rankings

[Tom_Doak]

They're supposed to be in January but they're really done in November?

[Adam Clayman]

Almost Tom. The reason the Pebble Beach Co. has held onto the winter (late Jan early Feb) dates is because there's no way they'd fill those hotels and eateries at that time of year without the tourney. I'm assuming the same can be said for Magazine sales too.

What's odd here is there's no comparison to the average GD reader and those who participate on this site. Anyone who has an interest in GCA, works in a related field, or, is in the Golf Publishing business  likely knows about the newer courses way before the core reader.

I'd bet the core reader cares less about when a course actually opens versus the benefits from having a qualitative list compiled after any regional bias has filtered out.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

We do agree with many points -- but the single fact is that Digest still persists in keeping the situation as is.

The solution is there, as Doak indicated. However, the urge to be "first" is often the driving force for many media outlets -- the desire to be complete and thorough can sometimes be pushed to the back burner.

The issue is not whether it "bothers" anybody -- myself included. Digest can do whatever they please on that or any other issue. I would hope that a publication that views itself as the definitive voice on golf would be able to see the clear shortcomings and correct them accordingly.

Gents:

Couple of quick points ...

The January issue is used no doubt as a convenient spot because of space available considerations -- but there's little to prevent that same space to be used for other editorial projects and have the "best new" moved to a later month like February or March, as Doak suggested, in order to capture those courses that have opened later in a given season.

Take for example Rock Creek, yes, it opened late in the season but for people "in the know" there would have been possibilities for more than adequate coverage of the course and for it to be rated this year - not in '09.

Adam:

It's not whether the core reader cares "when a course actually opens" -- the issue is making sure that courses from one year are not bumped to the next and have the advantage of extra time in order to present themselves. The idea should be to keep the playing field relatively level.

If you have a course that has opened after just one month and another course that has been bumper into a "second year" (sometimes as much as 18 months down the road) it has the wherewithal to have had all the "new" aspects worked through -- that includes more than conditioning items which are not usually calculated for such a category but still have an impact on the minds of many raters. 

You also addressed a previous comment I made earlier -- if those in the publishing arena "likely knows about the newer courses ..." then they should be more than able to get raters info on these developments and have them sufficiently covered. If that fails then key editorial people should make the effort to play the ones that are the most eagerly anticipated.

As an FYI -- you are seeing that now with Old Macdonald and have seen that previously with such places as Chambers Bay and Erin Hills.

Publications that really have their noses to the ground -- can sniff out what is happening ... core readers expect "#1 golf publications" to be ahead of the curve on all aspects tied to the game -- not behind them.

[Andy Troeger]

You also addressed a previous comment I made earlier -- if those in the publishing arena "likely knows about the newer courses ..." then they should be more than able to get raters info on these developments and have them sufficiently covered. If that fails then key editorial people should make the effort to play the ones that are the most eagerly anticipated.

See to me this is a bigger weakness than the current issue of bumping courses to the following year. I get the idea, but in order to have a list worth reading you have to be complete and thorough. You cannot, IMO, cherry pick courses that you think might win and have those in the current year but then have anybody else pushed to the next year. It comes down to when courses have to open to get sufficient coverage to them all--there should be no preferential treatment for big name projects.

[Adam Clayman]

I still don't see how having a set minimum number of raters visit is the wrong qualifier. The 'new" aspect to "best new" only needs to be defined as new to being eligible for the list.

Let's take a course like Greywalls. It may not have enough votes for the GW list. Once it does, it should then be eligible for the best new that year. Whatever year that falls in.

Matt, A course that is open one month versus a course that gets bumped a year? It's a ridiculous premise. How may raters will have visited that month? If there's enough to qualify for the list, surely that will be based only on raters from that region. Not exactly a consensus worthy of National merit. Is it?

Many moons ago I had very limited exposure to the GD list. Even at that time they seemed to rush to give a course this accolade and then five years down the road you never heard of them again. It's gotten to be so predictable, it's similar to the SI cover jinx. What's wrong with a little more vetting?

If being ahead of the curve continues to yield wipe-outs, slow down and get it right. If I were a core reader that's the quality information I'd want. Not a rush to judgement. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

   .

[Jonathan Cummings]

Okay - here's a tough question.

Tom D - what discussions/considerations have been put forth by the design team/owners/managers of Old Mac regarding its opening phased to the timing of the various best new lists?  Will there be any pressure to delay/accelerate opening Old Mac to optimize its exposure? 

Is this a common or rare issue - timing the opening of an anticipated new course with magazine lists schedule?

JC

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm still interested to hear the criteria for "Best New Remodel".

It seems that most of the best work done to older courses in recent years have taken a number of years from start to finish.

Does a course have to shut down, ala Sea Island, to be considered?

And while I think that the work done at Saucon Valley Old is really quite commendable, by comparison, I'm a bit surprised that Bedford Springs didn't win.

I'm wondering what courses were under consideration?

Bedford?

Essex County??

Sleepy Hollow???

Any GD raters out there who can fill us in on how this was done?

Thanks

[Andy Troeger]

Mike,
Keep in mind that we don't know where these "winners" came from--GD has not officially announced anything. The information could be accurate of course, but its not official.

I don't know how they figure what kind of work has to be done in order for the course to become a candidate for the award. Pretty sure Bedford Springs and Sleepy Hollow were candidates (EDIT).

My understanding is that its a rating of the finished product and not the "difference" between the original and the updated version. Since not all raters necessarily would have played the "pre" and "post" versions this seems to be the only way to do such a category, but at the same time I'm not sure what that really says about the work done.

[bakerg]

I have to think these are accurate given I got an email that had the same results posted at the beginning of this thread.  It was a teaser email from Golf Digest outlining the January issue.  Here is the section on the rankings:

AMERICA'S BEST NEW COURSES
For the 26th time, Golf Digest presents its annual ranking of "America's Best New Courses." The latest winners include Chambers Bay (Best New Public), Gozzer Ranch Golf and Lake Club (Best New Private), Tobiano Golf Course (Best New Canadian) and the Old Course at Saucon Valley Country Club (Best New Remodel). The survey is based on evaluations filed by Golf Digest's panel of more than 900 male and female golfers who considered nominees that had opened (or reopened after a remodel) between May 1, 2007, and April 30, 2008. The courses were rated on their Shot Values, Design Variety, Resistance to Scoring, Memorability and Aesthetics. Visit http://www.golfdigest.com/go/bestnew to see a list of past winners and course photos.

[Andy Troeger]

Gary,
Thanks--that would appear to be where the information came from and why its only the winners and not the rest of the lists.

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

I can honestly tell you that nobody has thought about or mentioned at all whether the timing of the opening of Old Macdonald will affect its status on any of these lists.

Of course, in the past some of the courses at Bandon Dunes have been rated on different lists BEFORE THEIR OFFICIAL OPENING, so I don't know what difference it would make.  There are tons of panelists going through there every year, so the course will be rated as soon as they let people on it, whether it's officially open or not.

I have had one or two past clients who wanted to know whether their opening date would affect their status -- I believe Sebonack asked to be held back for that reason (and it worked out well for them). 

[John Burzynski]

GD best of lists, at their core, are published to generate magazine purchases, as well as cause discussion and argument.  I doubt that the 'list makers' get as personal about all of this as some posters do here.

[Tom_Doak]

John:  I am sure you are right about that.

However, in a business where several architects' #1 claim to fame is how many Golf Digest "Best New" awards they have won, you can see why those of us whose livelihoods are affected care about it, and care whether the magazines are making their best effort.

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

You asked a number of key questions and there's little doubt in my mind that "new" facilities will seek to position themselves in the best favorable way to garner the most attention.

If they know they can open later in a season and then get "bumped" to the following season -- that gives them a better opportunity to have all the elements within that facility to be a good bit more refined.

Clearly, there's no guarantee they will win -- some years the competition in a particular category can be quite fierce -- e.g. you did mention when Black Rock won Digest's "best new" private when up against the likes of such places as Friar's Head and Dallas National.

No doubt timing and a bit of luck helps. But, clearly as Doak indicated, some clients do ask about such things and it would stand to reason that any ratings procedure fully understands how such a process can play out.

Adam:

A few comments to your last post ...

I never opined having a set minimum of raters is a "wrong qualifier." I simply said one remedial effort would be for the magazine(s) to hold off such postings (as Doak previously indicated) to a later month (February or March) -- therefore they could get the courses that opened later in the season to be properly vetted and to be rated for the year in which they REALLY opened.

I don't agree with your statement that, "The 'new" aspect to "best new" only needs to be defined as new to being eligible for the list."

When a course opens is not a debatable point or one that should be manipulated to suit a magazine's time line. You clearly missed my previous point ... courses are bumped because of issues tied to a magazine's rating procedure -- that's what is happening. You also have the possibility that courses DO open later in the year knowing full well that they will be bumped to the next year and as a result can be in a much better overall position for such assessments because of the added benefit in having more time.

Conditioning, which is not to be tied into "best new" situations but frankly is hard for many raters to completely divorce from their initial reviews. Some courses bumped will have been open for as much as 18 months -- some even more -- compared to other courses that may be viewed / rated when they are no more than several months open. If you don't see the difference of time as being a major consideration then you comprehend such things in a far different manner than I.

The silly accounting rules of whether there were enough raters is driven by the failure of the magazines who mandate such things. It's hard for me to imagine ANY magazine claiming to be a critical info source in golf should NOT be aware of what is happening in sufficient time in order to make sure it stays ahead of the competition and assorted blog sites and the like.

Doak is correct -- architects are very keen -- and so should magazines and their raters -- on how such outcomes matter to them. We are talking about the livelihoods of very talented people. A level playing field should be the base minimum that's created. 

If I'm reading info about particular courses through GCA -- and so-called premier and top shelf mags are not up to the speed of such places like this and others -- then frankly they are nothing more than secondary players in today's info market as far as I can tell.

The whole purpose of such magazines is to TELL its readership what THEY DON'T KNOW -- if I and others know more than the pubs do then frankly the pubs cease to be relevant.

There have been and continue to be courses that have opened for such a short time (month or so -- but less than six months for certain) and then were subject to a vote when placed against other courses that have been bumped and have had the benefit in being open for as much as 18 months. 

Adam, I agree with you completely when you argue there is no need to "rush" the process. You are right that plenty of awarded courses were never heard from again in a few years time down the road. I've outlined a better vetting process that you agree is deficient.

I don't blame courses in having internal discussions on how best to manipulate the existing system -- getting such an award can be a major feather in their caps in generating more revenue and overall attention. The respective nominees are only using the system that's been explained to them.

The magazines should think through the situation and various remedies can be applied to create a more level playing field. When magazines or any other media outlet rush to judgment the invariable results will be short attention to thoroughness and complete evaluation. On that point we agree 100%.


Andy:

A few comments ...

In my experience you might get a real surprise from a relatively unknown architect from time to time -- but the vast preponderance of the more eagerly awaited layouts are coming from a central core of key players that have been consistently at the  top or near the top for quite some time.

There is no "preference" -- but it pays to have key anticipated courses being reviewed in a timely fashion -- see the appropriate attention being paid to Old Macdonald now and to the attention that was paid to Chambers Bay and Erin Hills previously. You're making the implicit assumption that such courses "might win" -- that's not the case at all. Any journalist or person who should be in the know can get a real good sense of what is happening in the field if they really make the effort to do so. If people read about it on this site -- and this is not the only source of info on such matters -- then key publications should be able to do so if they want to continue to be seen as"key" sources of info for their readers.

There have been at times in years past courses with no real "big name" designers but the word on the street was certainly present prior to their opening -- Wolf Creek in Mesquite w Dennis Rider as its architect is just one quick example that comes to mind. What Kidd did with Bandon Dunes is another -- no one practically knew who he was prior to that design but the "buzz" was already there before that project was completed.

Publications that claim to be top shelf -- should be no less in tune with what is happening than many of the people who post here. When any magazine is running in second place to this site than the self-proclaimed hype that they are the kings of golf info is nothing more than groundless hype on their part.

Andy, last point on the "remodel" award. It needs to be further explained -- the totality of what was done at Plainfield was not finished in one year -- ditto the work Hanse and crew did at Essex County CC. Both are worthy of consideration -- ditto what was done at Sleepy Hollow.

One final comment -- the dropping of "best affordable" will be missed. Anything that can provide info to readers in which costs are factored in will be a loss. Not many can play the ultra privates or the top tier CCFAD's -- Digest deserved credit for having such an award when it was first announced years ago -- if it's not to be continued then that's an editorial review that should be thought through again.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy, last point on the "remodel" award. It needs to be further explained -- the totality of what was done at Plainfield was not finished in one year -- ditto the work Hanse and crew did at Essex County CC. Both are worthy of consideration -- ditto what was done at Sleepy Hollow.

One final comment -- the dropping of "best affordable" will be missed. Anything that can provide info to readers in which costs are factored in will be a loss. Not many can play the ultra privates or the top tier CCFAD's -- Digest deserved credit for having such an award when it was first announced years ago -- if it's not to be continued then that's an editorial review that should be thought through again.

Agreed. The best affordable courses should be noted in some form or another. I would guess it may have something to do with the limited number of public courses being introduced--there might not be enough to do 10 high-end and 10 affordable courses. I'm not sure if there are enough to do 5 and 5 with the courses still being of high quality (?). In any case, I hope affordable courses continue to be part of our process in some form or another.

I think there's some benefit to having a remodel category, but "ranking" remodels seems to be an exercise in futility to me. Do you deserve more credit for keeping a 10 a 10, turning an 8 into a 9, or turning a 3 into a 7?

[Joe Hancock]

I think there's some benefit to having a remodel category, but "ranking" remodels seems to be an exercise in futility to me. Do you deserve more credit for keeping a 10 a 10, turning an 8 into a 9, or turning a 3 into a 7?

Or a 7 into a 3....

Joe

[Andy Troeger]

I think there's some benefit to having a remodel category, but "ranking" remodels seems to be an exercise in futility to me. Do you deserve more credit for keeping a 10 a 10, turning an 8 into a 9, or turning a 3 into a 7?

Or a 7 into a 3....

Joe

I almost put that. Realistically, you could get more credit for turning a 9 into a 7 than a 3 into a 6. That doesn't seem logical...

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

The "remodel" award should be done through only one reviewer -- in this case the architecture editor. You would have the same pair of eyes and the same method of review (however that is done).

Once you start inserting countless people the overall sameness in judging in such a very demanding category only becomes more clouded and less certain.

Last comment on the best affordable -- there are many worthy candidates that can be highlighted -- if there's not enough for a top ten -- then a top five would suffice.

[Rob Rigg]

I wonder if it would be beneficial to throw "remodels" in the mix with "new".

Then, at least, you are considering the quality of the courses side by side, which should eliminate some of the questions around relevance of a remodel that has gone from a 9 to 7 or even 8 to 8. They simply will not register on the radar and the "essence" of what the "new" rankings are going after will still be maintained ().

Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion, it has actually been quite interesting getting perspectives from various parties in the business.

While rankings are not the be all and end all, they are obviously important for GCAs and the marketing of new courses, so at the end of the day, the more the playing field can be leveled across contenders, the better for all (maybe most) involved (including the consumer).

The "new" course ranking are much more significant than the "Top 100" because most of the elite courses already have tremendous street cred, whereas the "new" courses are just building a business and trying to get on the very competitive golf course radar.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

The "remodel" award should be done through only one reviewer -- in this case the architecture editor. You would have the same pair of eyes and the same method of review (however that is done).

Once you start inserting countless people the overall sameness in judging in such a very demanding category only becomes more clouded and less certain.

Last comment on the best affordable -- there are many worthy candidates that can be highlighted -- if there's not enough for a top ten -- then a top five would suffice.

I would agree that would likely achieve the best result. I think the remodel category has to work in a different fashion and you really need someone who knew what was there before and after the work.

[Gary Slatter]

I just heard that the Castle Course is best new castle course for 2008 and Castle Stuart is a lock for 2009.

[Adam Clayman]

Having one person decide on these matters would open the process to all sorts of criticism. The perception of inpropiety would increase significantly reducing any credibility that may already exist.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I wonder, does the best new list have be courses that opened in the calendar year, or  could they not be courses that opened in a twelve month period?  I understand that the calendar year makes for less confusion but a year is a year not matter when you start.  The school year begins in Sept. and ends in June.

I hear arguments about having the editor make decisions about best remodel regularly.  It is certainly one way to go.  Yet if that were the case there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth because the "editor is biased toward...."

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy W:

The issue of comments -- whether they be positive or negative -- would exist no matter what system is devised. People who finished second will always moan about the guy / course who can in first. People who finished third will always moan about the guy / course who can in first or second.

The issue is having a PROCESS that provides for a level playing field. If a course opens in a calendar year -- then that's the year it gets rated for when such matters are done.

The remodeling category is a unique one and it's likely going to run into a range of issues dealing with its application. I see that role as being the domain of the architecture editor -- the consistency needed in order to assess what courses are better than others would be more easily applied when one person is doing it. In a general sense -- the pool of such eligible courses would not be that great to prevent this from being done in any logistical manner.