Golf Digest Top 100 is out

[Jim Colton]

Rich,

  I agree with you on those other courses, but Augusta probably has 'it' more than the others.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,

  I agree with you on those other courses, but Augusta probably has 'it' more than the others.

Agreed, Jim, but does the fact that Augusta has so much of the "it" factor mean that we should so strenuously try to not be seduced?

[PCCraig]

ANGC #1???

It's not April fools yet....

Why is that such a joke?

Because some people think ANGC has turned into Augusta TPC?

Garland,

Have the people that think that played the golf course ?

Yes....and it is still not #1. It is GREAT, but not #1.

[Tom Huckaby]

Oh my.

Keep bashing....

I think the list is perfect in every way, of course.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Let me point out a few things for the group.

Golfweek benefits in having a listing for 200 courses -- albeit divided between modern and classic. If Golfweek were to have to choose between bringing that list to a max of 100 courses the net result would certainly be of interest to examine. Likely many of the same beefs lobbed at Digest would repeat themselves -- in a slightly different manner -- with Golfweek.

The issue with these so-called army of raters is that far too many don't really travel that often or to a wider range of courses. You can clearly see with both the Digest and Golfweek versions a discernible bent to particular types of courses.

One last thing -- someone mentioned that Digest has an all-public listing too. Be interested in seeing that too.

Rich G is 100% correct -- far too many people have been seduced by the so-called "glow" in which these top tier names provide. When you engage a horde of people you will get numbers that likely are skewed way beyond any sort of real logic. Emotions are part and parcel of the equation and I can remember my first time at Augusta National like it was yesterday.

However, the "new" version one sees today flies completely in the face of what it's genesis was about as envisioned by Jones & Mackenzie. I would think Digest would understand that but clearly the #1 position it has bestowed flies in the face of that.

[Mike Sweeney]

You can clearly see with both the Digest and Golfweek versions a discernible bent to particular types of courses.

Matt,

With Aronimink at 76 and Maidstone at 86, I see it as a hodgepodge of different types of courses. Please explain.

[Sean Leary]

How long do votes count? Have there really not been 40 raters that have played Friars Head since it opened?

It seems to me that one of the inherant flaws in this is the body of courses played. If I am from the Pacific NW and play the courses here and have not played any/many the great courses of the east, aren't my ratings going to reflect that? GD raters aren't RANKING ANGC higher than PV on a ranking list. The scores just came out higher.

When I see courses like Sahalee, Eugene and Black Rock on here, I have to think that there may be some holes in many of the raters resume's. I saw the numbers from GD for my home course two years ago when the rankings came out, and although there wasn't enough to qualify for the top 100, the scores were too high. But around the NW, it is considered great, so I bet that had a lot to do with it.

In terms of the major jumps/falls by certain courses, I might venture a guess that the eliminating of the outlying scores may have caused that.

[Tim Gavrich]

I've only played 27 holes on that list (Pinehurst No. 2, plus the front nine at Harbour Town), but I've also played Newport, Yale, and Cascades, which have been on the list in the recent past.  Add to that Shelter Harbor, Greenbrier (Old White), and Palmetto GC, all of which I prefer to Cascades.  Makes the whole business of one-by-one rankings seem pretty arbitrary.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

My argument is how many of the raters honestly get to ply Augusta? 

Probably the same way that everybody else does...they get invited.

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

The issue is that FEW raters are really national in scope but the mags refuse to weigh certain voters ahead of others.

The silly notion is akin to providing some sort of linkage to the 'One man / One vote' concept we use for elections.

Golf ratings are a far different animal.

You also touched upon something of note. People assign numbers to their own local courses and often times those numbers will in fact be quite high when compared to other courses in other parts of the country.

What may be outstanding for the NW may in fact be nothing more than middle of the road when you throw into the mixture the grand designs that exist in the Northeast corridor.

That doesn't mean to say you will have movements of superior design elsewhere taking root. I have long been an advocate of highlighting quality layouts that have come forward in the mountain time zone. In some cases, you have reverse bias. Raters from the northeast fail to understand that quality golf design doesn't stop happening.

You also have the desires of people hellbent on elevating the same type of courses time after time. That's why with Golfweek you get the lovefest with C&C no matter what they do -- the Digest people have the Fazio swoonfest.

Mike:

The preponderance of Digest courses seem to be those that are well conditioned to the max, favor strong muscular layouts with a real bent on difficulty and no doubt continue with that love affair with Fazio and old time Nicklaus courses.

Maybe Digest raters can explain that.

I can't remotely envision how Aronimink and Maidstone are even on the same page with one another. In my mind, the former is simply an over-the-top hard course with little quality architecture -- better to have rated nearby HV ahead of it. In regards to Maidstone -- I've never been a huge fan but it's old school design clearly has taken a tumble from the Digest raters.

Mike, it appears Digest is moving towards a formulaic layout. Maidstone did suffer a fall -- albeit not off the listing. If the trend continues it would likely disappear in a future poll. That's my take ...

[George Freeman]

My argument is how many of the raters honestly get to ply Augusta? 

Probably the same way that everybody else does...they get invited.

Kyle, the question was how MANY raters get to play Augusta, not how they get on

[K. Krahenbuhl]

My argument is how many of the raters honestly get to ply Augusta? 

Probably the same way that everybody else does...they get invited.

Kyle, the question was how MANY raters get to play Augusta, not how they get on

I would be shocked if there weren't some raters that get that invite.

[Jim Franklin]

The "brown mandate" did not come around until the third quarter of the year so it will take time to evolve. Friars Head did not get enough panelists so stop whining and tell Bakst to let raters on if you are so concerned. I loved Friars Head and have it in my top 20. Ballyneal may not be old enough to crack the top 100. After the Shadow Creek fiasco, I thought GD said new courses had to wait 5 years before inclusion. The Alotian would be on if it were 5 years old as well.

My friends that have played ANGC say it is the best experience they ever had on a golf course. I have not played it and do not agree with the changes so I will say no comment.

I am very disappointed that Baltimore CC did not crack the top 100 again. I guess all of the panelists that play there lie to me because all said they love it and it should be in the top 100.

Kingsley being omitted still irks me to no end. EMBARRASSING!

Sand Hills dropping is ridiculous as well. Still #13, but waaaaaay better than that.

[Anthony Gray]

My argument is how many of the raters honestly get to ply Augusta? 

Probably the same way that everybody else does...they get invited.

Kyle, the question was how MANY raters get to play Augusta, not how they get on

I would be shocked if there weren't some raters that get that invite.

  I would imangine thier invites are because of reasons other than being a rater.

  Anthony



  

[K. Krahenbuhl]

My argument is how many of the raters honestly get to ply Augusta? 

Probably the same way that everybody else does...they get invited.

Kyle, the question was how MANY raters get to play Augusta, not how they get on

I would be shocked if there weren't some raters that get that invite.

  I would imangine thier invites are because of reasons other than being a rater.

  Anthony

Most definitely.

[Jim Franklin]

My argument is how many of the raters honestly get to ply Augusta? 

Probably the same way that everybody else does...they get invited.

Kyle, the question was how MANY raters get to play Augusta, not how they get on

I would be shocked if there weren't some raters that get that invite.

  I would imangine thier invites are because of reasons other than being a rater.

  Anthony

Most definitely.

Because I have not received one .

[Sean Leary]

The "brown mandate" did not come around until the third quarter of the year so it will take time to evolve. Friars Head did not get enough panelists so stop whining and tell Bakst to let raters on if you are so concerned. I loved Friars Head and have it in my top 20. Ballyneal may not be old enough to crack the top 100. After the Shadow Creek fiasco, I thought GD said new courses had to wait 5 years before inclusion. The Alotian would be on if it were 5 years old as well.

My friends that have played ANGC say it is the best experience they ever had on a golf course. I have not played it and do not agree with the changes so I will say no comment.

I am very disappointed that Baltimore CC did not crack the top 100 again. I guess all of the panelists that play there lie to me because all said they love it and it should be in the top 100.

Kingsley being omitted still irks me to no end. EMBARRASSING!

Sand Hills dropping is ridiculous as well. Still #13, but waaaaaay better than that.

Jim,

The 5 year thing would make sense to me to get over the original oohs and ahhs. But Sebonack made it so that can't be it...I asked the question above, but no one has answered it. How long do ratings stick before they fall off? Do panelists vote again if they haven't played it in the last cycle?

[TEPaul]

It just looks like a pretty fair representation of "The Big World Theory" to me and since it does I think it's hilarious the magazine felt they needed to hire Dean Knuth to come up with some complicated mathematical formula to explain why.  

These golf magazine annual ranking lists are no different than the fashion industry to me----eg they need to sort of keep changing things up every year just to keep sustaining themselves and/or to show people the lists they're even necessary.

[Anthony Gray]

  I find Tom Paul's "Big" theory to be idiotic.

  DAVID SUSPECADECKA

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
I think its 8 years.

And also I think we require more than 40 ballots for Top 100 now...but not sure.

[TEPaul]

Anthony:

Actually I could make a pretty good case that my "Big World Theory" is idiotic. All it really proves in one case is that people who are both idiotic and who have really bad taste in golf course architecture have a right to be heard too.  

A good analogy to my "Big World Theory" in golf architecture was the hearings on the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court when he was being questioned about sexual improprieties. Some editorial mused that perhaps he didn't have the intellectual capacity to be appointed to the US Supreme Court but since there are so many stupid people in the nation perhaps they should have a stupid representative on the Supreme Court.

The New York Times editorial shot back that they did not recommend Clarence Thomas for the US Supreme Court not because of what he was accused of doing to Anita Hill but because he was an intellectual light-weight. But their editorial did allow that if Felix Frankfurter had been accused of doing to Anita Hill what Clarence Thomas was accused of doing to her they would recommend Frankfurter be appointed to the US Supreme Court because at least he was a brilliant jurist, unlike Thomas! 

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I'm not sure your big world theory fits here either.  As we know most of the courses in the US are public and most of those are munis of some type or another.  Well I only count 1 muni on this entire list with most of the rest on this list being private. That doesn't seem "big world" to me. 

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony:

Actually I could make a pretty good case that my "Big World Theory" is idiotic. All it really proves in one case is that people who are both idiotic and who have really bad taste in golf course architecture have a right to be heard too.  

  Anthony Who?


  DAVID SUSPECADECKA

[John Kirk]

I agree with Tom Paul; the list perfectly conforms to the "Big Stupid World Theory".

I hate the list.  I think we're starting to see a real separation between Golf Digest and GolfClubAtlas.  Perhaps our group has a bias against modern big money projects with traditional parkland designs.  Somebody made the comment earlier that the course seemed heavily populated with lush green courses that require an aerial attack.  That might be expected, since the raters are generally strong players.  

"Who are the ad wizards that came up with this one?"

[Tom Huckaby]

I hate the list.  I think we're starting to see a real separation between Golf Digest and GolfClubAtlas.

STARTING?

It's rather always been this way, John.

This is a group that can best be described as cognoscenti.

GD's ratings have always been geared toward the masses.

You'd expect this group to approve of GD's list?