[TEPaul]

"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.   "



Kalen:

Good point there. Golf Magazine is a bunch of elitist snobs, don't you think?  

[Rory Connaughton]

This may have been touched on above and if so I apologize but wait until the state rankings become available.  Those rankings, at least as they relate to PA, have been bizarre at times.

[John Kirk]

Tom,

Another thing I considered reading the list is the weakness of evaluating a course by playing it once.  How many raters play a candidate course more than once?

We have our favorites here, and I believe it is safe to say that certain courses receive favorable treatment on Golfweek's lists because they get lots of exposure here.

Just for laughs, I decided to look at a picture or two of Stone Canyon, a Jay Morrish course in Arizona that made the list.  The pictures look nice.  I'd like to see threads on courses like this, that made the Golf Digest list, to actually break down why these courses aren't evaluated highly by our group.  Maybe we, as a group, don't have the money and connections to see these places enough.

[Garland Bayley]

...


...
Is there a hidden Bonus category for Exclusivity? 

...

Nice find Mike. With Balck Rock on the list I suspect there is a hidden bonus for waterfalls.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

Another thing I considered reading the list is the weakness of evaluating a course by playing it once.  How many raters play a candidate course more than once?

We have our favorites here, and I believe it is safe to say that certain courses receive favorable treatment on Golfweek's lists because they get lots of exposure here.

Just for laughs, I decided to look at a picture or two of Stone Canyon, a Jay Morrish course in Arizona that made the list.  The pictures look nice.  I'd like to see threads on courses like this, that made the Golf Digest list, to actually break down why these courses aren't evaluated highly by our group.  Maybe we, as a group, don't have the money and connections to see these places enough.

I am with you on all of this, John.  Of course you know that the realities of life and private clubs tend to mandate this "only play once and evaluate" system.  It's just the way it is... and that's the case for all magazines.  So... these lists are what they are... each imperfect.  The only part that pains me is how seriously they get taken - particularly GD's.  If only people could ignore them or treat them as the lark they really ought to be....

But that's not real life either.  They do of course matter.

And there really are no answers.

So yes, discussing these lesser-known courses would be great.... but again do you expect anything but bashing in here?  I sure wouldn't....

TH

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

Personally it is not the make-up of these lists I disagree with----it's just that I don't think numerical rankings with nothing much else attached to them serve the purpose of architectural education I would like to see golf magazines offer.

However, I fully understand why golf magazines do it the way they do and don't do it the way I would like to see them do it.

[Anthony Gray]

 

  On this list where is the line of demarcation for top tier courses?

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

I wonder if GD has had some raters that aren't all that impressed with ANGC, and their rating scores have been holding it back in the past. Then along comes Dean Knuth and he labels there scores outliers, eliminates them, and viola, ANGC is #1. Perhaps Dean should find a way to factor out the Master's factor from the rankings.

I've written tongue in cheek before that the really good courses are the top public courses. That is because anyone can get on and have no obligation other than to say what they really think about the course. If you have had an invite to play ANGC, you are not going to let you host know it doesn't live up to the hype. Can Dr. Knuth factor that out of the rankings?

[Norbert P]

JohnK:

. . .  I don't think numerical rankings with nothing much else attached to them serve the purpose of architectural education I would like to see golf magazines offer.

Yup.

[Sean Leary]

I wonder if GD has had some raters that aren't all that impressed with ANGC, and their rating scores have been holding it back in the past. Then along comes Dean Knuth and he labels there scores outliers, eliminates them, and viola, ANGC is #1. Perhaps Dean should find a way to factor out the Master's factor from the rankings.

I've written tongue in cheek before that the really good courses are the top public courses. That is because anyone can get on and have no obligation other than to say what they really think about the course. If you have had an invite to play ANGC, you are not going to let you host know it doesn't live up to the hype. Can Dr. Knuth factor that out of the rankings?

Garland,

In the write up, it says specifically that ANGC came out on top in raw scores as well before the "Knuthing"..

[TEPaul]

"Can Dr. Knuth factor that out of the rankings?"


Garland:

Just ask yourself----if a magazine has to hire someone like Dean Knuth to mathematically "factor out" anything to do with THEIR ranking panel's rankings then what in the Hell does a magazine HAVE a ranking panel like that for in the first place? 

[Dan Kelly]

In the write up, it says specifically that ANGC came out on top in raw scores as well before the "Knuthing"..

Shakespeare, I suppose, would call this ranking "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying Knuthing."

[Mike_Cirba]

Word on the street is that those GD panelists whose scores were thrown out will heretofore be referred to as "No-Knuthings". 

[Garland Bayley]

I wonder if GD has had some raters that aren't all that impressed with ANGC, and their rating scores have been holding it back in the past. Then along comes Dean Knuth and he labels there scores outliers, eliminates them, and viola, ANGC is #1. Perhaps Dean should find a way to factor out the Master's factor from the rankings.

I've written tongue in cheek before that the really good courses are the top public courses. That is because anyone can get on and have no obligation other than to say what they really think about the course. If you have had an invite to play ANGC, you are not going to let you host know it doesn't live up to the hype. Can Dr. Knuth factor that out of the rankings?

Garland,

In the write up, it says specifically that ANGC came out on top in raw scores as well before the "Knuthing"..

Well then I guess we are back to the best way to come out on top of a "green" ranking system is to only keep the course open half the year.

[JNC Lyon]

Does anyone have the Best-in-State Lists?  I really want to see the NY list.

[Kyle Henderson]

Maybe we, as a group, don't have the money and connections to see these places enough.

Capt. Kirk,
Truth aside, how dare ye cast doubt on the supremacy on the GCA consensus?!!!

We collectively know all that is golf course worthiness.


Based on my own humble sense of self-supremacy, my opinion of the list is that...

I can only judge the list based on the courses I have played within it as follows:
13   Sand Hills G.C.
14   Pacific Dunes
26   The Olympic Club (Lake)
31   Riviera C.C.
33   Bandon Dunes
51   Spyglass Hill Golf Course
72   Montery Peninsula C.C. (Shore)
80   Bandon Trails

I'd personally reorder those courses from best to less as:
Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Trails, Bandon Dunes, MPCC Shore, Riviera, Spyglass, Olympic (Lake)

From my mini-list, Ballyneal certainly ranks ahead of Bandon Dunes if not Sand Hills. It is surely a top 100 track. Pasatiempo belongs as well, without doubt.

[tlavin]

post deleted by churlish author

[RSLivingston_III]

Does anyone have the Best-in-State Lists?  I really want to see the NY list.

They are up on the site now.

Kingsley at 16 in MI. <shakes head>

[Kalen Braley]

Ralph,

Do you have the link?  I can't find anything new on the Golf Digest site.

Thanks,

[Mike Benham]

Has anyone compared the list to last year, shown the change in ranking for the courses?

That would be the interesting analysis ...

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph,

Do you have the link?  I can't find anything new on the Golf Digest site.

Thanks,

http://www.golfdigest.com/images/rankings/gd200705bestinstate.pdf

edit--Sorry this is still the old list

[Kalen Braley]

Ralph,

Do you have the link?  I can't find anything new on the Golf Digest site.

Thanks,

http://www.golfdigest.com/images/rankings/gd200705bestinstate.pdf

Ralph,

Thats the old list.  Thats the exact same as what was published in May 2007 thats currently on the GD site.

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph,

Do you have the link?  I can't find anything new on the Golf Digest site.

Thanks,

http://www.golfdigest.com/images/rankings/gd200705bestinstate.pdf

Ralph,

Thats the old list.  Thats the exact same as what was published in May 2007 thats currently on the GD site.

Just saw that. It says 2007-08.
So the new will be 2008-09?

[Richard Choi]

I think people are expecting too much from what is inherently a very subjective process.

If you want more objective output, you need to have more objective input. The GD process is anything but objective.

[Garland Bayley]

What are the categories for rating a course for GD?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()