Golf Digest Top 100 is out

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

GD is selling to the masses. McDonald's is a profitable company and made money last year when not much else did. I would say the Digest model works then.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim F:

No doubt if the low bar is the barometer for success then so be it.

Digest has always claimed to be the gold standard for all that is tied to the game. Do you honestly see the totality of what they produce now for their 100 Greatest at that level?

Jim, I respect your opinions and can understand your feelings on Baltimore CC / Five Farms --- but with each passing ratings Digest loses the core audience that are golfers -- not just the people who happen to play golf.

[Rick Sides]

I just got my new Golf Digest with the top 100.  The magazine claims that 900 people are on the panel of raters.  Are you telling me 900 people got to play Augusta?  NO WAY!!!! If 9 people got to play it out of the 900 that might be high.  Again it goes back to my assertion that it is very different to play a course and rate it than to see it on t.v. and walk it. Golf Digest dropped the ball

[Tom Huckaby]

I just got my new Golf Digest with the top 100.  The magazine claims that 900 people are on the panel of raters.  Are you telling me 900 people got to play Augusta?  NO WAY!!!! If 9 people got to play it out of the 900 that might be high.  Again it goes back to my assertion that it is very different to play a course and rate it than to see it on t.v. and walk it. Golf Digest dropped the ball

Rick:

There are 900 panelists.

A course needs to be seen by a minimum of 40 to be allowed to count for ranking purposes.

So, in the last few years, at least 40 panelists have played Augusta.

That's not too hard to believe.

TH

[Rick Sides]

My question then is how fair is it that 40 people out of 900 have to play the course to rate it?  I'm assuming that no more than the limited amount got to play Augusta.  Do 40 people out of 900 really give a fair ranking?  I know that a lot of the top 10 courses don't get a lot of the raters, but Augusta has to have the least amount of raters play it because of the limited months its open and strict guest policies.  Therefore, most probably about 850 of the 900 panelists rate Augusta from the t.v. walking it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rick:

Only the 40 submit ratings at all. Those who have not played it do not submit ratings.

Those 40 ratings comprise the score for Augusta.

Perhaps that is a small number.. but I doubt it's crazily smaller than a lot of other private clubs.

[Sean Leary]

Even if there was fewer than 40 who have played it, you can be damn well sure that they would make an exception. A list that doesn't have ANGC on it would have no credibility with the general public.

40 is not that many. 5 new raters a year for 8 years gets you that. I would bet that the number is closer to 100.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Matt,

I think the problem is the definition of "quality architecture".  That can mean entirely different things to different people.  some people equate great architecture with level of difficulty, some with width, some with strategic options and so on.  there is a level of architectural snobbery on this site that lends itself to groupthink (corporate bingo word).  donald ross and the other old masters built some bad courses.  thats a fact.  rtj built some great courses... far more than he gets credit for.  thats a fact.

i have the pleasure of going to the masters every year, and personally i preferred the old version of agnc better.  that being said, have the changes made all that great a difference to the members (those that actually play the course regularly)?  my guess is probably not.  their tees are in the same places... so if you're judging from the perspective of the average golfer, not a whole lot has changed there in the past 20 years before it began dropping on some lists.

i think golf architecture snobs have lost perspective on how much "beauty" plays a part in the eyes of the average golfer.  most people that play golf do it once a month as an escape from their daily lives.  they don't go to the course to debate the merits of shot value.  they go to hit a stupid white ball around in serenity.  the golf digest list puts more emphasis on this.  let those guys have their list... and we have ours (gw).

[Tim Leahy]

The Quarry at La Quinta is in the top 50 and I wonder if anyone out there has played it. I have only seen pictures and a play thru on the old Links Mag tv show. I know it is VERY exclusive and supposedly superbly conditioned, but from what I have seen it doesn't seem to fit in the top 50. From the pictures it doesn't look any more interesting than Stone Eagle.
Has anyone played it and can cofirm the high rating?

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay:

I have to congratulate you quite deeply and sincerely.  You seem to be relatively new here (based on small # of posts) but you have perfectly encapsulated this silly ratings issue, which has been battled over for YEARS in here, of course all the more so each time one of the magazine puts out their list.

When you say this:

I think golf architecture snobs have lost perspective on how much "beauty" plays a part in the eyes of the average golfer.  most people that play golf do it once a month as an escape from their daily lives.  they don't go to the course to debate the merits of shot value.  they go to hit a stupid white ball around in serenity.  the golf digest list puts more emphasis on this.  let those guys have their list... and we have ours (gw).

That is just PERFECT.  Absolutely dead right on.  It's always amazed me that the folks in here seem to expect the GD list to be anything but what it is.. which is exactly what you state.

Now I tend to align myself far more with the average golfer than the architecture snobs - though I obviously do love to participate in this forum - but in any case, right on man - it's apples and oranges.

TH

ps to Tim- I have not played Quarry @ LQ but again, like Augusta, I have zero doubt the minimum 40 have gotten there.  It's not that much to expect.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Tom - Just my pathetic attempt to join the GD ranking team...    How did I do?

[JSlonis]

Sorry if I missed the post, but through 7 pages, I'm surprised no one has mentioned any surprise or made a comment on Fishers Island now being in the top ten at #9.

I was lucky enough to play there a few years back in a tournament and while I just loved the whole place, I'm still a bit surprised by its lofty ranking. I have no idea of where it ranked 5-10 years ago but I would imagine Fishers has to be one of the few courses that have moved up significantly.

[Garland Bayley]

...so if you're judging from the perspective of the average golfer...

What's the average golfer got to do with it? This is the GD rating explicitly calling out the scratch golfer from the back tees.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I have played it.

Exclusive indeed as you mentioned.

The TF layout is well conditioned but the real gist of the course stems with the final five holes -- which includes two solid par-3 holes -- a long true three shot par-5 for all but the longest of players and two solid long par-4's at the 16th and 18th holes.

I've played my share of TF layouts and TQatLQ is a well done member's layout -- stern in certain spots but not overly so. I would not rate it among the top 10 TF layouts I have played and it would not make my personal top 50 courses. I would go as far as to say that it would not make my top 100 here either in the States.

That's not to say the course is not good -- it's just not THAT good for such high acclaim.

In the Palm Springs area the course is indeed a worthy play if the opportunity presents itself. I'd rather play at Stone Eagle for the better consistent design.

Likely, the exclusivity of the place has helped garner favor among Digest raters.

[Tom Huckaby]

...so if you're judging from the perspective of the average golfer...

What's the average golfer got to do with it? This is the GD rating explicitly calling out the scratch golfer from the back tees.

Still harping on that, Garland?

The worth of that one piece of the whole is debatable, for sure.  But I go back to my post to you about this yesterday... back one page... I sincerely do believe that the use of it does not diminish the overall worth of the system. I do sincerely believe that teh GD criteria do effectively evaluate what the average golfer looks for in a golf course.



Jay - well you made a friend in me.

 

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry if I missed the post, but through 7 pages, I'm surprised no one has mentioned any surprise or made a comment on Fishers Island now being in the top ten at #9.

I was lucky enough to play there a few years back in a tournament and while I just loved the whole place, I'm still a bit surprised by its lofty ranking. I have no idea of where it ranked 5-10 years ago but I would imagine Fishers has to be one of the few courses that have moved up significantly.

I surmised that the fast and firm criteria bumped it up.

[JSlonis]

I was able to find some info on Fishers on the GD site.  Fishers Island was not even ranked in the top 100 from 1975-2000.  It was back on the list in 2001, ranked #44.

That is quite a rise for it to now be ranked on the top 10.

[Matt_Ward]

JSlonis:

You may want to check out the historial rise of CP in that same time frame.

Just a quick question how do you rate Fisher's Island among all the metro NYC area courses you have played ?

[Garland Bayley]

... I do sincerely believe that teh GD criteria do effectively evaluate what the average golfer looks for in a golf course...

Well teammate, the KP website has you at 4.1 and me at 21.9. I'll thank you not to speak for the average golfer.

[Sean Leary]

I have to believe that Ballyneal's and Chambers Bay's exclusion have to do with the slowness of the greens. Especially Ballyneal with how slow they were when they first opened and how much rater play it got. GD has mainly good players and many good players hate slow greens. It will be interesting to see in future years if those lower rankings hurt on going forward.

Question, if one rates the course again on a subsequent visit does the first rating stay on othe books or does it go away? Huck?

[Tom Huckaby]

... I do sincerely believe that teh GD criteria do effectively evaluate what the average golfer looks for in a golf course...

Well teammate, the KP website has you at 4.1 and me at 21.9. I'll thank you not to speak for the average golfer.

Garland, that's NOW, obviously. I have not always been a 4.1.  I also tend to play like a 44.1 at times the odd times I do play.  On top of that, I tend to play far more with guys in your index range than those in Jon Spaulding's.

So I think I can speak plenty fine for the average golfer.


Sean - I do not know the answer to your question for sure.  I THINK if one submits a second rating it replaces the first.. but I do not know.  That would make logical sense, of course.

[Garland Bayley]

Careful Tom,

You start claiming a 44.1 and David is likely to pair you with me as a teammate so S Cal can open a big can of wupass on us.

[Tom Huckaby]

Careful Tom,

You start claiming a 44.1 and David is likely to pair you with me as a teammate so S Cal can open a big can of wupass on us.

In no way did I claim a 44.1.  However if David wants to make that matchup, I wil certainly not decline.

 

[JSlonis]

JSlonis:

You may want to check out the historial rise of CP in that same time frame.

Just a quick question how do you rate Fisher's Island among all the metro NYC area courses you have played ?

Matt,

Is CP = Cypress Point?

I'd place Fishers quite high on my list of MET courses, but to have it at #9 in GD while Garden City sits at #53 and Plainfield at #71 is quite a stretch.  Also, if there are 100 better golf courses than Ridgewood in the USA, I'd eat my sand wedge. 

[Garland Bayley]

Jamie,

GD says start eating.