[Peter Pallotta]

Props to GD for putting out a good list and shame on those who have something negative to say about anything and everything GD simply because of the name.  This was a great list, criteria, and article.

Jordan,

  It is a good list. I just wish it'd somehow make its way into the rankings that matter.

Jim - me too; but we're naive.  Why would GD 'blend" the two lists in a meaningful and consistent way when it can instead further carve up this new kind of ranking/list into 5 or 6 equally superficial lists, e.g. most fun per state, most fun for under/over $100, most fun for mixed groups of singles (private and public) , most fun while wearing a pin-wheel hat and capri pants. Soon not one month will pass (and on-line, not a single week) without a new list/ranking of what's hot and the best and all the rage. Oh, by the way - have you gotten rid of your antiquated 4 and 5 irons and replaced them with the latest hybrids?
 
Peter

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

I really feel that this list should be as important to the general public as the Top 100 and Best in State rankings.  While architectural greatness and difficulty are important, at the end of the day this game should be about FUN for the average golfer.  As a GD panelist, I was thrilled to see how the list turned out.  While I am sure the selection process can be improved, this list caused me to re-think what type of courses should be on my hit list.

As an aside, I was happy to see that 5 out of the 6 courses I nominated made the list, including some dark horses!

Fishers Island
Sankaty Head
Essex CC
Coronado
Commonground

[Sean Leary]

Props to GD for putting out a good list and shame on those who have something negative to say about anything and everything GD simply because of the name.  This was a great list, criteria, and article.

Jordan,

  It is a good list. I just wish it'd somehow make its way into the rankings that matter.

Jim, can you explain what you mean?

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Apologies for the typing errors.  I can't seem to figure out how to go back in and correct it on my Blackberry!

[Jud_T]

I really feel that this list should be as important to the general public as the Top 100 annd Best in State rankings.  While architectural greatness and difficulty are important, at the end of the day this game should be about FUN for the average golfer.  As a GD panelist, I was thrilled to see how thw list turned out.  While I am sure the selection process can be improved, this list caused me to re-think what type of courses should be on my hit list.

Agreed.  Frankly I'm much more interested in this list than in GD's regular top 100.

[Sean Leary]

How many on the private list tip out at over 7000 yards on the card? Seems like not that many. Almost like if you go over 7000 you were excluded (with exceptions of course).

[Michael George]

I really feel that this list should be as important to the general public as the Top 100 annd Best in State rankings.  While architectural greatness and difficulty are important, at the end of the day this game should be about FUN for the average golfer.  As a GD panelist, I was thrilled to see how thw list turned out.  While I am sure the selection process can be improved, this list caused me to re-think what type of courses should be on my hit list.

As an aside, I was happy to see that 5 out of the 6 courses I nominated made the list, including some dark horses!

Fishers Island
Sankaty Head
Essex CC
Coranado
Commonground

I agree fully with the importance of this list.  I honestly don't know what "best" means so carving the rankings up so that people can review them and get what they want out of them is great.  "Fun", "Best Tests" and "Prettiest" are all rankings that I would be interested in for different reasons.  If I am going on a golf trip with buddies and I will have drinks and bets going, I would refer to the "Fun" rankings.  If I am going with some fellow low handicappers for some matches, I would refer to the "Best Test" rankings.  If I am going with the wife on a couples trip, I would refer to the "Prettiest" rankings.  Each has their own purpose and importance.

My only problem with it is the scope of courses considered.  While I referenced some courses in a previous post, I have no clue if any or all of them apply.  I just found it odd that such gorgeous areas such as the Rockies and Blue Ridge Mountains did not have any courses on the list.  Further, I think Ohio has some incredibly fun golf courses and don't know how not one of them is ranked.  

Again, I applaud Golf Digest and hope that they dissect their rankings more often.  At the least, it will save me time analyzing the scores of their ranked courses to see what courses I would likely prefer.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Don't you think that some of the reasoning behind the list was to help dispel the myth that good=difficult.  Fun can =good.  Isn't that what we have been espousing all along?  The lists could have included many other courses, but the ones included are worthy of their inclusion.  I hope it gets people thinking that the fun course down the street has some merit simply because it is fun, has some interesting architecture, allows the player to make a good score, doesn't eat golf balls, or leave you bloodied from battle.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

GD Most Fun TOP 50 Private

1. Cypress Point
2. Fishers Island
3. NGLA
4. Sand Hills
5. Augusta National Par 3
6. The Dunes Club
7. San Francisco Golf CLub
8. Mountain Lake
9. Augusta National Golf Club
10. Shoreacres
11. Yeamans Hall
12. Sankaty Head
13. Essex County CC  (Mass)
14. Garden City GC
15. Valley Club of Motecito
16. Eastward Ho!
17. Palmetto GC
18. Prairie Dunes
19. Myopia Hunt Club
20. Somerset Hills CC
21. The Olympic Club Cliffs
22. Kittansett Club
23. Indian Creek CC
24. Monroe GC
25. Maidstone Club
26. Merion West
27. Monterey Peninsula CC
28. CC of Fairfield
29. Pine Valley (Short)
30. Ekwanok CC
31. St. Louis CC
32. Newport CC
33. Crystal Downs CC
34. Hollywood GC
35. Friar's Head GC
36. Riviera CC
37. Ballyneal GC
38. White Bear Yacht Club
39. Old Elm Club
40. Piping Rock
41. Blue Mound G & CC
42. The Everglades Club
43. Bel-Air CC
44. CC of Scranton
45. Whitinsville GC
46. The Creek
47. Omaha CC
48. Sakonnet GC
49. Whisperig Pines GC
50. Hyannisport Club

If you buy into that list, then it doesn't say a lot about modern architecture.....

I agree... and i think one Modern course in the Phila. area that was overlooked is Applebrook.  I'd assume Stonewall, French Creek, and Hidden Creek would all fit into this conversation as well... i just haven't played them to offer an opinion.

[Jim Colton]

Props to GD for putting out a good list and shame on those who have something negative to say about anything and everything GD simply because of the name.  This was a great list, criteria, and article.

Jordan,

  It is a good list. I just wish it'd somehow make its way into the rankings that matter.

Jim, can you explain what you mean?

Sean, I meant I'd like to see them add Fun as a real criteria in their definitive list of America's 100 Greatest Courses. It seems some of these classic courses might move up or make their way on the list.

[Sean Leary]

Jim,

Got it. Could one argue that fun is inherant in their other criteria? I am not saying it is, but maybe one might say so based upon depending what people define as fun?

Note that I am a member of a course on the list that is way higher than I would think it would be. I think perhaps many raters were influenced by thinking about which shortish yardage courses are still really, really good.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Props to GD for putting out a good list and shame on those who have something negative to say about anything and everything GD simply because of the name.  This was a great list, criteria, and article.

Jordan,

  It is a good list. I just wish it'd somehow make its way into the rankings that matter.

Jim, can you explain what you mean?

Sean, I meant I'd like to see them add Fun as a real criteria in their definitive list of America's 100 Greatest Courses. It seems some of these classic courses might move up or make their way on the list.

Jim, I likewise, would like to see another category added to our list of criteria.  I like the GW "Walk in the Park".  "Fun" category, or "when you finished did you want to play it again or run away?"  There have been some courses that I just hated that I rated highly because they scored high in shot values, resistance to scoring etc. 

[Jim Colton]

Does Golfweek ever published the results of all of those categories? I think it would be interesting to see.

While we're adding cats to the GD list. How about separate ones for quality of par 3's in aggregate, short par 4's, long par 4's, and par 5's?

[Sven Nilsen]

GD has a list of the 18 most fun holes on their site.  The first two were island greens.

[William_G]

Likely that Golfweek is bummed it didn't come out with this first, I like it

[Mark Bourgeois]

Don't you think that some of the reasoning behind the list was to help dispel the myth that good=difficult.  Fun can =good.  Isn't that what we have been espousing all along?  The lists could have included many other courses, but the ones included are worthy of their inclusion.  I hope it gets people thinking that the fun course down the street has some merit simply because it is fun, has some interesting architecture, allows the player to make a good score, doesn't eat golf balls, or leave you bloodied from battle.

Tommy, I don't see that in the least. If that's what they were after they would have made the "fun" ranking the "great" ranking, just like they made the "hard" ranking the "great" ranking.

I get that if someone's after fun they can use this list as a reference. Great, there's value in that.

But for anyone who harbors hope these rankings could morph into something positive, well, this is just pandering to the residents of the fun ghetto. All they are doing is "giving the fun minority what they want" so they can sell magazines. It's the gca.com equivalent to fortified wine.

Disclaimers:

* No, I don't work or volunteer in any capacity for golf magazines. No hidden agendas here.
* No, I don't believe what GD is doing is immoral or anywhere close to as wrong as selling products that damage health.
* Yes, I bought the issue and read it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()