Golf Digest's 2013-14 Top 100 Rankings

[Garland Bayley]

Ronald,

I did find it odd to link to the external site when a simple cut and paste would've put it up here for the world to see...

So robbing a bank is wrong, but stealing intellectual property is A-OK! 

[Mac Plumart]

Rich Harvest in.  Shoreacres and Kingsley out.  Nuff said...

I've never played Rich Harvest, but Shoreacres and Kingsley not being included seems a bit out of whack with my taste.  But given the "resistence to scoring" criteria, I can see why Shoreacres doesn't make this list.  It is out of this world magnificent with a "genius" routing, but not overly difficult.

[Anders Rytter]

I haven't played that many golfcourses in the states, but if you guys have 77 tracks that are better than Ballyneal i spend WAY to much time playing in Europe!

Same goes for kingsley if it isn't left out because to few played it.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mac, you're right to go note the use of explicit criteria as the crux of the issue. Criticizing GD ranker assessments is like criticizing course raters (rating/slope #s) for making a course too hard / easy.

[Mac Plumart]

I haven't played that many golfcourses in the states, but if you guys have 77 tracks that are better than Ballyneal i spend WAY to much time playing in Europe!

Same goes for kingsley if it isn't left out because to few played it.

I'd think enough raters have played Kingsley, can someone verify that?

I think it is a bit controversial in some areas, like perhaps 9 green.  And I've heard people complain about 7 or 8 (I forget which one).  However, I think it is REALLY good and, oddly enough, seems to fit in with Golf Digest's criteria.  So, unless not enough raters have seen it, which I doubt, I an miffed by its exclusion from the list.

[Brian Joines]

I haven't played that many golfcourses in the states, but if you guys have 77 tracks that are better than Ballyneal i spend WAY to much time playing in Europe!

Same goes for kingsley if it isn't left out because to few played it.

I'd think enough raters have played Kingsley, can someone verify that?

I think it is a bit controversial in some areas, like perhaps 9 green.  And I've heard people complain about 7 or 8 (I forget which one).  However, I think it is REALLY good and, oddly enough, seems to fit in with Golf Digest's criteria.  So, unless not enough raters have seen it, which I doubt, I an miffed by its exclusion from the list.

It looks like Kingsley does have enough ballots as it appears in the 101-200 list. It falls in at #114, one spot ahead of Pasa. Both of these seem way too low to me.

[Brian Finn]

Kingsley is listed at 114 in the second 100 list.  I have not had the pleasure of playing it personally, so can't opine.

For what it is worth, the GD iPad app is terrific.  

[Jud_T]

Mac, you're right to go note the use of explicit criteria as the crux of the issue. Criticizing GD ranker assessments is like criticizing course raters (rating/slope #s) for making a course too hard / easy.

Mark,

You're right of course.  But their criteria are exasperating, dated and arguably a bad influence.

[John McCarthy]

Canyata at #38, ahead of Bandon Dunes, Sebonack and Pinehurst #2?

While there are plenty of gaps in my knowledge of U.S. golf courses, I cannot recall ever hearing or reading about this course. Can anyone clue me in?

Canyata is a private course in east centrak Illinois.  It is supposed to be hard.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mid-Majors can only send so many teams to the dance. Kingsley and Shoreacres didn't win conference.

[Ed Brzezowski]

no Pasatiempo???  I find that troubling. I would rather play there than half the courses i see.

[Bruce Wellmon]

Mid-Majors can only send so many teams to the dance. Kingsley and Shoreacres didn't win conference.

That was funny. Good one John.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jud,

If my purpose was to sell magazines I would aim to make news with each ranking but under the constraint that the rankings must hew pretty closely to consensus. What we might call "Brownian motion" or just "noise." I want to make news for the right reason; ie, not because I've lost credibility.

How would I accomplish this? For starters, I would want to control outcomes as much as possible. Therefore, I would need to find a way that reflects my views on what makes for "greatness," views that have been formed in part by the consensus. For credibility, I would create a very large panel of raters -- size makes it easier for me to control raters and outcomes. I would use raters as a beard.

Each course won't line up exactly as I'd like which gives me the opportunity to argue the ratings are independent of my views. (Of course, the raters would read my views and know it's not wise to be fingered as a consistent outlier, thus further harmonizing the outcomes.)

Jawboning can go only so far so, in addition to using statistical techniques to "smooth" the outcomes, I'd work the criteria. This is very effective, so much so that unfortunately it reveals my strategy. Maybe I got too obvious with a criterion (say, "tradition points"). So, after being hounded into that recantation, I focused on adding / subtracting criteria. Also, I focused on choosing criteria that was purposefully ambiguous: such criteria enabled me to "educate" raters on meaning. "Walkability" is a good example of the former and "shot values" or "ambience" of the latter.

These would be the primary means by which I'd manipulate outcomes.

Now, after doing this for a good while I'd imagine I'd gotten good enough at methodology to seed any course pretty close to where I'd like it to be. Once I mastered that I could change / adjust the criteria to produce the necessary "Brownian motion" that ensures each biennial ranking looks fresh without much really changing and without the outcomes getting too far afield of where I want them.

Creating the illusion of a dynamic ranking is important to selling magazines and winning ad dollars, which is what all of this is optimized for. There's probably some job preservation in there, too: if the rankings just sat still I might not be needed as much.)

Full disclosure: I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I play one on TV.

[Jim Franklin]

I am most disappointed that Rock Creek did not make the list. It is a wonderful course and is in my Top 5. I was glad to see Pikewood make the list as it is well deserved. I still do not have any idea why Baltimore CC cannot get back on the list. I play with a lot of the GD panelists that play there and, to a man, they say it should be top 100. Am I missing something???

[Sean Leary]

I am most disappointed that Rock Creek did not make the list. It is a wonderful course and is in my Top 5. I was glad to see Pikewood make the list as it is well deserved. I still do not have any idea why Baltimore CC cannot get back on the list. I play with a lot of the GD panelists that play there and, to a man, they say it should be top 100. Am I missing something???

All the GD panelists that I know say they rate Sahalee no where near Top 100, yet there it is again. Who knows...

[Jud_T]

Mid-Majors can only send so many teams to the dance. Kingsley and Shoreacres didn't win conference.

Yeah,

But they thought they were playing for a birth in the Olympics, and instead ended up trying out for the WWE.

[David Davis]

I don't know Golf Digest since it's not over here. This ranking is mind boggling for me, what's the ranking criteria? I mean seriously, has anyone that's ever played both Pacific Dunes and Whistling Straits considered Whistling Straits better? I mean it's a great course I'm not saying it's not but Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders above. Then to take out Shoreacres and have Sahalee in. I really liked Sahalee but it's not top 100 US material. There are many more examples....

They must get huge extra points for having hostedd a PGA or US Open I guess.

Anyone?

[Tom Fagerli]

Obviously a Tom Fazio loving group. I am glad to see Grandfather back in the list. What a wonderful place.
The only thing saving this list is that sufficient raters may not have played a course so it is suppressed. We all have our favorites and to me no Yeamans Hall in the top 100 is unfathomable. I prefer to chalk it up to lack of raters as we should many others.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I don't know Golf Digest since it's not over here. This ranking is mind boggling for me, what's the ranking criteria? I mean seriously, has anyone that's ever played both Pacific Dunes and Whistling Straits considered Whistling Straits better? I mean it's a great course I'm not saying it's not but Pacific Dunes is head and shoulders above. Then to take out Shoreacres and have Sahalee in. I really liked Sahalee but it's not top 100 US material. There are many more examples....

They must get huge extra points for having hostedd a PGA or US Open I guess.

Anyone?

David not on my computer so I can't link the reference but if you Google golf digest top 100 criteria you will find the answer.  Essentially multiple categories are scored and the score for each is added together for a total score.  As has been said its the criteria that create the results.  I scored many of the courses I have played based on the criteria and it was enlightening.  I appreciate that golf digest tries to be scientific with their process and think the list matches the criteria reasonably well.

(The categories are: shot value x2, resistance to scoring, design variety, memorability, aesthetics, conditioning, ambience)

[Ronald Montesano]

Mark raises a good point. Within the small community of people who actually give a shittim about the rankings, there is an even smaller community of folks who give enough of a shittah to digest (hah, that's a pun) the entire list and make sense of it. Within that group, an even more refined subset is angered enough by the rankings to voice its opinion.

Imagine for a moment that the list were perfect. The vast majority would not notice. The second group might notice and yawn, given that there would be no debate. Controversy is a grand thing. Yo ho ho, Sahalee!!

[Mike Hendren]

Again, I'm reminded that rating/ranking golf courses is a highly subjective endeavor, particularly as one works his way down the ranks.  What's humorous is the implied dynamic, abundantly reflected on this web-site,  that I'm right and a whole bunch of other people are wrong.  That's closely followed by demonizing the opposing position.  Congress has it down pat as we stare over the fiscal cliff (Bogey has inside scoop that a deal will get done and Gruden will not come to Tennessee). 

Don't ever forget that you just might wind up being wrong.
And I hope Anita Bryant never, ever does one of my songs.
  - Jimmy Buffett

[John Kavanaugh]

There is not an ounce of evidence that we are right and they are wrong. A point of fact is that this group is populated with a higher percentage of raters than most any other. These are small lists in a big world.

[Mac Plumart]

There is not an ounce of evidence that we are right and they are wrong.

Correct.  It is a subjective exercise.

[Jud_T]

It's a decent list for those who value challenge and pretty over fun.  Personally I think they have their priorities backasswards, but if I could scare 80 from beyond 6500 yards on a regular basis I might feel differently...

[Tim Gavrich]

Are courses allowed to request not to be included on the list? Does that hold water as a potential reason for an apparent glaring omission?

Also, having never been to Bandon, I've heard that their greens, on the mean, would probably be considered among the slower ones of any courses on this list. Knowing how highly many people value fast greens and how dearly they tie the speed and smoothness of the greens to their overall notion about the general "conditioning" of the course, could that be a reason why Bandon's courses aren't ranked as highly as many believe they should be?

If I'm off base about the general upkeep of the putting surfaces, mea culpa. I'd much rather putt them myself than speculate. Someday.