Golf Digest's 2013-14 Top 100 Rankings

[Bill Gayne]

Mac and Scott,

Thanks for your responses on my question as to the ranking difference between Ballyneal and Sand Hills. I especially appreciate your comments on the differences in the greens. I thought Ballyneal was awesome and I really need to see Sand Hills.

Bill

[Kevin Lynch]

Tweeted by Golf Digest's Ron Whitten this afternoon about the new rankings:

"Just got my 1st complaint from an architect!"

https://twitter.com/RonWhittenGD/status/284760040055898112

Well, we know it wasn't Fazio. Any guesses?

Rees Jones. Whitten pointed out his Top 100 departures, most notably East Lake falling from 61 to 108.  Guess some raters weren't impressed by the Haas / Snedeker run. 

[Kevin Lynch]

From the State Rankings, it looks like Ballyhack received a little more love than the Golfweek ratings.

Ballyhack was 7th in the Virginia rankings, but must not have had the minimum 45 ratings for the overall lists.  However, in the state rankings, it was between:

Homestead Cascades - 59.8 (26th Public, 130 overall)
Mattaponi - 57.9 (50th Public)

A score between those ranges would put them in the 130-160 overall range. Considering that Ballyhack didn't even make Golfweek's Top 200 Modern listing, that's quite a difference.  Such volatility may not be surprising, since Ballyhack is pretty wild terrain, but I'm glad to see it get some more respect.

[Ken Fry]

This is what rings so hollow for the GD rankings:

An example from Michigan:  Greywalls is ranked as the 9th best course in the state.  It can't make the "100 Greatest Public" course listing because not enough panelists got to it.  There are 5 courses ranked below it in the state by as many as 8 spots that make the national list.

There's too much jock sniffing going on for my tastes....

Ken

[Nigel Islam]

I can't believe the Dye course in French Lick made it. Its not even the best course in French Lick.

[Michael George]

I know rankings are subjective, but I really think Golf Digest has to look at their criteria.  Their weight given to difficulty simply over-rates golf course that may be great tests, but are not close to courses ranked lower.  I will only speak as to courses that I have played (so Rich Harvest Links is safe from this discussion - even though I have never met 1 person that thinks it is top 200 - I think Jud's statement is safe).

(1) MVGA is a great course, but the homes around it really hurt the experience as they really are on top of you. Not top 20, but top 50 for sure.

(2) Oakland Hills continues to be overrated. It has great, great greens but it is really boring tee to green.  It is top 100 but should be much lower.  

(3) Pacific Dunes continues to fall for no reason.   Who on this string that have played them both would rather play Seminole, MVGA, Alotian, Oak Hill or Chicago GC over Pacific Dunes.

(4) I don't have a problem with Pinehurst #2 in the 30-40 range.  It is a great golf course with great greens.  I loved it.  However, I don't put it in the class of some that I have played like Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes or Old Macdonald.  I would fight for Old Macdonald, Bandon Trails and Ballyneal to be ranked higher before Pinehurst #2.  

(5) Scioto continues to be overrated.  Great club - maybe best family club in the US (the pool, grille, bar, etc.. are awesome ) but the golf course is not in the class where it is ranked .  In Ohio, Golf Club, MVGA, Camargo, Brookside and Country Club (PP) are easily better.

(6) I really need someone to explain to me how Double Eagle stays as high as it does.  It is very private, has incredible service and the course is in great condition (ie. outside of the golf, it is great), but the course is simply not top 100 or 200.  I don't think it is even top 10 in Ohio.  Further, they currently have a major tree overgrowth problem on their front 9 and the back 9 is on some fairly bland property.  


Courses that I have played that should be top 100:

Dormie Club - I heard C & C were stiffed on fees and maybe that is why it is not getting love with the mags, but a great place.
Brookside (Canton) - greens as good as Oakland Hills, Pinehurst and Oakmont.  Beautiful rolling property.  Got to set up an outing at Brookside next year for gca (they allow Monday outings).
Dismal River - unique course that is simply fun golf --- if you play from the proper tees (need to blow up lower tees on #1 and #4).  I think it would be in the top 100 if some fairways were widened (as Mackenzie said - "there should be a complete absence of the annoyance caused by searching for lost balls" - which is a big difference between Ballyneal and Dismal River).

[Bill McKinley]

This is the first time I've been around here right when the Digest rankings come out so it's interesting to see the banter about it.  Here's what I've learned over the years about the Digest rankings...

1.  Their formula is too complicated and too subjective for their mass of raters to comprehend similarly.  This leads to a lot of questionable numbers like many of us are pointing out.

2.  The whole "not enough evaluations" line is complete garbage.  I know places like Camargo and Yeamans Hall don't get enough raters and they as a club could care less, but if those places don't get enough then there's no way Chicago, Fishers or even Augusta could get enough real evaluations.

3.  Their rankings, more than any seem to have way more mass media/tv bias than any others.  Which is why it drives most of us on this board crazy.  

4.  The difference between out of the Top 100 and being comfortably in the 50s or 60s is so small.  Which makes #1 on my list all the more important.

5.  They should just take resistance to scoring out of the mix.  I mean, really, what does that have to do with the greatness of a golf course???

[Mac Plumart]

I can't believe the Dye course in French Lick made it. Its not even the best course in French Lick.

I've never played it, but I bet it is difficult.  Can someone confirm or deny?

[John Kavanaugh]

I can't believe the Dye course in French Lick made it. Its not even the best course in French Lick.

I've never played it, but I bet it is difficult.  Can someone confirm or deny?

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.

[Ken Fry]

]

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.
 

Jaka,

French Lick Dye or Victoria National?

Ken

[Michael George]

John:

I think the same about most Dye golf courses.  People complain, but often they are just playing the wrong tees.  I have really enjoyed the Dye courses that I have played, especially his use of risk/reward angles (he may have designed the greatest Cape holes of the modern era).  

[John Kavanaugh]

]

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.
 

Jaka,

French Lick Dye or Victoria National?

Ken

At Victoria you will lose balls.

[Mac Plumart]

Can someone email me the 101-200 portion of the list?

mac@mrpgolf.com

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/digital-subscription

Thanks, Clint.

I got the 101-200 and the State Rankings.

In the end, I suppose I have little to say about these lists except that my taste in golf courses greatly differs from Golf Digest's.  The Top 100 in the U.S. list is okay...I can make arguments that it is solid.  But the State Lists really begin to break down...at least given my tastes.

[Mac Plumart]

I can't believe the Dye course in French Lick made it. Its not even the best course in French Lick.

I've never played it, but I bet it is difficult.  Can someone confirm or deny?

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.

Hmmm...I love Pete Dye.  Sounds like I need to get there.

[Tom_Doak]

I can't believe the Dye course in French Lick made it. Its not even the best course in French Lick.

I've never played it, but I bet it is difficult.  Can someone confirm or deny?

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.

This is one of the parts of the GOLF DIGEST rankings that has done so much harm in golf architecture over the years.  Their formula encourages developers and architects to build 8000-yard tees that no one would ever want to play, so that the course can earn points for Resistance to Scoring.

I do feel that it is up to designers to exercise better judgment about tee placement.  Just building tees all over the lot and then blaming golfers for choosing the wrong set of tees is a complete cop-out.

[Nigel Islam]

I totally agree with Tom regarding the resistance to scoring section it encourages monster courses, and is quite harmful and expensive.

John Kavanaugh is correct about the Dye course being very playable from the correct tees, and it is very good golf course. I think Victoria is much harder, you will lose balls, but just is a better golf course. My point about it not being the best in French Lick has to do with the fact that the Ross (Hill) course is one of my all time favorites.

Mac, it is probably worth the trip, but make sure you check out the Ross course too if you have never played there, and get in touch with me if you do as I am always looking for an excuse to play there.

[Ken Fry]

]

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.
 

Jaka,

French Lick Dye or Victoria National?

Ken

At Victoria you will lose balls.

I played Victoria.  Are you saying this literally or figuratively??

[C. Squier]

Tom Doak - I've hosted at least a dozen GD panelists at my home club and not once has one of them played from the back tees OR legitimately been a 5 hdcp or lower.  Granted, a small sample size but the ability of panelists to judge the "resistance to scoring as a scratch golfer from the back tees" is just as lacking as the reasoning for even having that category in the first place.

[Kevin Lynch]

In the end, I suppose I have little to say about these lists except that my taste in golf courses greatly differs from Golf Digest's. 

Mac, you nailed it right there.  

Ultimately, I value the qualitative input from people I know have a similar taste in courses.  I'd visit a course based on a ratings panel of you, JNC Lyon and Tim Martin, regardless of what Golf Digest or GolfWeek think.

The rankings are an interesting theoretical exercise, as I'll try to understand why a course I enjoy is rated lower than one I regard ambivalently.  Usually, I determine the criteria used by one magazine do not carry the same weight for me.  Thus, I generally disregard these quantitative measures in determining where I may want to visit.  It's simply a weakness of quantitative averages vs qualitative input.  Still, I may be curious about the "scores" for each individual criterion to get some additional insight.  

However, if we are going to have quantitative measures, I'd request one major change.

I'd love to see the "beta" for each rated course, highlighting the highest score volatility.  A course like Tobacco Road may have one of the highest betas in the land.

A listing of the "most polarizing" courses would be an interesting place to look for new courses to visit.  I imagine there are many courses that fail to hit the radar using simple average, but may have the most passionate supporters and detractors.  I suspect Ballyhack's average is brought down by people who don't "get" the thrill of extreme terrain, but for fans of that characteristic, it's a must visit.  I haven't played Dismal River, but from the passion I read on GCA, I imagine it has a similar issue.  

[Mac Plumart]

Kevin...

I love the beta idea and positing individual scores for each item.

On your idea of taking qualitative advice from people who's ideal golf courses lines up with yours, I love it.  However, I think by studying each list and how they are derived, we can come up with each list's utility function given our own tastes.  For example, if you like a challenge...perhaps Golf Digest is for you.  If you like the Walk in Park and routing, Golfweek.  If you want no set criteria and value an amalgamation of qualitative opinions, Golf Magazine.  If you love one specific persons opinion, Planet Golf or The Confidential Guide.

[Kevin Lynch]

If you love one specific persons opinion, Planet Golf or The Confidential Guide.

....or Golf Club Atlas, when you think about it.

It's amazing how we find kindred spirits here, and I've found more trustworthy opinions here in the last few years than I did in my previous  20 years playing. 

[Nigel Islam]

]

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.
 

Jaka,

French Lick Dye or Victoria National?

Ken

At Victoria you will lose balls.

I played Victoria.  Are you saying this literally or figuratively??

That is very funny Ken. Victoria certainly had that effect on me the first couple times I played it. It took me weeks to recover. Probably the reason I never joined.

[Bob_Garvelink]

I cannot find the "Best in State" section.  Can somebody please attach the link if you have it.  Cheers!!!!

[John Kavanaugh]

]

From 8,000 yds yes, from 6,400 not in the slightest. You never lose a ball and the greens while small have just the right amount of contour. It is my favorite Dye to date.
 

Jaka,

French Lick Dye or Victoria National?

Ken

At Victoria you will lose balls.

I played Victoria.  Are you saying this literally or figuratively??

That is very funny Ken. Victoria certainly had that effect on me the first couple times I played it. It took me weeks to recover. Probably the reason I never joined.

I've seen it take years for good golfers to get comfortable with their club selection off the tee. I hate it when my opponents leave their driver in the bag.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom Doak - I've hosted at least a dozen GD panelists at my home club and not once has one of them played from the back tees OR legitimately been a 5 hdcp or lower.  Granted, a small sample size but the ability of panelists to judge the "resistance to scoring as a scratch golfer from the back tees" is just as lacking as the reasoning for even having that category in the first place.

And if you were going to include "resistance to scoring" why not use an objective, widely respected measure (USGA rating) instead of making up your own, subjective, unclear metric?

Why would anyone do that?

Mac and Kevin, if I understand the concept correctly, don't you mean sigma not beta? (Actually you'd probably want to measure the coefficient of variation to account for the varying means across courses. Sorry, I'm a pedant and can't help it.)

EDIT: thinking on it a little more it would be interesting to calculate the correlation between the course handicap of a 6 handicap and the course's resistance to scoring score. If they're highly correlated then GD is just reinventing the wheel. If they're not correlated then GD is just manipulating the results per my earlier post.