New Golf Digest Rankings Are Out...

[Paul Gray]

Are these the same raters that pay for the privilege?

[John Kavanaugh]

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/2015-02/americas-100-greatest-golf-courses-ranking

The new phone books are here!  The new phone books are here! .... I'm some-body!

If only the price of gas was at $2 when Troggles took his 3000 mile road trip.   It's gonna be a great 2015 for viewing, skewing and reviewing.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

What happened at THE ALOTIAN..
went from a newbie@14 and dropped 13 places ...hmm one wonders where it will be two years from now?

Not under your feet. Remember that every Golfweek rater has his name on the wait list at Digest. When they get called up to the majors some of those hard feelings go with them.

  Once again you make no sense??
No hard feelings here at all, simply stated the facts two yeras ago, facts that appear to be have been realised!!!!

[John Kavanaugh]

What happened at THE ALOTIAN..
went from a newbie@14 and dropped 13 places ...hmm one wonders where it will be two years from now?

Not under your feet. Remember that every Golfweek rater has his name on the wait list at Digest. When they get called up to the majors some of those hard feelings go with them.

  Once again you make no sense??
No hard feelings here at all, simply stated the facts two yeras ago, facts that appear to be have been realised!!!!

Please, we've all consoled a Golfweek rater who had just been rejected access to The Alotian. It hurts and is not something easily forgotten.  It doesn't help when the only other nearby rateable is The Blessings.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

 JK....Other worthwhile courses within two hours drive are
Texarkana CC  Langford/Moreau  1914
Hardscrabble in Ft Smith
Pleasant Valley also in Little Rock. so its not quite as dismal a picture as that

[Nigel Islam]

For what it's worth, Jeff Brauer's The Quarry at Giant's Ridge would have come in at 122 just between Galloway and Sleepy Hollow if it had received enough votes. (Score derived from the Best Public list)

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ok, let's get on track here.  I've been on the GD ranking panel for more than twenty years.  Panelists don't agree with each other anymore than you do, that is why 45 ballots (25 for top public access) are needed to be eligible for the top 100.  The larger the sampling the better the result.  Ballots are good for eight years so if a course has just had a renovation many of the old ballots still are used.  There are exceptions, however.  Old Town, for instance, wanted their old ballots tossed out.  Consequently, they needed 45 ballots quickly.  We tried to get there but it didn't get the ballots needed.  So some people think we are access whores trying to play the great old courses and others are pissed off because we didn't get everywhere.  I've played 74 of the top 100 over the years, so I have a good feeling for the results.  Some are head scratchers for me while other panelists think I have rocks in my head.  Some courses do not wish to have us visit.  Myopia is a good example.  I played it with a member years ago when they wanted visits.  That has changed, at the present time they do not actively seek panelist visits. In fact, many of the courses on the top 100 do not want us to visit.  We get on through our own contacts.  Getting 45 ballots isn't easy and we try to get to as many courses as we can.  I find I have more ballots being invited by friends than I do because of my status as a panelist.   Many panelists are pretty well connected and get on courses through members. 

The final rankings are number driven.  Get the required ballots and the numbers are crunched and the rankings follow the numbers.  I probably know twenty panelists and we do not agree.  We have as many arguments as you do.  Some like newer courses and some like the old dead guys and some like both.  We don't even agree how to interpret each of the categories.   GD gives us definitions for each category but it is up to us to interpret them. Does it really matter that course A is ten spots higher than course B?  After the top ten the difference between rankings is very small.   Let's agree on what the rankings are: a consensus of opinions from a bunch of well travelled low handicapped players.  That's all.  On the other hand, we all know that some clubs take the rankings very seriously.  So do we.  And when we are at a course we know that we represent more than ourselves.  We represent the magazine.  We try to take our responsibilities seriously.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tommy:

In the instance where a club isn't seeking rater visits, and you gain access through your own contacts, do you divulge to the club that you will be submitting a rating?

Sven

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy:

In the instance where a club isn't seeking rater visits, and you gain access through your own contacts, do you divulge to the club that you will be submitting a rating?

Sven

No not generally. I played Ocean Forest last month with a member and told no one that I was a GD panelist. I did, however, ask the pro about this or that on the course and ran into the super, with whom I had a nice conversation anout the grasses and turf. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Tommy:

In the instance where a club isn't seeking rater visits, and you gain access through your own contacts, do you divulge to the club that you will be submitting a rating?

Sven

No not generally. I played Ocean Forest last month with a member and told no one that I was a GD panelist. I did, however, ask the pro about this or that on the course and ran into the super, with whom I had a nice conversation anout the grasses and turf. 

Tommy:

Not trying to pick on you here, but it seems that there should be some sort of respect given to those clubs that are not looking for exposure.

That being said, I guess there is a difference between a course that affirmatively says it doesn't want to be rated vs. a course that doesn't actively seek raters.

Sven

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sven, very few courses do not want to be ranked. They just want panelists to visit through members. Pine Valley, for instance, does not host panelist visits but loves being the best course in the world. I have a friend who is the GM at a very private club and does not want to host panelists but is irritated that they are not ranked higher.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can somebody explain to me why Muirfield Village is ranked behind nos. 10-14? For example, how does Fishers have the same shot values when it's much easier? How can a demonstrably easier course have the same shot values? Do raters love half wedges and drive and pitches that much?

[Dan Kelly]

Perhaps the name of the list needs to change, to reflect all of these access issues.

How about "100 Greatest Courses *We* Can (And Did) Play"?

P.S. Did White Bear Yacht Club and Northland Country Club not have enough visitors, or are there really 200 "greater" courses in the U.S. of A.?

If the latter: What a great country we have here!

[jeffwarne]

Can somebody explain to me why Muirfield Village is ranked behind nos. 10-14? For example, how does Fishers have the same shot values when it's much easier? How can a demonstrably easier course have the same shot values? Do raters love half wedges and drive and pitches that much?

Mark,
Are you confusing "resistance to scoring" with "shot values"
Surely you could visualize a situation where a much more difficult course could have a lower rating in shot values.(whatever shot values means)
i.e. if you had a course with 10 500 yard par 4's and 4 680 par 5's it would certainly score highly in "resistance to scoring" but maybe not in "shot values" unless we just think a 3 wood shot is more valuable than an 8 iron.


and (OT) if Fishers is to be considered a course full of half wedges and pitches,and therefore unworthy of high shot values we REALLY, REALLY do need to roll equipment back....NOW

[Chris_Hufnagel]

We don't even agree how to interpret each of the categories.   GD gives us definitions for each category but it is up to us to interpret them. Does it really matter that course A is ten spots higher than course B?  After the top ten the difference between rankings is very small.   Let's agree on what the rankings are: a consensus of opinions from a bunch of well travelled low handicapped players.  That's all.  On the other hand, we all know that some clubs take the rankings very seriously.  So do we.  And when we are at a course we know that we represent more than ourselves.  We represent the magazine.  We try to take our responsibilities seriously.

Tommy, thanks for the thoughtful response.  It is interesting to get a "behind the curtain" perspective on the rankings from an insider.  In a very interesting post, I think the most fascinating thing is the "low handicapped" comment.  I knew Golf Digest had a requirement for proficiency, but I guess I didn't think of the GD panelists as "low handicaps" (not sure what you define as "low" as that is a relative term) and it is interesting to use this filter when you review courses and think about why some score higher than others...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff,

No I'm not. I think raters consider not just that a course is easier but how. Is FI easier on and around the greens? If not, then that implies it is easier from tee to green, which in turn implies less variety in full-shot shots and therefore worse shot values. Yes/no/maybe?

More to the point, how many courses are closer than Muirfield Village to the GD ideal? Not saying it should be #1 or that the changes Jack makes are for the GD rating--I'd guess that rationale(s) is far from his reason(s)--but his tree of changes sure seems to bear perfect GD fruit. So why don't raters reward these perfect-for-GD improvements? If it's just a time lag issue, okay.

[Josh Tarble]

Ok, let's get on track here.  I've been on the GD ranking panel for more than twenty years.  Panelists don't agree with each other anymore than you do, that is why 45 ballots (25 for top public access) are needed to be eligible for the top 100.  The larger the sampling the better the result.  Ballots are good for eight years so if a course has just had a renovation many of the old ballots still are used.  There are exceptions, however.  Old Town, for instance, wanted their old ballots tossed out.  Consequently, they needed 45 ballots quickly.  We tried to get there but it didn't get the ballots needed.  So some people think we are access whores trying to play the great old courses and others are pissed off because we didn't get everywhere.  I've played 74 of the top 100 over the years, so I have a good feeling for the results.  Some are head scratchers for me while other panelists think I have rocks in my head.  Some courses do not wish to have us visit.  Myopia is a good example.  I played it with a member years ago when they wanted visits.  That has changed, at the present time they do not actively seek panelist visits. In fact, many of the courses on the top 100 do not want us to visit.  We get on through our own contacts.  Getting 45 ballots isn't easy and we try to get to as many courses as we can.  I find I have more ballots being invited by friends than I do because of my status as a panelist.   Many panelists are pretty well connected and get on courses through members. 

The final rankings are number driven.  Get the required ballots and the numbers are crunched and the rankings follow the numbers.  I probably know twenty panelists and we do not agree.  We have as many arguments as you do.  Some like newer courses and some like the old dead guys and some like both.  We don't even agree how to interpret each of the categories.   GD gives us definitions for each category but it is up to us to interpret them. Does it really matter that course A is ten spots higher than course B?  After the top ten the difference between rankings is very small.   Let's agree on what the rankings are: a consensus of opinions from a bunch of well travelled low handicapped players.  That's all.  On the other hand, we all know that some clubs take the rankings very seriously.  So do we.  And when we are at a course we know that we represent more than ourselves.  We represent the magazine.  We try to take our responsibilities seriously.

Tommy, nice post and thanks for taking the time to type it out.  I agree with you, all the magazine lists are nice starting points.  It doesn't mean one is definitive or one is garbage.  Besides, any course on the top 100 list is in the top .66% and top 200 is in the top 1.5% of all courses in the country.  That's pretty good.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

No I'm not. I think raters consider not just that a course is easier but how. Is FI easier on and around the greens? If not, then that implies it is easier from tee to green, which in turn implies less variety in full-shot shots and therefore worse shot values. Yes/no/maybe?

More to the point, how many courses are closer than Muirfield Village to the GD ideal? Not saying it should be #1 or that the changes Jack makes are for the GD rating--I'd guess that rationale(s) is far from his reason(s)--but his tree of changes sure seems to bear perfect GD fruit. So why don't raters reward these perfect-for-GD improvements? If it's just a time lag issue, okay.

Mark,
Are you suggesting that Fishers would rank higher in shot values if the installed back tees on 10 holes adding and average 50 yards to each.
We do know this would add to "resistance to scoring"
I wouldn't last long as a rater as I am much more subjective
but if I had to be objective

1.charm
2.variety
3.setting and the course's interaction with (TOC/town-Pebble/Ocean)
3.strategy
5.fun
6.aesthetics and texture as they relate to terrain/vegetation
7.navigable by average players yet not without unique challenges and scrambling opportunities
8.just 'cause

I just made those up of course but Fishers would score pretty high on that scale

[Frank Sekulic]

For what it's worth, Jeff Brauer's The Quarry at Giant's Ridge would have come in at 122 just between Galloway and Sleepy Hollow if it had received enough votes. (Score derived from the Best Public list)

I have played Giants Ridge 5 times over the past couple of years and each and every time I play. I wonder why it does not rank higher on most lists. The only explanation is not enough raters have made their way up to Biwabik MN.

[Carl Johnson]

Re: Pikewood, No. 44 in the ratings.  The GD blurb mentions the "natural waterfall" at #5, a par three.  I've posted this before, but I'll post again to make sure everyone understands that the word "natural" has different meanings to different folks: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82137.html 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Perhaps the name of the list needs to change, to reflect all of these access issues.

How about "100 Greatest Courses *We* Can (And Did) Play"?

P.S. Did White Bear Yacht Club and Northland Country Club not have enough visitors, or are there really 200 "greater" courses in the U.S. of A.?

If the latter: What a great country we have here!

Dan, it is a great country populated with great courses.  I might have WBYC in my personal top 200 but not Northland.  Both are wonderful. The Competition though is fierce.

[Jim Tang]

Instead of wondering how certain courses made the list, I'm curious to hear about glaring omissions.  Choose your top 5.  What courses should be on the list, that aren't?

[jeffwarne]

If you click on the link to their #1 course, it's listed as a "Alister Mackenzie/Robert Trent Jones, Jr. ASGCA" course
I'm sure Robert Tyre Jones Jr. wouldn't have as big a problem with that as Trent or Rees
Their #1 course and no one edited the link
but at least the green fee is $0 so that seems like good value.

Just glad to see they got #1 right
Should make tee times a bit easier at Pine Valley, no doubt listed as a George Trump masterpiece

[Terry Lavin]

Terry,

I may have misinterpreted some of the discussion here and elsewhere re: the changes at Shoreacres. Wasn't some significant yardage added to a few of the holes, at least from the tips?

There are a few holes, but the only one where the new tee makes the hole demonstrably harder, at least as I can recall, is the 5th hole, which has always been the hardest hole on the course...

New tees on 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16.  Terry, if you're playing the regular tees, you may not notice the added length.  Trust me - the added length from the back tees is considerable, particularly on 5, 7, 15 and 16. 

I can picture the new tee on 15 now that you mention it, on an angle toward the Northeast. Murder. Thanks for the heads-up!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff,

I'm not sure the math works for FI as by my lights they're already punching above their GD criteria weight at #10. Also, if FI did make improvements as you note raters might realize they had been misrating the course (refusing / unable to follow directions) and make the course pay for their past transgressions.

The real issue is not Fishers, anyway. It is: why doesn't Muirfield score higher? It's almost like raters are making up their numbers out of fear for the course's true position. Or maybe they are gaming the system to get a good report card.