New Golf Digest Rankings Are Out...

[Michael Moore]

"Demanding absolute excellence on an unchanging universal numerical scale is not, after all, our usual measure of sensual engagement. A man who makes love to fifty-some women and publishes a list in which each one gets a numerical grade would not be called a lady's man. He would be called a cad." - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

[David Ober]

Trump National on anyone's "best of" list is a complete and utter joke. It's just awful. Like St. Andrews Castle Course awful.

[Cristian]

A few things I find interesting:

There have been 21 different top 10 courses over the years, although the newest top 10 course was built in 1931 according to the list.

When clubs complained that some panelists were lousy players they instituted a five handicap threshold.  

So Tom Doak, Seth Raynor and Alister MacKenzie would not be eligible as Golf digest raters?

[Jim Franklin]

Hi Steve,

Is it not possible someone might find Alotian, RH or Pikewood charming or is that term only available for GCA favorites? 

Best,

Mark

Mark,

   You are correct. Someone, especially those affiliated with Club Car, Ez-Go or rural asphalt businesses (not you Barney) might indeed find those above-mentioned courses "charming."

Steve, have you played Pikewood? Let me know how the cart paths were. It is a caddy only facility unless you have a medical issue as are a lot of courses including Bandon. I went there wanting to hate it (it beat me beloved Rock Creek for Best New), but loved it. It fits the GD criteria well. Long, hard, firm and fast.

[Brad Tufts]

Cristian - There is no 5-handicap threshold as the panel is current constituted.  Tommy was saying that it was once that way.

I echo Tommy's comments.  I have been on the panel since I was in college, about 12 years at this point.

The list is all in good fun, as far as I view it.  Hopefully, it increases the interest in golf and its architecture among those on this site and the public at large.  It is unfortunate when clubs make decisions based on moving 10 spots up or down the list, but this sort of thing has reminded me to take the process as seriously as possible, as some people/clubs view the list more seriously than intended.

The criteria are continually tweaked to provide a list that reflects the values of the game and the quality of architecture produced over the years.  No matter the list, there is always going to be a course listed that an individual does not want to see on the list, and beloved courses that are omitted.  

Echoing Tommy again, my experience is to follow the criteria.  Guest Fees/snacks/caddies/carts are sometimes part of the day, but have no influence on the golf course numbers, at least for this panelist.  A series of awkward self-righteous refusals is not being a "good guest"...go with the flow if the day costs you $0 or $500...I've had many of both.

I hope I am a good panelist.  I would think I am among the most well-read panelists when it comes to architecture history and theory, and I think following this site gives me great perspective on all aspects of design.  I've admittedly never been in the dirt, but I hope to someday when time permits.

I don't understand "shadiness of goal."  Increase chatter about golf and its courses?  Not shady.  Sell magazines? Obvious!  Much of the bashing is tongue-in-cheek, but some of the negativity is misplaced.  Is it GCA's mission to audit the rankings?  No!


p.s.  Pikewood is legit.  Maybe a bit hard for my tastes, but what do you expect from a group closely related to Oakmont!  I too went there ready to dismiss, but I thought it was spectacular!

[Jim Franklin]

Cristian - There is no 5-handicap threshold as the panel is current constituted.  Tommy was saying that it was once that way.

I echo Tommy's comments.  I have been on the panel since I was in college, about 12 years at this point.

The list is all in good fun, as far as I view it.  Hopefully, it increases the interest in golf and its architecture among those on this site and the public at large.  It is unfortunate when clubs make decisions based on moving 10 spots up or down the list, but this sort of thing has reminded me to take the process as seriously as possible, as some people/clubs view the list more seriously than intended.

The criteria are continually tweaked to provide a list that reflects the values of the game and the quality of architecture produced over the years.  No matter the list, there is always going to be a course listed that an individual does not want to see on the list, and beloved courses that are omitted.  

Echoing Tommy again, my experience is to follow the criteria.  Guest Fees/snacks/caddies/carts are sometimes part of the day, but have no influence on the golf course numbers, at least for this panelist.  A series of awkward self-righteous refusals is not being a "good guest"...go with the flow if the day costs you $0 or $500...I've had many of both.

I hope I am a good panelist.  I would think I am among the most well-read panelists when it comes to architecture history and theory, and I think following this site gives me great perspective on all aspects of design.  I've admittedly never been in the dirt, but I hope to someday when time permits.

I don't understand "shadiness of goal."  Increase chatter about golf and its courses?  Not shady.  Sell magazines? Obvious!  Much of the bashing is tongue-in-cheek, but some of the negativity is misplaced.  Is it GCA's mission to audit the rankings?  No!


p.s.  Pikewood is legit.  Maybe a bit hard for my tastes, but what do you expect from a group closely related to Oakmont!  I too went there ready to dismiss, but I thought it was spectacular!

Not bad...for a Red Sox fan.

[Carl Rogers]

For the poor and un-washed like myself, I would like to see some rankings in the affrodable category.

[Steve Lapper]

Jim, et.al.,

   I stand corrected. Yes, it wasn't fair to include Pikewood in the Top 100 Asphalt-inflicted list.

     Instead, it does fit rightfully with the likes of Butler, Balty Lower, Oak Hill, Castle Pines, Medinah #3, Peachtree, Southern Hills, etc... into the overrated on eye-candy aesthetics & outright difficulty bucket that GD so perfectly positions. I'd like to go back, walk it (with my new knee) and rate it, but as I'm not a GD rater, I'm not welcomed unless I seek out a member or ask friends from Oakmont to arrange it. At that point, I'd rather go across the border and see more of the friendly and otherwise top-notch smaller Ohio courses.

   Our paths have crossed before and like Andy, Tommy, Brad and most of the other GD'ers found on GCA.com, you guys "get it" and know what you are looking at. Perhaps some of you, as better players, prefer tougher courses in general? I too used to enjoy them more than I do now, however I feel it's a disservice to the widest number of golfers to emphasize difficulty over charm and resistance over pleasure.

  No question I'm talking my own book, but I believe GM and GW do a much better job of speaking to the core and breadth of the game with their ratings. Just saying.....

[Mike Hendren]

Jim, et.al.,

Instead, it does fit rightfully with the likes of Butler, Balty Lower, Oak Hill, Castle Pines, Medinah #3, Peachtree, Southern Hills, etc...

One could argue that one of these is not like the others.

Bogey

[jkinney]

IMO, the Golf Magazine rankings make much more sense.

[john_stiles]

Golfweek has beat GD to the punch in what seems best to me.   

Now seeing Yeamans or Camargo (and would love to play either) seems to be a tribute to Golfweek.


GD should return to their roots and maybe just go to 3 criteria,  difficulty, conditioning, and ambiance. 

Maybe something like difficultly is 5/8, conditioning is 2/8, and ambiance is 1/8.

Moving towards the Golfweek style does not provide enough separation.

And agree,  GW has turned to ratings / events  and WOULD never do webinars.

[Matt Glore]

Louisiana has no top 100, no top 100 public, no second 100. 

[Howard Riefs]

Whitten was on "Morning Drive" today to discuss the new rankings:

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-digests-top-100-greatest-courses-america/

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/ron-whitten-answers-live-tweets-concerning-top-100/

[Stephen Davis]

Whitten was on "Morning Drive" today to discuss the new rankings:

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-digests-top-100-greatest-courses-america/

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/ron-whitten-answers-live-tweets-concerning-top-100/

A couple things I thought was very interesting that he said.

"[Being a judge] is taking the architecture of the course and slicing and dicing it and examining it through as many different perspectives as we can and we try to be objective about it. Critics... base [their] criticisms on factors other than the architecture, the price, its location, a lot of different things, the experience. We try to divorce ourselves from all that. We're trying to be strictly about analyzing the architecture, objectively, individually and on each course."

"Unfortunately in the past we had  a lot of panelists focus too much on the backdrops."

"Conditioning, which as nothing to do with the color of the grass or the quality of the lies. It is defined as how firm and fast rolling are the fairways and how firm, yet receptive are the greens. We are trying to encourage clubs to pull back on watering."

[Sean_A]

Its a bit of a false distinction between rater and critic.  I would also say that a rater shouldn't necessarily be trying to examine a course through as many different perspectives as possible.  The experience of architecture is different for everybody.  Criteria may be set in judging architecture, but applying the criteria to the interpretation of the experience of architecture is a wide open game.  If the numbers don't look right, raters will go back and fudge them to fit their beliefs and feelings about courses...nothing wrong with that so long as people understand that intangible issues such as beauty, location and atmosphere matter to everybody.  If they aren't included as criteria, raters will find ways push numbers around to unofficially recognize these issues.  Bottom line, we like what we like and we can all find ways to justify/explain why we like (ie consider better) A more than B. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Whitten was on "Morning Drive" today to discuss the new rankings:

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-digests-top-100-greatest-courses-america/

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/ron-whitten-answers-live-tweets-concerning-top-100/

I made it to 1:50. Anybody able to beat that?

[Stephen Davis]

Whitten was on "Morning Drive" today to discuss the new rankings:

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-digests-top-100-greatest-courses-america/

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/ron-whitten-answers-live-tweets-concerning-top-100/

I made it to 1:50. Anybody able to beat that?

Worse, I took notes I actually found it quite interesting to hear directly from the man. It seems like his intent is pretty close to what many people here have espoused. I found this very evident when he pointed out that a golf course should not be judged on the "experience" and when he pointed out that Ambience is indeed how the feel of the course upholds the traditional values of the game. I also found it interesting that he mentioned that in the past panelists had strayed from the criteria as it is set forth. I was quite encouraged by what I saw.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Stephen,

Somebody has to come up with the criteria, and because there is no objective outcome or objectively quantitative definition of "great," that means somebody has to serve as the arbiter of what is great -- the "judge" in Whitten's terminology.

That means the Golf Digest rankings boil down to the personal tastes of Ron Whitten. All GD raters are doing is scoring courses according to Ron Whitten's tastes. Simple as that. For people to view the list otherwise would be like you or I starting a thread asking people what courses meet, say, our personal top 3 criteria for what makes a course great. And then coming up with a ranking from that and calling it "GCA.com's Greatest Courses." 

[Stephen Davis]

Stephen,

Somebody has to come up with the criteria, and because there is no objective outcome or objectively quantitative definition of "great," that means somebody has to serve as the arbiter of what is great -- the "judge" in Whitten's terminology.

That means the Golf Digest rankings boil down to the personal tastes of Ron Whitten. All GD raters are doing is scoring courses according to Ron Whitten's tastes. Simple as that. For people to view the list otherwise would be like you or I starting a thread asking people what courses meet, say, our personal top 3 criteria for what makes a course great. And then coming up with a ranking from that and calling it "GCA.com's Greatest Courses." 

Mark,

I agree with what you are saying, but my purpose for putting up those quotes was to illustrate a shift that has been happening in the GD ratings. I happen to like what Ron Whitten was trying to point out. In my opinion the way he is emphasizing the definitions is good and is clarifying to the panelists. I think those things bode well for the system in the future.

[Eric Smith]

I couldn't help but laugh when I read a tweet yesterday from a fellow GCA poster stating that the GD list was 'irrelevant'. It would seem that in the week or so since the 2015 list was announced there has been more chatter about this list than ANY relevant GCA topic and probably by a factor of about 100!

[Tommy Williamsen]

Cristian - There is no 5-handicap threshold as the panel is current constituted.  Tommy was saying that it was once that way.

Christian, there is still a threshold of five handicap to qualify as a panelist.

[Cristian]

Cristian - There is no 5-handicap threshold as the panel is current constituted.  Tommy was saying that it was once that way.

Christian, there is still a threshold of five handicap to qualify as a panelist.

That explains a lot.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60323.msg1427810.html#msg1427810

[Joe Hancock]

Bill,

I don't know whether you're angry or not about a thread being removed in part because of unnecessary images, but I am all for keeping the good ol' boy mentality out of the discussions. If people want to share that stuff with each other, individually, they can send emails.

It seems that Ran's requests for what he would like, or not like, GCA.com to be has largely been ignored, and by some of the more vocal contributors at that. I even perceive that there are some here who think that if they dole out the green, they can type with it at will. Even worse, here I am perpetuating an off-topic thread.....

Joe

[Tim Bert]

The sad thing, Bill, is that many people agree with your point of view. I know very few, on the other hand, that applaud or agree with how you chose to communicate it. If your goal was to effect change the discussion could have been handled a number of different ways. As you chose to communicate it, you turned off a number of people, including many that would agree with your underlying point.

[Terry Lavin]

"Probably the most disgenious thing he said was that the Ambiance category for scoring reflects the feel of the golf course in upholding the traditions of the game."

Bill, I know you're a self-proclaimed genius but I think you mean "disingenuous". Probably channelling your inner BCowan. [Insert mental image of a failing Midwestern private Park Jr. course's cart barn.]