[Garland Bayley]

Wow, this gets better and better. They made up the rankings from different sets of criterias?

When I saw that, I figured that tells all. That makes it easy to explain non-stellar courses making the list.

[Jon Wiggett]

46 of these courses sit on the ocean. If we would all stop taking pics and posting on Facebook we just might return to rational evaluation.

Such meta-level insights are why this thread is of more interest than the list itself. It appears 'over stated' but I don't think it is. Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess -- but sad to see the herdlike consensus/trend to downgrade the great inland courses.

This is one principal reason I've come to doubt the panels myself.  I've benefitted from their favoritism for oceanfront golf as much as any architect, but their inability to appreciate the same sort of architecture on wonderful inland sites was baffling at first.  After a few years of watching, though, I'd replace "baffling" with "telling".

Tom,

far to many people are influenced by the setting to the point where if it is spectacular they completely overlook even glaringly obvious drawbacks with a course.

Yet another crappy, tinpot list to consign to life's dustbin.

Jon

[K Rafkin]

Joel -

Every panelist was sent an email asking to rate whatever international courses you had played from 1-10. It was not detailed like the regular rankings, just a number.

So the American courses are rated to the ten thousandth decimal and the international courses just get a 1-10?

In an effort to make these rankings with a quantifiable formula they have clearly de-standardized the formula.


Is this list also available in sky mall next to Americans 10 best steakhouses?

[Jonathan Mallard]

Wow, this gets better and better. They made up the rankings from different sets of criterias?

When I saw that, I figured that tells all. That makes it easy to explain non-stellar courses making the list.

We have a for-profit enterprise publishing a bi-annual list of the worlds greatest courses generated by what appears to be a non-rigorous statistical sample.


Should generate plenty of discussion. About the methods, and the merits of some of the courses' inclusion.


Mission accomplished.

[jeffwarne]

If I ran such a list, knowing that ranking courses with two different criteria, and with different sample sizes, would produce such year to year variances (and it did) I would simply tweak it.
Would at least salvage some credibility

[Peter Pallotta]

"Mission accomplished".

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. And that's also why this annoys me way more than it probably should.

Not to get too judgemental or precious about this, but I really believe that:

Just because we can do something doesn't me we should do it.

Just because sloppy, cynical work does accomplish its mission doesn't mean that work was worth doing.

Just because we're sophisticated grown up men of the world who know how the game is played doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders at work that we know to be cut-rate.
   
Every churned out pop song, every self indulgent jazz solo, every half-baked idea for a book or movie or golf course brought to life not because the writer or director or architect actually believes in/deeply cares about it but solely because he can get someone to finance it -- in and of themselves these may be of no importance whatsoever, but I'm convinced that cumulatively they have a negative impact on people individually and collectively:

Such poor and churned-out work sends out a very clear message, however unconsciously -- and that message is  that it's all a racket, a con-game; that's there's nothing worth truly devoting one's best efforts to; that everyone is it in for themselves; that you're a fool to put the interests of others/the audience ahead of your own; that no matter what people say they're doing they're lying to you; that a deeply cynical view of your audience (i.e. of people, in other words, which of course ultimately includes yourself) is the way of the world, and the route to success; and that success is measured in one way only - "sales", i.e. money.     

Yeah, I know, I know it's just Golf Digest's bi-annual list of top 100 golf course, and I'm taking this way too seriously. Yes - but I have to start somewhere...

Peter
 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Dreadful so called journalism,Inthink we have established that for certain.
However they did get Cape Wickham  justifiably into the top 50 at first attempt.....even if it has only been open three months...as well as a soft opening of equal time.....Delightedfor Mike De Vries ,Darius and Duncan, the pollsters whatever that means did get this one right.
The MASSIVE drops of neighbors at Barnbougle blows my mind, as well as numerous other equally sized jumps and falls and bizarre inclusions and omissions.
What a friggin farce,between this and the mess at Golf Magazine ratings have become somewhat of a joke.
How can the people at GD on the back of the GM debacle even think about publishing this ?
.that stupidity above all blows me away.
I guess it is the stubborn arrogance at what their rankings have become over the past twenty years that has gone to their heads, and they assume everybody will just read and agree.


I couldn't resist chiming in on this comedic reading of a rating,stunned by the compilation model stunned by the whole thing.


The so called unwanted stepchild of golf course rating magazines, is now looking like the most ethical and knowledgable list available.
Mr Klein your integrity and years of sticking to your guns even under the pressure of magazine owners and executives reaps its rewards, even if that reward is at the expense of other publications transparent selling out.

[David Davis]

My first reaction to the list was indeed that they simply combined the ranking of the various international GD publications and weighted them equally. I would expect this list to act as a catalyst to sell both advertising and far more issues around the world and especially in Asia.


The one break in my reaction is exactly what Tom pointed out. If indeed the above was done why would this of had such a huge impact on the rankings of the US courses in relation to one another. The only answer I can think of for that would be that their raters abroad had equal voice in this process as well and given few of them have most likely seen most of the US courses that throws things relatively way off. Especially given the variance in ranking processes.


In any case they have succeeded in making it a discussion point and perhaps one could argue that all publicity is still publicity.

[Adam Lawrence]

Chip paper

[MCirba]

I didn't even look at the list but just reading the dialogue here tells me that was a wise move.

Just seeing Oak Hill East at #36 in the world tells me the list wouldn't suit my tastes.   I'm not even sure it would be in my top 40 courses in New York State.

[Howard Riefs]

Ballybunion was #27 in 2013-4; not ranked in 2016. That was so surprising that I thought I'd missed it and went back over the linked list where I noticed it skips from #88 to #90....so maybe Ballybunion is hiding there. Even if it is, that's quite a plunge for a perennial top 30-level course and difficult to understand.

GD amended the list to account for the missing #89. It went to Pete Dye's The Golf Club.

[Greg Tallman]

Dreadful so called journalism,Inthink we have established that for certain.
However they did get Cape Wickham  justifiably into the top 50 at first attempt.....even if it has only been open three months...as well as a soft opening of equal time.....Delightedfor Mike De Vries ,Darius and Duncan, the pollsters whatever that means did get this one right.
The MASSIVE drops of neighbors at Barnbougle blows my mind, as well as numerous other equally sized jumps and falls and bizarre inclusions and omissions.
What a friggin farce,between this and the mess at Golf Magazine ratings have become somewhat of a joke.
How can the people at GD on the back of the GM debacle even think about publishing this ?
.that stupidity above all blows me away.
I guess it is the stubborn arrogance at what their rankings have become over the past twenty years that has gone to their heads, and they assume everybody will just read and agree.


I couldn't resist chiming in on this comedic reading of a rating,stunned by the compilation model stunned by the whole thing.


The so called unwanted stepchild of golf course rating magazines, is now looking like the most ethical and knowledgable list available.
Mr Klein your integrity and years of sticking to your guns even under the pressure of magazine owners and executives reaps its rewards, even if that reward is at the expense of other publications transparent selling out.

Michael, Let's not get carried away. Some pretty off base comments in your conclusion and I truly believe you know that.

[Garland Bayley]

Dreadful so called journalism,Inthink we have established that for certain.
However they did get Cape Wickham  justifiably into the top 50 at first attempt.....even if it has only been open three months...as well as a soft opening of equal time.....Delightedfor Mike De Vries ,Darius and Duncan, the pollsters whatever that means did get this one right.
The MASSIVE drops of neighbors at Barnbougle blows my mind, as well as numerous other equally sized jumps and falls and bizarre inclusions and omissions.
What a friggin farce,between this and the mess at Golf Magazine ratings have become somewhat of a joke.
How can the people at GD on the back of the GM debacle even think about publishing this ?
.that stupidity above all blows me away.
I guess it is the stubborn arrogance at what their rankings have become over the past twenty years that has gone to their heads, and they assume everybody will just read and agree.


I couldn't resist chiming in on this comedic reading of a rating,stunned by the compilation model stunned by the whole thing.


The so called unwanted stepchild of golf course rating magazines, is now looking like the most ethical and knowledgable list available.
Mr Klein your integrity and years of sticking to your guns even under the pressure of magazine owners and executives reaps its rewards, even if that reward is at the expense of other publications transparent selling out.

Michael, Let's not get carried away. Some pretty off base comments in your conclusion and I truly believe you know that.

Greg, Let's not get carried away. It seems to me that Michael is safely on base, and that base is home plate.This list with it's so obviously flawed methodology is not to be taken seriously, unless of course you need subject matter for jokes.

[Joe Sponcia]

Belt notchers are going to have to buy more belts.  This is the most ridiculous list I've ever seen.  Even worse than the perennial list they seem to bungle every year in my own state.

[archie_struthers]

 




Ranking is so subjective , most of the top 100 courses are spectacular in their own way . They are diverse and have different special qualities that set them apart.


It does appear that GD wanted to shake the tree a bit this year , it's all about selling you know .

[Garland Bayley]

Finally got around to reading the magazine article from the copy the OGA provides me at home. Couldn't help but notice that Whitten calls out Jack Nicklaus with four courses among the 100 being the person with the second most after C&C. He lists Cabo del Sol (70), Punta Espada (76), and Sebonack (94). Non ocean-side course is Muirfield Village (34).


For Tom Doak he lists Sebonack (94), Cape Kidnappers (16), Barnbougle Dunes (33), and Pacific Dunes (39). How does this not match or beat Mr. Nicklaus?

[Carl Nichols]

Finally got around to reading the magazine article from the copy the OGA provides me at home. Couldn't help but notice that Whitten calls out Jack Nicklaus with four courses among the 100 being the person with the second most after C&C. He lists Cabo del Sol (70), Punta Espada (76), and Sebonack (94). What is the other course?


For Tom Doak he lists Sebonack (94), Cape Kidnappers (16), Barnbougle Dunes (33), and Pacific Dunes (39). How does this not match or beat Mr. Nicklaus?

Muirfield Village?

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Carl,


I'll update the previous post.

[cary lichtenstein]

Every panelist has been a victim or being feed, entertainined, etc and that impacted on their rating. How else could it not be.

[Steve Lapper]

Shulzie,


  While I unquestionably agree with your description of the GD list as the WORST, and love your warped analogy, I need to balance the discussion with a little "inside" information.


   Ron Whitten, who I've never once defended before (and may never again), was not responsible for this list and I'm told was initially "ashamed" to have been associated with it. Although he wrote the article that serves as introduction, it was on direct orders from his editor-in-chief, Jerry Tarde. Tarde, we know, has very few compunctions about taking the magazine to new lows. I'm told his best thinking is usually done somewhere close to a medicinal urinal.


 The list came from other editors and was arbitrarily and shamelessly put together using the international affiliates of GD. This is more akin to having Playboy deem any one of the dentally-challenged pin-ups from the UK's Daily Sun.... Playmate of the Year!


  For the record, I get the suggestion of freeing up Geoff Shackleford from GD, but Matt Ginella needs to spend at least several months with someone who possesses genuine, highly-refined and non-conflicted, architectural skills before he's ready to be weened off the pacifier. Until then, we'll just have to make up our own minds....no?
 

[John Sabino]

I think Garland is closest to the truth, it is an attempt to grab attention it seems more than anything else.


One of my fellow top 100 "questers" Paul Rudovsky summed it up perfectly on his blog when he saw the list:  "it was almost like the editors wanted to make a big splash…forgetting that in diving competitions the golf medals are usually awarded to those who make the smallest splash.  Enough said!!"


Since Paul is trying to play every course ever ranked on any list, there will be at least beneficiary of the new list: the airlines where he will rack up tons of new frequent flyer points now

[Ryan Hillenbrand]

I think Garland is closest to the truth, it is an attempt to grab attention it seems more than anything else.


One of my fellow top 100 "questers" Paul Rudovsky summed it up perfectly on his blog when he saw the list:  "it was almost like the editors wanted to make a big splash…forgetting that in diving competitions the golf medals are usually awarded to those who make the smallest splash.  Enough said!!"


Since Paul is trying to play every course ever ranked on any list, there will be at least beneficiary of the new list: the airlines where he will rack up tons of new frequent flyer points now

John, is the book out yet?

[John Kavanaugh]

Does anyone play the entire top 100 without also becoming a rater? I think I could trust that guys opinion. How would a FBI profiler characterize a guy in chase of a list when they are so adamant against any other list where they do not have a vote? I can think of no one less qualified to judge than someone who has seen it all.

[Bill_McBride]

Chip paper

TP?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()