2017 Golf Digest Top 100/200

[Mike Sweeney]

I volunteer as a panelist, now, because they respected my opinion enough to ask me. In turn, I do my best to lend credibility to the process.

Wayne,


I am trying to close out 2016 on a constructive note. When you use the word "volunteer", I have to say that I have a pretty high standard for that word. That standard is probably not realistic, as I am exposed everyday to people that volunteer to spend time with my Special Needs/Autistic son.


In the golf world, I look at my very good friend Michael Moore as the ultimate "volunteer":


http://www.mesga.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?NS=ABOUT&DN=ABOUT_BOARD


He spends a ridiculous amount of time to better golf in Maine. This is a state that Golf Digest and many others could care less about in terms of topics on this discussion group. Tom Doak and I are probably the only two here (Brad Tufts lives awfully close ) that have actually traveled to Maine to play and discuss golf with Mr Moore!!


Goodness gracious, Mr Moore has never taken one of my "Subtle" suggestions to play one of those fancy North Shore of Boston courses with me Even worse, he records real scores and plays in real Amateur tournaments throughout New England. He plays REAL golf.


I have been very fortunate with this forum. Just today I turned down an invitation that most golfers would say I am "nuts" to turn down. I literally have no access needs or desires other than time. If I ever get THE invitation to Augusta, I really would pass it onto my buddy Dr Gene because he deserves it more than anyone I know. He loves golf and has been a consistent contributor to golf.


My challenge to you, Tom Doak, and the other Raters - bring in one new golfer to the game. I know that Tom has done work in Detroit and Colorado, and here is one way that Mr Moore does it:


http://www.mesga.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?NS=SCHOLAR&DN=SCHOL13


Happy New Year.

[John Kavanaugh]

On a high note: The prostitutes in Stockholm are either stupid or desperate. When one asked me to go have a burger I told her that I had Chrones and even the site of meat made me fart uncontrollably. She told me to order the chicken. It must be the lack of daylight. Btw: I made it home alone, just like home.

[Sean_A]

A bad player may never be able to see a course as  good players do, but good players are more than capable of understanding the challenges faced by lesser ones.

Do you really believe this?  Quite amazing if so. 

Ciao

[Wayne_Freedman]

Why?

A bad player may never be able to see a course as  good players do, but good players are more than capable of understanding the challenges faced by lesser ones.

Do you really believe this?  Quite amazing if so. 

Ciao

[Wayne_Freedman]

Did she volunteer her services?

On a high note: The prostitutes in Stockholm are either stupid or desperate. When one asked me to go have a burger I told her that I had Chrones and even the site of meat made me fart uncontrollably. She told me to order the chicken. It must be the lack of daylight. Btw: I made it home alone, just like home.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Mike,






Applause to your cause in Maine. This forum certainly presents an excellent opportunity to make people more aware of it.


I went to Merriam-Webster and looked up the definition of volunteer:


a person whovoluntarilyundertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service: asa :  one who enters into military service voluntarilyb (1) :  one who renders a service or takes part in a transaction while having no legal concern or interest (2) :  one who receives a conveyance or transfer of property without giving valuable consideration

Golf is certainly a community. Granted, the magazines posting these numbers are in business for profit, but they also provide a public service. We volunteer to help them do it, and usually enjoy the process.

Neither I nor other panelists are likely to list the many other causes, whether social or professional, to which we give our considerable time and expertise. Suffice to say that they are very important to each of us, as your cause is to you. The work for which we volunteer is performed with pureness of heart in the spirit of charity and betterment.

For the majority of us, 'volunteering' to evaluate golf courses ranks near the bottom of our importance lists.



One last thought. I don't know what a rater is. When you call a panelist a rater, them's fightin' words. You might as well visit our fair city and refer to it as Frisco. Doing so would imply a familiarity with which someone is not actually familiar.


Happy New Year.

I volunteer as a panelist, now, because they respected my opinion enough to ask me. In turn, I do my best to lend credibility to the process.

Wayne,


I am trying to close out 2016 on a constructive note. When you use the word "volunteer", I have to say that I have a pretty high standard for that word. That standard is probably not realistic, as I am exposed everyday to people that volunteer to spend time with my Special Needs/Autistic son.


In the golf world, I look at my very good friend Michael Moore as the ultimate "volunteer":


http://www.mesga.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?NS=ABOUT&DN=ABOUT_BOARD


He spends a ridiculous amount of time to better golf in Maine. This is a state that Golf Digest and many others could care less about in terms of topics on this discussion group. Tom Doak and I are probably the only two here (Brad Tufts lives awfully close ) that have actually traveled to Maine to play and discuss golf with Mr Moore!!


Goodness gracious, Mr Moore has never taken one of my "Subtle" suggestions to play one of those fancy North Shore of Boston courses with me Even worse, he records real scores and plays in real Amateur tournaments throughout New England. He plays REAL golf.


I have been very fortunate with this forum. Just today I turned down an invitation that most golfers would say I am "nuts" to turn down. I literally have no access needs or desires other than time. If I ever get THE invitation to Augusta, I really would pass it onto my buddy Dr Gene because he deserves it more than anyone I know. He loves golf and has been a consistent contributor to golf.


My challenge to you, Tom Doak, and the other Raters - bring in one new golfer to the game. I know that Tom has done work in Detroit and Colorado, and here is one way that Mr Moore does it:


http://www.mesga.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?NS=SCHOLAR&DN=SCHOL13


Happy New Year.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom,

If memory serves, the panelists have been pretty darned nice to your works.

Wayne,


Yes, if I just have on my architect hat, I'd certainly be better off just shutting up and graciously accepting all the recognition my courses have gotten.


But I think it's fair to say I've seen more sides of this argument than most others who comment on it. 


I ran one of the ranking processes for 10 years, so I feel partly responsible for creating the monster.  I've watched as people who I'd recommended for the panel went from being grateful to help, to saying "I am the one who got [course X] into the top 100," as though they were more important than their peers, or they were owed something for it.


I've had the red carpet rolled out for me at various places, to varying degrees of discomfort about what they expected in return ... while I observe other panelists post pictures of how well they were treated on Instagram, and wonder about their lack of discomfort.


I've been in green committee meetings at famous courses where they fretted about a slip in their ranking and wondered if they should do something to the course as a result; and in one extreme instance, was told that a course was making modifications based on feedback from a small group of panelists who had been provided special access. 


I've been in the pro shop and watched maybe a dozen head pros of famous courses deal with panelists trying to subvert the rules of engagement, and then listened to those pros grumble about it afterward.


And I've gone from my courses being overlooked because panelists didn't know my name, to having some panelists think I can do no wrong, and others typecast all of my work with the same broad brush.


In short, I would love to believe that the rankings are all on the level and that every course gets an equal shot at success without bias toward who the architect was, but I've seen a lot of things in these various roles that lead me to believe that's not the case, and I feel some responsibility to point that out because I know how important it is within our business.


I'm not complaining for my own work on this thread; as you say, I've done quite well.  And there are tons of people who have helped me along the way, including mentors, clients, talented associates, and more a few panelists.  But at some point, it goes back to the golf courses we've built, rather than the people who are judging them, doesn't it?  If it's really about the work of the panelists, does that not kind of miss the whole point of the exercise?

Wonderful response from someone who has at least tried to create a process that was intended to be one of integrity and honesty...and once that process was CLEARLY abused withdrew from the process he created

[Greg Tallman]

MWP - You should be expecting a phone call soon.

[John Kavanaugh]

How does a person who considers himself honorable remain a representative of an organization that he believes is dishonorable. 

[Wayne_Freedman]

Dunno, John.


Better question might be where in this thread did anyone use word dishonorable?

How does a person who considers himself honorable remain a representative of an organization that he believes is dishonorable.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

MWP - You should be expecting a phone call soon.

Just pushing that envelope in the hope that someone one day listens mate😉
Happy New Year to you and the missus....wonderful lady...you did good mate

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

How does a person who considers himself honorable remain a representative of an organization that he believes is dishonorable.

Can you explain please?

[Wayne_Freedman]

"Raterdom is hardly martyrdom," says David Schmidt, who we hope never crosses paths with a real one.
Thanks for setting us straight.

[Wayne_Freedman]

David,

Happy New Year.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I went to Merriam-Webster and looked up the definition of volunteer:


a person whovoluntarilyundertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service: asa :  one who enters into military service voluntarilyb (1) :  one who renders a service or takes part in a transaction while having no legal concern or interest (2) :  one who receives a conveyance or transfer of property without giving valuable consideration

Golf is certainly a community. Granted, the magazines posting these numbers are in business for profit, but they also provide a public service. We volunteer to help them do it, and usually enjoy the process.

Neither I nor other panelists are likely to list the many other causes, whether social or professional, to which we give our considerable time and expertise. Suffice to say that they are very important to each of us, as your cause is to you. The work for which we volunteer is performed with pureness of heart in the spirit of charity and betterment.

For the majority of us, 'volunteering' to evaluate golf courses ranks near the bottom of our importance lists.

If you receive compensation in the form of free rounds then that's an "interest" so you're not a volunteer, right?

[Mike_Young]

Ratings ultimately have one purpose and that is to sell..whether it be advertising for a magazine or hotel rooms for a ranked course or homes for a course.    The raters themselves are pawns whether they are knowledgeable or just golf goobs.  It is a subjective system made to look as though it is an objective system but the final tabs are never really known by the overall group. ( the large number of opinions make it more credible) But we know all of this so if you are developer promoting a course for any reason you know how it works and what you have to do.  Therefore many of the raters feel an overall sense of importance when these courses treat them in various special ways but reality is the course is just using them like a hooker.  I'm sorry the bad raters hurt the good ones but it so much fun to watch one of the "big time" raters operate when they hit the premises . And often it is a place where they are "playing the card" and the course is not even asking to be rated.  The biggest thing I have learned from raters is :  the majority of the guys who can tout the bump and run and the firm and fast etc can't hit the ball more than 25 feet in the air.
Just live with raters and keep playing...
Happy New Year

[John Kavanaugh]

All this could be solved if the raters would agree to remain anonymous. We all know that access is not an issue for anyone quaified to rate the best courses in the world. Take away getting their ass kissed and their boots licked and you have a perfectly honorable system. This could easily be done if the raters only asked the people in charge. It wouldn't result in one fewer ad or one fewer subscription.

[Greg Tallman]

MWP - You should be expecting a phone call soon.

Just pushing that envelope in the hope that someone one day listens mate😉
Happy New Year to you and the missus....wonderful lady...you did good mate

Gracias Señor. BTW - apparently you are doing it ALL wrong... taking the wife and I out for dinner and picking up the tab? Poor form but much appreciated. Look forward to your next visit.

[Ira Fishman]

GD has been teasing the release by putting out Top 10 over past couple of days. In reverse order:


Winged Foot
Sand Hills
NGLA
PB
Merion
Oakmont
Shinnecock
Cypress


Which leaves Augusta and PV as the OP introduced.


GD does include some panelist comments for each--a sizable number of which relate to ambience, quality of the clubhouse, history, etc. versus quality of course itself.

[Mike_Young]

All this could be solved if the raters would agree to remain anonymous. We all know that access is not an issue for anyone quaified to rate the best courses in the world. Take away getting their ass kissed and their boots licked and you have a perfectly honorable system. This could easily be done if the raters only asked the people in charge. It wouldn't result in one fewer ad or one fewer subscription.

John,
You are right...also I got to thinking after reading another thread..Should raters be allowed in the hall of fame?

[Jaeger Kovich]

All this could be solved if the raters would agree to remain anonymous. We all know that access is not an issue for anyone quaified to rate the best courses in the world. Take away getting their ass kissed and their boots licked and you have a perfectly honorable system. This could easily be done if the raters only asked the people in charge. It wouldn't result in one fewer ad or one fewer subscription.

John,
You are right...also I got to thinking after reading another thread..Should raters be allowed in the hall of fame?

Can we put the bloggers in too? #Onthequesttoplaythet100 is guaranteed first ballot! 

[Mike_Young]

All this could be solved if the raters would agree to remain anonymous. We all know that access is not an issue for anyone quaified to rate the best courses in the world. Take away getting their ass kissed and their boots licked and you have a perfectly honorable system. This could easily be done if the raters only asked the people in charge. It wouldn't result in one fewer ad or one fewer subscription.

John,
You are right...also I got to thinking after reading another thread..Should raters be allowed in the hall of fame?

Can we put the bloggers in too? #Onthequesttoplaythet100 is guaranteed first ballot! 

Jaeger,
Sorry did not mean to diss the bloggers....definitely they need to go in..

[Wayne Freeman]

Just chiming in here to set the record straight after getting a couple of personal emails...


        There are 2 of us GCAers with similar names.  You have been reading posts from
  Wayne Freedman...........   well,  I'm close to that but have no "D" in my name.
  I'm Wayne Freeman, an ophthalmologist living in SoCal.  I am a member of Old Ranch CC in
  Seal Beach, Calif., and The Olympic Club in San Francisco, and am NOT a rater. 

[Wayne_Freedman]

Well, okay then. I am a television news reporter for ABC in San Francisco.


Whatever emails you're receiving, Wayno, please send only the good ones.


As a journalist, we get too much hate mail, already, from the 46 percent who did not vote and blame us for the election.

Nice to meet you.
Whether free or freed, there are only a few of us around!

Just chiming in here to set the record straight after getting a couple of personal emails...


        There are 2 of us GCAers with similar names.  You have been reading posts from
  Wayne Freedman...........   well,  I'm close to that but have no "D" in my name.
  I'm Wayne Freeman, an ophthalmologist living in SoCal.  I am a member of Old Ranch CC in
  Seal Beach, Calif., and The Olympic Club in San Francisco, and am NOT a rater.

[V. Kmetz]

Hello,


I've watched this thread for a day or two; I think many are unduly hard on the process of the list, the elements measured in the list, the possible corruption of the list, the "spirit" of the list; the raters and editors who make the list. As this board will do, posters find uncommon passion for railing against that which is easy to assail.


And isn't easy to do that when the most basic demerit for the list is that it is redundant now, some 50 years after it was first issued?


In 1966, and for the first score of years it was compiled, I think the imperfect, nature of any such list was dwarfed by its original novelty and resource for golfers and golf readers...we were not exposed as we are today to a great number of courses, through playing or through following on TV/e-media. Without such knowledge and experience, we were also quite willing to accept the consensus of players, editors, reporters and such who, frankly, DID know better than we did then. Such is not the case now, as I would put many posters from this board with greater or equal acumen to make such a list, compared to those who do.


I acknowledge the well-understood history lesson that such lists conflated with televised tournament golf and expanded golf publication to drive GCA towards an unrealistic, costly and oft unfriendly, unsustainable standard...but that happened to many things since I was a lad. I also accept that the list has grown ubiquitous, more than a bit banal, with little new under the sun to chew on beyond something rising or falling many places or a notable course falling off. PV? ANGC? CP? PB? WFW? Merion? Shinny? NGLA? Fishers? Yale, Seminole, GCMC, etc?

C'mon, why is there a need to rank them as better or lesser than one another? It's as stupid as ranking excellent films...Is The Godfather worse or better than Citizen Kane? Which film has demonstrably better performances from great actors: The Lion in Winter or Network?


Yet the essential, aggravating problem of the list today is that it comes out too frequently. I can't fault Golf Digest for hanging on to one flagship feature in a hurricane world of evolving media, but it would refresh some worth to their list if it weren't issued so often.


cheers
vk