2017 Golf Digest Top 100/200

[BHoover]

Sorry Hoovey, it's already evening in Paris.

Great

[Michael George]

Some observations:

I almost don't want to say this so as not to be labeled a homer by some, but I think Tom Doak is terribly under-represented in these rankings. How can Rock Creek Cattle Co and Dismal River Red not be included in the top 100.  It is just laughable.  Further, Pacific Dunes continues to fall for no reason.  I get the history of some courses, but who would rather play Oakland Hills, Winged Foot West or Chicago GC over Pacific Dunes.  I enjoyed each of those courses, but I would play Pacific Dunes over each of them.  I guess tournament history and exclusivity mean a lot to some panelists. 

They continue to under-rank the classic, short gems in the northeast, like Eastward Ho! and Myopia Hunt, in order to include the brawny tournament courses. 

There is too much geographical correctness.   Sorry to some states very well represented in the top 100, but the land in your state simply is not good enough to have as many top 100 courses as you have. Just look at Fazio courses - even if you love his courses, who would rather play Flint National or Butler National over Martis Camp?   

I love diversity in golf course architecture and am often the guy defending Muirfield Village, Whistling Straits and Erin Hills (all of which I really loved), but I simply don't understand how some of these modern courses are included in the rankings.   A higher handicap may not like Muirfield Village or Whistling Straits, but I hope that they can at least understand its appeal to lower handicaps.   I think some of the moderns in the top 100 don't appeal to any handicapper.

I am out...... until 2 years from now when I rekindle the same thoughts over and over again.

I think some on this string could just repost old posts ever 2 years.  That would be entertaining.  I honestly think that Tom D and John K could find old posts for every post that they made in this string. 

John K - hope you are enjoying Paris!

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - thanks for your post. Since I don't look at the rankings anymore, I didn't know those facts about Tom's courses, or about courses like Myopia. I learned something I didn't expect.


Mark B - thanks for the laugh, that was very clever. Has any writer being paid by the word ever imagined that his tossed-off "no one ever asks..." would actually be so quickly and easily proved incorrect?

[Sean_A]

Funny thing though, I did try to donate money at a few US clubs to no avail.  Its quite common at UK clubs for there to be a Captain's charity (each club captain picks a worthy carity for the year which will receive most of the donations from the club) or a junior section which will take donations.  That doesn't seem to be the case in the US...very short sighted.


Ciao

Sean,

   I think the Evans Scholarship organization and many others would be offended by those statements.  The US is a very charitable country as a whole.

Get a grip.  Its the bottom of the 9th and you are picking daisies out in right field.   

Michael

I will stick my hand up and say I would rather play Chicago or Winged Foot West over Pacific Dunes.  I don't see any crime or malpractice in that.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Some observations:

I almost don't want to say this so as not to be labeled a homer by some, but I think Tom Doak is terribly under-represented in these rankings. How can Rock Creek Cattle Co and Dismal River Red not be included in the top 100.  It is just laughable.  Further, Pacific Dunes continues to fall for no reason.  I get the history of some courses, but who would rather play Oakland Hills, Winged Foot West or Chicago GC over Pacific Dunes.  I enjoyed each of those courses, but I would play Pacific Dunes over each of them.  I guess tournament history and exclusivity mean a lot to some panelists. 

They continue to under-rank the classic, short gems in the northeast, like Eastward Ho! and Myopia Hunt, in order to include the brawny tournament courses. 

Michael:


I've got four courses in the top 50, so you're not going to find too many people to agree that my work is under-represented.  [Plus, half of my best work is in Australia and New Zealand, which GOLF DIGEST isn't rating in their most-publicized list.]  I am very fond of the two other courses you mentioned, but I figured out long ago that if I didn't agree with GOLF DIGEST's definition of a great course, then I shouldn't expect my work to do well in their rankings. 


That's why I devote my time criticizing their definition and their process, instead of the results.  With their emphasis on Resistance to Scoring -- which many panelists also emphasize as a part of Shot Values, so it counts three times -- places like Eastward Ho! and Myopia are going to struggle to make the list, too.  [Myopia probably isn't going to win points for glamour conditioning, either.]  Your problem is the same as mine -- it's the definition that we think should change.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Also, I would bet that no one has ever played Flint Hills National or Spring Hill Golf Club and compared either to Mount Rushmore!

The golf carts at Flint Hills National were Mt. Rushmoresque!

[Sean_A]

I am suspicious of resistance to scoring because its easy to equate that to difficult is good.  To me, resistance to scoring should be more about a middle road.  If a guy is playing well, I see nothing wrong with a 63 or in my language as a 9 capper, a 75.  On the other hand, if things are going a bit awry, then scoring 90 is a real possibility even though ya didn't think it was possible. Two courses which offer that sort of challenge are TOC and West Links...and I suspect that balance of resistance to scoring is a huge reason why these two courses are universally loved.  Yet, I bet neither scores very well in that category.   


Ciao

[JC Jones]

what if the golf digest rater is a fireman?

[Paul Rudovsky]

I just caught up with this unbelievable trail of messages. 


1.  To those of you who suggest we give up the freebie round for someone else, why don't you play double the next time you pat a greens fee and tell the course to comp someone else.


2.  somebody said they'll let me play for free so that I can rate them...no ones twisted their arms, and then have NO ability to see my final evaluation...so tell me how graft works when they can't see the results of their "payoff"


3.  to those who believe these free rounds will cause someone else to lose their job, I suggest you get involved with any business and see how businesses work.


4.  to those who think this for "free" for use, I will be glad to pay for all my free greens fees if you cover my travel expenses


5.  we got this assignments by a various of means, often because we learned something about golf architecture along the way...we didn't make a "payoff" to get this assignment in order to have free green fees...although it does make it easier to get access.  Having gotten our positions generally legally (although sometimes with some luck...as happens w lots of things in life) have no intention of giving them up.


nuf said

[Wayne_Freedman]

Said well.

I just caught up with this unbelievable trail of messages. 


1.  To those of you who suggest we give up the freebie round for someone else, why don't you play double the next time you pat a greens fee and tell the course to comp someone else.


2.  somebody said they'll let me play for free so that I can rate them...no ones twisted their arms, and then have NO ability to see my final evaluation...so tell me how graft works when they can't see the results of their "payoff"


3.  to those who believe these free rounds will cause someone else to lose their job, I suggest you get involved with any business and see how businesses work.


4.  to those who think this for "free" for use, I will be glad to pay for all my free greens fees if you cover my travel expenses


5.  we got this assignments by a various of means, often because we learned something about golf architecture along the way...we didn't make a "payoff" to get this assignment in order to have free green fees...although it does make it easier to get access.  Having gotten our positions generally legally (although sometimes with some luck...as happens w lots of things in life) have no intention of giving them up.


nuf said

[Jason Way]

I have read a few of the course descriptions, but not all of them (probably won't make the time to read all of them).  I have not seen a Superintendent mentioned by name in any of them yet, and I don't recall seeing the word Superintendent used.  Has anyone else found a Superintendent's name, or any related mention anywhere, in any of the course write-ups?

[John Sabino]

Paul - great to see you posting here. Totally agree with what you said. John

[Jim Franklin]

Said well.

I just caught up with this unbelievable trail of messages. 


1.  To those of you who suggest we give up the freebie round for someone else, why don't you play double the next time you pat a greens fee and tell the course to comp someone else.


2.  somebody said they'll let me play for free so that I can rate them...no ones twisted their arms, and then have NO ability to see my final evaluation...so tell me how graft works when they can't see the results of their "payoff"


3.  to those who believe these free rounds will cause someone else to lose their job, I suggest you get involved with any business and see how businesses work.


4.  to those who think this for "free" for use, I will be glad to pay for all my free greens fees if you cover my travel expenses


5.  we got this assignments by a various of means, often because we learned something about golf architecture along the way...we didn't make a "payoff" to get this assignment in order to have free green fees...although it does make it easier to get access.  Having gotten our positions generally legally (although sometimes with some luck...as happens w lots of things in life) have no intention of giving them up.


nuf said

No.  The same tired nonsensical defense of the indefensible.  New guys every year making the same BS rationalization for the  leech-like practices of what is essentially extortion and trying to wrap it in the flag of volunteerism.  It's fraud. And it's rotten to the core.

At least we agree on Rock Creek...

[Mike Bodo]

Can someone explain to me how Pine Valley is rated above ANGC as the No. 1 course in America, besides being a tough SOB? I've never played it, but from the images I've seen it looks very similar to NC courses such as Pinehurst, Mid-Pines, etc. which none are in the Top 10 this year. Then again, I've never played Augusta National either, but from physical characteristics alone I would think ANGC offers more variety/challenge, in addition to being drop-dead gorgeous - especially when everything is in bloom.


Do the panelists place more emphasis on toughness, i.e. a courses rating/slope than a courses playability or does it vary depending on the course? I'm sure there are more criteria that influence the overall ranking, but they seem more heavily weighted on toughness and attractiveness, in which the latter is very subjective. In any event, I'm interested in hearing everyone's takes and perspectives on this to help give me some clarity, as I find this mind-boggling.


PEACE!


Mike

[Josh Tarble]

The thing I find most offensive about the entire thing is Golf Digest's website.  It is quite possibly the worst list-style page on the entire internet.  For a company that desperately wants to gain millennial attention, it's an abomination.

[Michael George]

Sean - I loved Oakland Hills, Winged Foot and Chicago.  My argument is not about the overall experience at the facility.  Mine is that not one of those courses brings the excitement over certain shots that Pacific Dunes does.  The green complexes at those 3 courses are truly special, but tee to green is not overly exciting (other than a couple of shots like #11 at Oakland Hills). 


Tom - you are correct that my problem is with the criteria.  My criteria would be:  (1) Strategic Interest (how much does the golf course make you think, how much risk/reward, etc..), (2) Elasticity (can the course be difficult for the best player yet entirely playable for every golfer), (3) Excitement (this would encompass the fun factor, unique and cool shots, etc...), (4) Routing (this would encompass - the walk in the park issue- ie. not a bowling alley, connectivity of each hole to the next hole, variety in the direction and types of holes); and (5) Intangibles (this allows for the majesty of the place, the tournament history, the beauty of the place - where places like Winged Foot can really shine).


Tom -I respect and appreciate your humility.  It is a quality that has been utterly lost in our society.  However, your comments here or in a book should not affect any rating of your golf courses, just like being comped or not being comped should not be considered. Quality is quality and the 2 courses that I mentioned are stark examples of a problem in the rankings.  They are better than at least half of the courses ranked in the top 100 (like Myopia - which is one of the truly special places in this country) ......and in my opinion better than some of your courses that are ranked top 100.  I am an Ohio guy (a state that you have wholly neglected over your career other than the Camargo restoration) and if those 2 courses aren't better than Double Eagle, then the panelist who said otherwise should be removed from the panel.  There is not even anything overly controversial about those 2 courses that could result in reduced rankings (like the wild greens at your courses in Streamsong and Lost Dunes - which I love but I can at least understand a panelist thinking differently).
 
 

[JLahrman]

The thing I find most offensive about the entire thing is Golf Digest's website.  It is quite possibly the worst list-style page on the entire internet.  For a company that desperately wants to gain millennial attention, it's an abomination.

Yes but where else should one go when one must have the latest news and pictures of Dustin and Paulina's most recent bikini-fest vacation?

[Mike_Young]

I just caught up with this unbelievable trail of messages. 


1.  To those of you who suggest we give up the freebie round for someone else, why don't you play double the next time you pat a greens fee and tell the course to comp someone else.


2.  somebody said they'll let me play for free so that I can rate them...no ones twisted their arms, and then have NO ability to see my final evaluation...so tell me how graft works when they can't see the results of their "payoff"


3.  to those who believe these free rounds will cause someone else to lose their job, I suggest you get involved with any business and see how businesses work.


4.  to those who think this for "free" for use, I will be glad to pay for all my free greens fees if you cover my travel expenses


5.  we got this assignments by a various of means, often because we learned something about golf architecture along the way...we didn't make a "payoff" to get this assignment in order to have free green fees...although it does make it easier to get access.  Having gotten our positions generally legally (although sometimes with some luck...as happens w lots of things in life) have no intention of giving them up.


nuf said

Paul,
It's seems to be the legitimate raters who come on here to argue the points for the bad raters.  I've read your blog and I perceive you to be one of the good guys, as is Wayne.  I could argue some of your points above but it's all been done before.  So I just have one thing that legitimate raters should think about and which I think explains where I come from.  And that is this:  I have always been told that advice and opinions are worth what you pay for them.  The magazines are not paying the raters.  In some instances the raters are paying them.  The raters I know send in their ballots etc but none have seen an audited compilation of ballots and outcomes.  I see no nobility in golf course rating but it so often comes off that way.  The only entity that needs it doesn't pay a dime for it.  IMHO
Cheers...

[Michael George]

Paul:

I am sure that you are a great guy, but I can't disagree with you more.  No one twists any panelists arm to become a panelist.  In fact, people work and pay to become panelists.  The fact that some panelists change their rating based on whether they were comped and how they were "treated" at the course is simply terrible.  The magazines should be analyzing ratings to identify these people and remove them from the panel.   

I know that you did not use the word, but someone above did.....It is a disgrace to the word volunteer to use that word in terms of a panelist.  There are countless examples of charity volunteers that do truly important and difficult work to help the less fortunate who deserve that title.  It shouldn't be devalued by calling panelists volunteers.

If I was in charge of a magazine panel, other than changing the criteria, I would make these 2 policies:

(1) Disallow comps.  I would ask each course provide a panelist rate that is no greater than the public fee or accompanied guest fee at the course, but not to exceed $100.  Thus, at most private clubs, a panelist would pay $100 to play the golf course.  That way the golf courses don't feel pressure to comp panelists in order to get good ratings and panelists would still not be gouged by high fees.

(2) Variance.  I would not rate panelists against other panelists based on whether they are within a certain percentage of other ratings.  This creates conformity.  Panelists try to fit their ratings within a pre-established view of what is acceptable so as not to be rated poorly.  This is the reason for such little change in the Golf Digest ratings this year.  For example, Golf Digest has Rich Harvest Links rated very highly.  However, many people on this site whom I really respect don't think highly of it.  Golf Digest should be trying to get this rating "right", rather than entrench it.  I believe that the person in charge of the panel should just determine if the panelist is qualified or not based on his ratings.  That person may not always be right, but you have to place your trust in someone.
   

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can someone explain to me how Pine Valley is rated above ANGC as the No. 1 course in America, besides being a tough SOB?

Because Ron Whitten and Dean Knuth have misled you into believing that there's actually a difference between the two when there isn't. PV scored 71.8465, ANGC 71.7453. PV scored one-tenth of 1 percent higher -- not 10 percent higher, not even 1 percent higher. 10 percent of 1 percent higher.

Another way to put this: suppose each course got 50 ratings and suppose every single one of those ratings scored each course 9s in every single category, EXCEPT one rating gave ANGC 9s for shot values and resistance to scoring but 8s for the other categories.

That equals the "difference" between the two course scores. Some terms to describe a "difference" of this magnitude:
rounding error
false precision

PV taking over the #1 spot from ANGC could be described as: Brownian motion, fooled by randomness, making up news to sell magazines.

Innumeracy lies at the root of many instances of bad journalism, but in this case the journalists aren't the innumerate: they are taking advantage of their readers' innumeracy to fabricate news. Hey we're in a post-truth world so it's all good!

[BCowan]

Michael George,

   Thank you very much for your post, I couldn't articulate it any better myself.  I woke up this morning took a shower, then read the doubling down of the entitlement and the traveling expenses  , I had to take a 2nd shower to cleanse myself of the filth I read leaving me with dry skin and even more irritated.

[V_Halyard]

I just caught up with this unbelievable trail of messages. 


1.  To those of you who suggest we give up the freebie round for someone else, why don't you play double the next time you pat a greens fee and tell the course to comp someone else.


2.  somebody said they'll let me play for free so that I can rate them...no ones twisted their arms, and then have NO ability to see my final evaluation...so tell me how graft works when they can't see the results of their "payoff"


3.  to those who believe these free rounds will cause someone else to lose their job, I suggest you get involved with any business and see how businesses work.


4.  to those who think this for "free" for use, I will be glad to pay for all my free greens fees if you cover my travel expenses


5.  we got this assignments by a various of means, often because we learned something about golf architecture along the way...we didn't make a "payoff" to get this assignment in order to have free green fees...although it does make it easier to get access.  Having gotten our positions generally legally (although sometimes with some luck...as happens w lots of things in life) have no intention of giving them up.


nuf said

Interesting Thread.

Golf is a unique voluntary entertainment and destination business. Nobody is forced to play golf or belong to a club. Some P&L's are supported simply by exclusive membership. Others by dues, rounds, carts and food and beverage.  The courses and clubs determine what is valuable to their business model. Raters function much like movie reviewers. Some are veteran others are random bloggers.  Clubs have the choice to comp or allow raters based on their desire to be ranked.  No subjective ranking system is perfect. Raters/panelists serve a purpose the same way movie reviewers support entertainment. They support golf in this climate of golf contraction.  Clubs/Courses can always refuse a rating and nobody is forced to read or believe a rating.

[Colin Sheehan]

Yes I'm biased, but funny how Yale, while not on GD's top 100, is better than at least 80 courses that did make it.


I would be curious to hear from people other courses not in the top 100 that are better than at least 60 or more courses on this list. I can think of a few.

[Mike_Young]

Yes I'm biased, but funny how Yale, while not on GD's top 100, is better than at least 80 courses that did make it.


I would be curious to hear from people other courses not in the top 100 that are better than at least 60 or more courses on this list. I can think of a few.

Palmetto Club

[John Kavanaugh]

If you want Yale to be rated higher find out which panelists have children and pair them with the director of admissions. Perfectly ethical.