It's just a list...

[Ted Sturges]

To quote the great Aaron Rodgers...   "relax."
 
The new Golf Digest list is "just a list".  Surely most on this site can see it for what it is.  No list is perfect, and as Tom Doak points out, no process is perfect (and GD's process certainly has its flaws). 
 
But...relax and enjoy it for what it is.  An opportunity to shrug your shoulders and ponder how some courses are so misplaced on the list, and to wonder how in the hell they left others off their list (there is certainly plenty of opportunity for both of those exercises with this new GD list).  Or...to point out what is wrong in the process (thanks Tom). 
 
But don't take these lists so seriously.  Unless your course is seeking "membership drive" ammunition, who really cares (and there are likely zero courses on this recent list who give a damn about attracting new members)?  I think a much better analysis/comparison tool is the often utilized "Doak scale".  Why rank when you can thoughtfully categorize?  And I would hope by now we could all agree that Golf Digest consistently claims the last place position for the overall quality of their list.
 
TS

[jeffwarne]

To quote the great Aaron Rodgers...   "relax."
 
The new Golf Digest list is "just a list".  Surely most on this site can see it for what it is.  No list is perfect, and as Tom Doak points out, no process is perfect (and GD's process certainly has its flaws). 
 
But...relax and enjoy it for what it is.  An opportunity to shrug your shoulders and ponder how some courses are so misplaced on the list, and to wonder how in the hell they left others off their list (there is certainly plenty of opportunity for both of those exercises with this new GD list).  Or...to point out what is wrong in the process (thanks Tom). 
 
But don't take these lists so seriously.  Unless your course is seeking "membership drive" ammunition, who really cares (and there are likely zero courses on this recent list who give a damn about attracting new members)?  I think a much better analysis/comparison tool is the often utilized "Doak scale".  Why rank when you can thoughtfully categorize?  And I would hope by now we could all agree that Golf Digest consistently claims the last place position for the overall quality of their list.
 
TS

Ted
Do you really think there are ZERO courses on this list that "give a damn" about attracting new members?
I'll take the over by a lot

[Michael George]

Who is taking the list so seriously?


I don't see anyone losing their mind in their posts. 

[Jim Hoak]

I agree with Ted.  There may be more courses concerned about membership than not, but that's their problem, bigger than just rating lists.  People love sports lists--who are the top 10 quarterbacks of all times, etc.?  Magazines are trying to give people want they want, so they will discuss and argue over the list.  That's their business; they want to promote controversy.  If you don't like it, don't buy the magazine.

[Mark_Fine]

I just wish someone here would post the "correct" Top 100 so there wouldn't be any more arguments 

[Jim Franklin]

I just wish someone here would post the "correct" Top 100 so there wouldn't be any more arguments 

I will post my Top 100 shortly....

[Mark_Fine]

Thanks Jim.  It is about time we got the correct list.  I am tired at looking at all these bogus ones 

[V_Halyard]

I just wish someone here would post the "correct" Top 100 so there wouldn't be any more arguments 

I hear the real list may be on Wikileaks...

[Mark_Fine]

No that one is not the real one either.  It was hacked by someone (who knows) and all the Trump courses are on it 

[jeffwarne]

No that one is not the real one either.  It was hacked by someone (who knows) and all the Trump courses are on it 

Please don't tell me there are 100....

[Brad Tufts]

I say this every year....but the fact that we have like 5 threads on the rankings right now, and a couple others that are piggybacking on it means that the GD lists are an unequivocal success.

Its only purpose (beyond selling a few mags and ads), is stimulating discussion on course architecture.  It has clearly done that!

[BCowan]

I say this every year....but the fact that we have like 5 threads on the rankings right now, and a couple others that are piggybacking on it means that the GD lists are an unequivocal success.

Its only purpose (beyond selling a few mags and ads), is stimulating discussion on course architecture.  It has clearly done that!

The whole point of doing a Unofficial list is for people on here to actually do something production other then bitching.  Plus if anyone has looked at the GD top 25 in each state, well that is low grade toilet paper.

[Ted Sturges]

To MGeorge:    Who is "losing their mind" over the new list???   Just read any one of the five threads on the topic on this site.
 
To Jeffware:   Glad to know you think lots of the clubs on the new GD list are interested in attracting new members.  I will be sending membership applications and checks over to Cypress, ANGC and NGLA this afternoon. 
 
TS

[Kalen Braley]

I say this every year....but the fact that we have like 5 threads on the rankings right now, and a couple others that are piggybacking on it means that the GD lists are an unequivocal success.

Its only purpose (beyond selling a few mags and ads), is stimulating discussion on course architecture.  It has clearly done that!

Brad,


I have to disagree here.  This "stimulating discussion" bs is the same line of reasoning that the BCS used to use for years before they finally implemented at least something resembling an actual playoff.  Just because people are talking about something doesn't mean its a "positive"....

[Brad Tufts]

On the subject of golf course architecture, I view stimulating discussion as a positive.  By "positive" I mean it's a positive that it generates comments both in agreement and in disagreement.  My point is it creates opinions, which furthers discussion.

The alternative is less discussion, less arguing, fewer things to talk about...

The BCS stimulated enough discussion to change things eventually.  Maybe that's what happens with the published rankings at some point?

[Kalen Braley]

On the subject of golf course architecture, I view stimulating discussion as a positive.  By "positive" I mean it's a positive that it generates comments both in agreement and in disagreement.  My point is it creates opinions, which furthers discussion.

The alternative is less discussion, less arguing, fewer things to talk about...

The BCS stimulated enough discussion to change things eventually.  Maybe that's what happens with the published rankings at some point?

Brad,


While I agree that the BCS furor did lead to a big improvement (although they really should expand it to 8...I'm not seeing how golf courses are going to have thier version of a "playoff". 


I think the amusing part is that trying to rank golf courses is like trying to rank music or women...while some are clearly better/more desirable than others, when you get to the premium stuff it just comes down to personal tastes and preferences!