[Ira Fishman]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

Well, I hate to mention it, but can you think of a book where Rye and Swinley Forest and Cruden Bay and Machrihanish were singled out as special, and Deal was passed over?  (Or where Augusta and Pebble Beach are in the second tier and not the first?)


I had to lol at Simon's post about the lack of groupthink in this ranking, because it's pretty obvious that my book from 20 years ago has had an impact on many panelists' thinking, or perhaps on the range of acceptable discourse.  (For that matter, I have worked with the first seven names he listed, though I had no idea they had been chosen as panelists, or how they voted.)


It's not groupthink, exactly, because no one got together to discuss how we should vote.  It's selection bias.  Unfortunately, I think that Ran's decision of who would be a good addition to the panel had something to do with knowing which courses they liked, instead of just how much they'd seen.  That's why I have said earlier in this thread and on other related threads that the panel needs more diversity:  more great players, especially, and maybe a few more guys who haven't read my book.

I agree that panelists with more diverse perspectives would produce a more balanced list.  However, I give Ran credit for stacking the deck a bit.  He has a very defined view of what constitutes great architecture, and he now has a bigger, broader platform to promote it.  He has chosen to use it.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

Just read the next 50.  Streamsong Red is listed, but not Streamsong Blue.  This highlights the absurdity of rankings. I would say the subjectivity, but I think few would argue that Blue and Red are far apart in quality. So, I ask how can you list one and not the other?

Because you only have 150 total courses in the world perhaps?  Did Old Macdonald make the next 50?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

TWO YEARS AGO almost to the day I received a phone call from Ran explaining that Time Warner and their attorneys where going to get in touch regarding remarks I made on this site following a previous edition of the Top 100.
I was rather disturbed that courses involved with a Mr SMITH were rather well rewarded in their respective rankings.....I ALSO had significant evidence of paid vacations to several panellist to several rather highly ranked courses which raised suspicion of their respective rankings.
One such place was one of my own clubs Diamante in Cabo, a place I love very deeply and consider to be one of my favourite places to visit, but its rise of 30+ places at a time when its eye test was declining raised particular suspicion.


WELLLLLLLLL without Mt Pasov and Smith and under Rans tutelage two of those courses disappear and three others take considerable tumbles in to the areas they are more deserving.....we can always question certain courses such as the still lowly ranking of Cape Wickham and Victoria for me...but what a huge improvement
Thanks new panel for restoring some faith

[jeffwarne]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

Ran's decision of who would be a good addition to the panel had something to do with knowing which courses they liked, instead of just how much they'd seen.  That's why I have said earlier in this thread and on other related threads that the panel needs more diversity:  more great players, especially, and maybe a few more guys who haven't read my book.

I agree that panelists with more diverse perspectives would produce a more balanced list.  However, I give Ran credit for stacking the deck a bit.  He has a very defined view of what constitutes great architecture, and he now has a bigger, broader platform to promote it.  He has chosen to use it.


Ira

Elections have consequences-LOL
Thankfully, because the pendulum swung the other way for far too long.
That said, much of the need for work being done today was created by the ill advised work of the go to stars of the former regime.

[Eric Smith]

A list so tasty I imagine I’ll print it out and shred it - then drizzle a little olive oil over the pile of slivers and eat it for lunch.


Bravo

[Bob Montle]

While we take pride in highlighting new creations, older, fabled courses have made impressive moves in this year’s rank. Witness the jumps by North Berwick (+14 spots) and Prestwick (+25). Rye returns after an absence, and age-old Machrihanish continues to hang in at No. 93. Rye measures 6,503 yards and Machrihanish 6,226 yards—GOLF’s course raters don’t view length as the prime determinant of quality, and neither should you. The idea that a round should take little more than three hours to complete is gaining steam among raters, so it’s no surprise to see “short” courses that ooze character inch up the rank.

I am not ashamed to say that my eyes misted up with emotion as I read this paragraph.
As many have said, "Thank you, Ran."

[Ted Sturges]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

Well, I hate to mention it, but can you think of a book where Rye and Swinley Forest and Cruden Bay and Machrihanish were singled out as special, and Deal was passed over?  (Or where Augusta and Pebble Beach are in the second tier and not the first?)


I had to lol at Simon's post about the lack of groupthink in this ranking, because it's pretty obvious that my book from 20 years ago has had an impact on many panelists' thinking, or perhaps on the range of acceptable discourse.  (For that matter, I have worked with the first seven names he listed, though I had no idea they had been chosen as panelists, or how they voted.)


It's not groupthink, exactly, because no one got together to discuss how we should vote.  It's selection bias.  Unfortunately, I think that Ran's decision of who would be a good addition to the panel had something to do with knowing which courses they liked, instead of just how much they'd seen.  That's why I have said earlier in this thread and on other related threads that the panel needs more diversity:  more great players, especially, and maybe a few more guys who haven't read my book.

Tom,   Just curious...why do you feel the panel needs "more great players, especially..."?  I would think the most important two criteria would be (1) what have you seen?, and (2) how much time do you have to devote to seeing more?  What does being a "great player" have to do with it?


TS

[Garland Bayley]

It’s interesting how Rye always scores highly in overseas produced world top 100 lists yet across three major UK lists it is a steady early 50s in GB&I top 100s. Why such a massive discrepancy?

Well, I hate to mention it, but can you think of a book where Rye and Swinley Forest and Cruden Bay and Machrihanish were singled out as special, and Deal was passed over?  (Or where Augusta and Pebble Beach are in the second tier and not the first?)


I had to lol at Simon's post about the lack of groupthink in this ranking, because it's pretty obvious that my book from 20 years ago has had an impact on many panelists' thinking, or perhaps on the range of acceptable discourse.  (For that matter, I have worked with the first seven names he listed, though I had no idea they had been chosen as panelists, or how they voted.)


It's not groupthink, exactly, because no one got together to discuss how we should vote.  It's selection bias.  Unfortunately, I think that Ran's decision of who would be a good addition to the panel had something to do with knowing which courses they liked, instead of just how much they'd seen.  That's why I have said earlier in this thread and on other related threads that the panel needs more diversity:  more great players, especially, and maybe a few more guys who haven't read my book.

Tom,   Just curious...why do you feel the panel needs "more great players, especially..."?  I would think the most important two criteria would be (1) what have you seen?, and (2) how much time do you have to devote to seeing more?  What does being a "great player" have to do with it?


TS

Has golf not been polluted too much by great players. I prefer great minds to great players. All hail Alister Mackenzie!

[Jim Hoak]

I would agree with the sentiment that "great players" are often very poor judges of golf courses.  They often personalize their judgment to how they have played the course, they have not played that many of the great courses of the world, they equate their ability to strike a golf ball repeatedly well with their eye for a course, they don't have a love for the history of the game, etc.  The most notable exception to this conclusion would be Ben Crenshaw, but in my experience he is one-of-a-kind.

[William_G]

A list so tasty I imagine I’ll print it out and shred it - then drizzle a little olive oil over the pile of slivers and eat it for lunch.


Bravo

+1 but add some balsamic

[John Kavanaugh]

I would agree with the sentiment that "great players" are often very poor judges of golf courses.  They often personalize their judgment to how they have played the course, they have not played that many of the great courses of the world, they equate their ability to strike a golf ball repeatedly well with their eye for a course, they don't have a love for the history of the game, etc.  The most notable exception to this conclusion would be Ben Crenshaw, but in my experience he is one-of-a-kind.

Have you ever hung out with the guys who play in the Crump Or Anderson Cups year after year? Or how about a guy who has played in multiple Walker Cups? Everything you say above is simply untrue.

[Jim Hoak]

John--As I said, "often," not always.  There are obviously exceptions.

[Michael Wolf]

Jim,


You are way off, at least among the PGA Tour players I work for or know pretty well.


Michael

[Michael Wolf]

Sorry, I hit "enter" before i went back to add on the previous post - keep in mind they mostly have more resources, more free time, and more access than 99% of others in the golf world.


I'd also argue that because they play many courses for competitive reasons, they could have more diversity in what they're exposed to than the rest of us who choose where we play and travel.


Michael

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,   Just curious...why do you feel the panel needs "more great players, especially..."?  I would think the most important two criteria would be (1) what have you seen?, and (2) how much time do you have to devote to seeing more?  What does being a "great player" have to do with it?

Ted: 


This is the first GOLF Magazine list where Jack Nicklaus doesn't have any say in what a great course is, or Greg Norman.  You don't think guys like that bring any perspective to the table?  I do.  There are more than a dozen architects on the panel; those guys are architects, too.  We've got Michael Clayton on the panel, why is he more informed than Jack?  And wouldn't you want to hear what Tiger Woods thought?


Lukas Michel's small interview in the issue also made the case well.  Where he does go and play for events, he plays the course 5-6 times, and studies it pretty intently to try and figure out best tactics.  Most of the people on the panel just do not think that hard about their votes.


It was accepted wisdom until not long ago that a course's ability to hold up for great players had some relevance to whether it was a great course.  How much that should be factored in was a source of debate and argument, but in the new regime it has been pretty much eliminated altogether, unless you are comfortable that Ran and I are giving it due consideration.  [And I'm not comfortable in saying that, so I don't know why you would be.]


Sure, it can go way too far the other way, to where you have an entire panel of low handicappers who can't see the forest for the trees [*cough* GOLF DIGEST *cough*].  But that doesn't mean you have to grab the pendulum and hold it over on the other side.


Of course, it is hard to implement my recommendation, because the fact is that players like Norman and Nicklaus and Woods and Koepka HAVE NOT gone to many of these courses, or did so decades ago.  [When we were at Sebonack, Nicklaus mentioned having gone to Pine Valley on his honeymoon in 1959 . . .]  Even so, their being on the panel would lend it credibility, more than most of the names on the list.

[Thomas Dai]

Out of curiosity what is the proportion of men and women on the panel?
Atb

[Michael Wolf]

I'd guess Nicklaus, Woods and Koepka are all outliers. Because of how much they have going off the course as well as the dust they kick up whenever they play anywhere. It just isn't worth the hassle to play a Pine Valley.


But your average journeyman Tour players, at least the ones I know, have played at a lot of top places. Go to LACC the Tuesday of Riviera week and you'll see quite a few.

[Tom_Doak]

Out of curiosity what is the proportion of men and women on the panel?
Atb

I think there were 4-5 women, whose names I noticed, anyway.  The only two I know at all are Ashley Mayo, who does travel pretty extensively, first for GOLF DIGEST and now for her new gig, and Kristel Mourgue d'Algue, who ran the Rolex guide of 1,000 top courses, and has been around golf all her life.  [She was also the NCAA Women's Golf champion in 1995; and her family were also my clients for our project in St. Emilion.]


To be fair, having tried to find panelists who could help us for many years when I was involved at GOLF Magazine, it is really hard to find women who have seen a significant percentage of the courses on the ballot.  We did, usually, include a couple of players from the LPGA Tour [people like Se Ri Pak or Annika Sorenstam were a two-fer on diversity!], a couple of amateurs [like Carol Semple Thompson or Marlene Streit], and the former USGA President Judy Bell, and Alice Dye.  I don't know who would legitimately replace those last two.

[Kalen Braley]

I think John makes an excellent point a few posts ago.

While top ams that play in events like the Crump Cup or State Opens aren't in the golfing elite of PGA Tour pros, they are certainly still "great" players when compared to the average hack.  Perhaps a few more of these types sprinkled in might not be a bad idea.

[Tom_Doak]

But your average journeyman Tour players, at least the ones I know, have played at a lot of top places. Go to LACC the Tuesday of Riviera week and you'll see quite a few.

So, name a couple whom you believe would be good panelists, and who have seen a decent number of courses - particularly if they've seen some outside of the U.S.A.


You are right that Nicklaus and Tiger attract too much attention.  Jack did not feel like he could go anywhere to just look at a course, because it would make news, and anything he said would be blown out of proportion.  He got roasted here years ago for not going to see Sand Hills when he was working on Dismal River, but to go to Sand Hills he felt like he would have to call Ben Crenshaw and let him know he was going.  Plus he was only at Dismal two or three days during its construction - taking one afternoon to go to Sand Hills might not have gone over that well with his client 


I personally try to avoid the smaller hullaballoo that accompanies me going somewhere, by not telling anyone I'm coming if possible.  That way I won't get the "official" tour or have to spend two hours giving the green chairman free consulting advice.  You can only imagine what Tiger Woods would have to put up with, in comparison.

[Tom_Doak]

I think John makes an excellent point a few posts ago.

While top ams that play in events like the Crump Cup or State Opens aren't in the golfing elite of PGA Tour pros, they are certainly still "great" players when compared to the average hack.  Perhaps a few more of these types sprinkled in might not be a bad idea.

We used to have those guys, too:  John Harris, David Eger, Jay Sigel, etc.  Of course they all turned pro once the Senior Tour got going.


The GOLF DIGEST panel used to have a lot of those guys, back before they started asking the panelists for money.  I'm sure there are a bunch who are still grandfathered in, but they are outnumbered now.

[Jeff Schley]

I played Shoreacres this summer with a member who was called by a friend of his (very powerful friend) that Phil Mickelson wanted to play Shoreacres the Tuesday morning before the BMW at Medinah this year.  Long story is that Shoreacres had a competition that day and the course wasn't going to be available until later in the afternoon.  So this member had to tell his friend, sorry the club is not open until later in the afternoon and Phil couldn't make it.  That would have been pretty cool.

[Michael Wolf]

Jeff,


What's even worse than your story is sometimes top courses will allow the Tour players to go ahead and play, but won't let them bring their agents along with them.


Michael

[JMEvensky]

So, name a couple whom you believe would be good panelists, and who have seen a decent number of courses - particularly if they've seen some outside of the U.S.A.

Loren Roberts would most likely meet your criteria--he gets it. Kris Spence would probably write him a recommendation letter.

[Sean_A]

I always believed that one hallmark of greatness is that a course should be playable for decent handicap players and able to challenge the game's best players. I have to believe this criteria has been stretched to beyond breaking point.

TOC is a touchstone for most anything to do with quality golf. While I am entertained by Opens held there I am no longer convinced TOC provides an adequate challenge for Open contestants. IF this is the case, and IF that should mean therefore that being a challenge for pros while remaining playable for decent markers has become too difficult to achieve, what then is the added value a pro golfer brings to the table that warrants a rater diversity imbalance?

Happy Hockey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()