News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2019, 06:25:05 PM »

Does that mean the very opposite of what I wrote is true, ie that the new GD panelists are *not* retail golfers? That seems counterintuitive, given how they are described in this thread and the costs they are willing to incur to play top flight golf courses.

But if it is true that I "couldn't be more wrong", then the post was at least useful in that sense, ie as a 'pointer' to a completely different analysis of the text

« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 06:40:14 PM by Peter Pallotta »

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2019, 07:05:20 PM »
Isn’t any golfer, other than a professional or tournament amateur, a “retail” golfer? If not, I don’t know what that term means.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2019, 07:27:15 PM »

As valuable as the original post is, this response is equally invaluable. If said Palotta is incorrect, said Jones needs to elaborate/elucidate/clarify what is incorrect about his statements. "YCNBMW" works well as a feature-film moment of suspense, but needs explication in our world.


You could not be more wrong.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2019, 09:03:18 PM »

As valuable as the original post is, this response is equally invaluable. If said Palotta is incorrect, said Jones needs to elaborate/elucidate/clarify what is incorrect about his statements. "YCNBMW" works well as a feature-film moment of suspense, but needs explication in our world.


You could not be more wrong.


I'll tell you what, Ron, I'll respond to that post, which was either the result of not reading either of my posts (this thread and the other) or an attempt at being a bit too clever by half, as soon as you stop using this website to promote your own.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Mike Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2019, 05:12:00 AM »
There are two popular current threads in terms of views, 1) this thread, and 2) the new World Handicap thread. Basically they are about the evolving combination of economics and algorithms into golf apps and online content for golf.

Meanwhile, longtime HUMAN BEING Sean Arble posted his rankings on the Merseyside thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67773.0.html

I can't imagine not agreeing with 90+% of Sean's uncompensated rankings, and I would guess that it would take Sean and I, having never met, less that 45 seconds to figure out "how many strokes" on the first tee.

I have been fortunate to play lots of fancy courses over the years, but the money tends to destroy some, not all, of the great things in golf. Beware Yale Golf Course of World Top 100 status!!

I thought, and I continue to believe, that the 147 Custodians was the near perfect balance of historical perspective and modern freshness. But alas, our fearless leader has abandoned us for #corporatumavaritia  :D
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us."

Dr. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2019, 11:08:47 PM »

JC Jones...to quote Arnold, Wha'chu talking about, Willis? Are you referencing my new acronym wesbsite, YCNBMW.com? Please provide the time/date stamp of the last time I referenced any of my scintillating prose/stimulating photography on this site.

If you won't do something, just sack up and say Paso, instead of arbitrarily passing some kidney-stone of an anachronistic threat. All I wanted, was an elaboration of your brazen You could not be more wrong invective. Instead, I received a challenge whose origin puzzles me. 'Tis pity he's a bore.


As valuable as the original post is, this response is equally invaluable. If said Palotta is incorrect, said Jones needs to elaborate/elucidate/clarify what is incorrect about his statements. "YCNBMW" works well as a feature-film moment of suspense, but needs explication in our world.


You could not be more wrong.


I'll tell you what, Ron, I'll respond to that post, which was either the result of not reading either of my posts (this thread and the other) or an attempt at being a bit too clever by half, as soon as you stop using this website to promote your own.
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2019, 12:48:04 AM »
Jason's criticisms are not without merit, but I'm not sure any of them directly implicate the integrity (for whatever that's worth) of the rankings themselves.  Increasing the number of panelists, instituting a pay-for policy, these certainly could lead to the wrong type of people being on the panel (myself included, though I joined prior to expansion).  But there's no direct evidence that this is the case. 


Not that there aren't problems with the system.  I think there are issues with the way raters are evaluated (though I haven't discussed with the higher ups, and maybe I'm the mistaken one), and with the way some of the elements of the evaluation are communicated to the raters.  GD has indicated what proper conditioning should really be, and I happen to agree.  But if other panelists don't agree, I get a poor grade as a rater.  For example, Ballyneal may be an ideally conditioned course per the people running the panel at GD.  But Ballyneal is not Augusta.  I could give Ballyneal very high marks for conditioning, as it fits the profile.  But if everyone else on the panel disagrees and dings Ballyneal because it's not lush and dark green with perfect white sand bunkers, I'm considered the outlier, even though I'm in line with the standard.  Doesn't make sense. 


Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2019, 05:21:32 AM »
The only problem with the Golf Digest Rankings Panel - and ANY Rankings Panel - is that people give a shit enough to actually read their results.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2019, 06:34:29 AM »

JC Jones...to quote Arnold, Wha'chu talking about, Willis? Are you referencing my new acronym wesbsite, YCNBMW.com? Please provide the time/date stamp of the last time I referenced any of my scintillating prose/stimulating photography on this site.

If you won't do something, just sack up and say Paso, instead of arbitrarily passing some kidney-stone of an anachronistic threat. All I wanted, was an elaboration of your brazen You could not be more wrong invective. Instead, I received a challenge whose origin puzzles me. 'Tis pity he's a bore.


As valuable as the original post is, this response is equally invaluable. If said Palotta is incorrect, said Jones needs to elaborate/elucidate/clarify what is incorrect about his statements. "YCNBMW" works well as a feature-film moment of suspense, but needs explication in our world.


You could not be more wrong.


I'll tell you what, Ron, I'll respond to that post, which was either the result of not reading either of my posts (this thread and the other) or an attempt at being a bit too clever by half, as soon as you stop using this website to promote your own.


Ron, in all honesty, as a result of you prior indescrimination in that regard. I stopped paying attention to your posts.  If you’ve indeed stoped that practice, I commend you.


But as I said, the question and point didn’t warrant response.  It was either an attempt to be cute or a result of a desire to post paragraphs on every thread without giving the posts due consideration.  I authored both of those threads and did so in conjunction with each other for a reason.


The idea that the issues facing the Golf Digest panel, as I see them, are as a result of giving the unwashed retail golfer their own domain is condescending nonsense and a conclusion without a thought.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2019, 10:20:35 AM »
JC,


In your 10+ years as a rater for Golf Digest, what is the most valuable, impactful service you have provided in the course of that work?


I've re-read that opening post a few times now (as well as most of the thread) and can't figure out if you're baiting us for some follow up conversation or actually serious that the rater reputation has been damaged by this pay-for-play scheme.


GD came up with a way to add $1.5M in revenue ($500K+ of it recurring and all with no overhead) just as it was negotiating a sale...is there any more to it than that?


I ask the first question because you present this evolution as some moral decline when GD spent years getting bashed after releasing their vaunted lists because courses could buy their spot.


Me thinks you should embrace your new self...you are a retail golfer!

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2019, 11:33:09 AM »
JC,


In your 10+ years as a rater for Golf Digest, what is the most valuable, impactful service you have provided in the course of that work?


I've re-read that opening post a few times now (as well as most of the thread) and can't figure out if you're baiting us for some follow up conversation or actually serious that the rater reputation has been damaged by this pay-for-play scheme.


GD came up with a way to add $1.5M in revenue ($500K+ of it recurring and all with no overhead) just as it was negotiating a sale...is there any more to it than that?


I ask the first question because you present this evolution as some moral decline when GD spent years getting bashed after releasing their vaunted lists because courses could buy their spot.


Me thinks you should embrace your new self...you are a retail golfer!


Jim,


As I said in my opening post, there are no doubt people who have always had a disdain for raters; you are clearly one of those people.  I understand your point and appreciate it.


You're right, there were/are clearly courses that go out of their way to ensure raters are taken care of.  In theory, that was against policy, although much like the new social media policy, clearly it wasn't enforced (of the 2 most commonly referred to offenders, I did not play nor rate either one of them).  That problem, however, wasn't and isn't unique to Golf Digest as we saw with the clearing of house at Golf Magazine (which, in my opinion, is a panel that is still stuck with several conflict of interest issues).
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2019, 11:41:58 AM »
JC,

In your 10+ years as a rater for Golf Digest, what is the most valuable, impactful service you have provided in the course of that work?

I ask the first question because you present this evolution as some moral decline when GD spent years getting bashed after releasing their vaunted lists because courses could buy their spot.



I am curious as to the last statement, how was this done ("courses could buy their spot")?


Are you suggesting that whoever compiled the data fudged it based on ad placements or other valuable consideration?


Or that there were so few raters that "buying" a handful of deviants could guarantee a "spot"?


I've only seen two instances where I thought that the process was corrupted, and neither involved the Golf Digest panel.  The first was at an outing on a fairly new course attended by numerous GCAers including a large number of raters.  A highly popular member of the group explicitly stated that the course was "top 100" and that it was his aim to get it on the list.  It made it for a cycle or two.


The second incident also involved a highly influential member who led a group discussion of two courses we had played while on a rain delay.  He clearly favored one and went on at great lengths to why it was clearly superior to the other (and wen I say highly influential, I mean that he controlled at his pleasure who served on the panel).  What made the biggest impression on me was that before the group discussion, the dozen or so raters who had opined on the subject in my presence clearly voiced much higher support for the other course.  During the group discussion, nearly all were mum, and the "favored" course came out on top when the list was published.


If JC will permit me to suggest an answer to your question, perhaps his contribution to the panel was that he voted in accordance with his independent evaluation of the courses he played.  I say this with caution as I've only met him once while we partnered in a match at Aiken GC, and as I recall, he was not a rater at that time.


The biggest risks I see in rankings are that the groups adopt a specific style of GCA or members vote mostly in a manner to meet the expectations of the paid staff.  I don't see JC as having been a part of either problem. 


Not that Ran pays any attention to me, but if he did, I would advise him to err on the side of a wide variety of perspectives in his new panel, and particularly if they veer from his own.  As intelligent competition of ideas makes us all better, a contrast to Golf Digest is a good thing.  Forcing us to consider opinions outside of our closely-held beliefs is a good thing.  And, btw, JC in the role of a provocateur can teach Barney a few things. ;)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2019, 12:01:33 PM »
Lou,


I'm simply remembering the chaos each time GD released it's lists. The specific accusations and examples escape me but surely you remember the threads? My impression was that some courses would go to significant expense to lavish raters with gifts etc...


Mind you, I'm only getting that information from these threads, no actual experience in that regard but I assume some level of truth.


I have a question about your last paragraph...is a wider array of opinions in the production of a single list really a good thing? In the course of a discussion group? Absolutely. In generating a list on a purely subjective topic such as golf course quality, does aggregation not equal dilution?




JC,


I don't consciously know any golf course raters so certainly do not have any animosity. Also, I was not accusing you of having done anything wrong and don't think anything I wrote could be interpreted that way. In fact, I love the lists and they are the result of  significant effort, for sure.




FWIW, when I asked about the most impactful service you've provided, it was not meant as Lou took it to mean, within the context of the ratings panel you were on. I am really wondering what service the rating panels think they provide, and you as a member (former?) of one, what you specifically think the contribution is. It's not meant as a personal attack, but rather truly wondering if it's anything more than a bunch of people playing a bunch of courses in the hope of producing a list of what's the best to appease the near-universal desire to compare things.


[size=78%] [/size]

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2019, 12:57:31 PM »
Lou,


I was, in fact a rater at that time.  I can still remember your deft touch around the greens.


Jim,


I didn't take offense to your question; I just interpreted it in such a way that you generally think the process as not significant.  And like I said, I can understand and appreciate your point.


In the grand scheme of things I don't think being a panelist or helping to generate a list of golf courses is significant or impactful (although the list very clearly has financial impacts on people in golf business with something to sell).  As someone who loves the game of golf and the study of golf courses, it was fun to be a part of the process (in theory) that helps generate some fun and often discussed content.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2019, 01:49:46 PM »

As someone who loves the game of golf and the study of golf courses, it was fun to be a part of the process (in theory) that helps generate some fun and often discussed content.






Thank you for this post and I can certainly see, and understand this quoted part.


I always thought the fight over the different lists and panels was strange...but the process itself would be enjoyable

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2019, 03:33:40 PM »
Is the Golf Digest rating panel now like the Outpost Club?

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2019, 04:15:59 PM »
Lou,


I'm simply remembering the chaos each time GD released it's lists. The specific accusations and examples escape me but surely you remember the threads? My impression was that some courses would go to significant expense to lavish raters with gifts etc...


Mind you, I'm only getting that information from these threads, no actual experience in that regard but I assume some level of truth.


I have a question about your last paragraph...is a wider array of opinions in the production of a single list really a good thing? In the course of a discussion group? Absolutely. In generating a list on a purely subjective topic such as golf course quality, does aggregation not equal dilution?


Unfortunately, a lot of bad information is posted here, much of it hearsay, and some which has been augmented to reinforce a POV.  I suspect that the universe of raters compares favorably relative to the general population in terms of on-course behavior, though no doubt that some inappropriate conduct is displayed at times.


Both panels that I am familiar with stressed strong codes of conduct and a near-zero tolerance of violations.  In fact, I thought them to be too strict because of a lack of due process- a complaint from a club could result in an individual being dismissed without the opportunity to present his side of the story.


Unfortunately, there is not a shortage of individuals attracted by the seeming glamour of the industry who lack the demeanor and service orientation required by some very demanding club positions (think of the turnover at the assistant professional level).  Over the years I've fielded countless gripes about members, daily-fee golfers, raters, golf architects, maintenance staff, etc.  Some may have been valid; most didn't warrant further thought.


One that really saddened me was a claim by a self-described "second in command" at a well-known multi-course facility in FL.  We were early in a round on one of the best courses in the UK and he, as a comped guest of a golf writer/photographer doing a piece on the club, posited that one of his courses would have easily made a top 100 list had he approved a $20k ad placement in the magazine.  I know the publication well and I am 100% certain that he made the story up, but that's how these things get started. 


As to your question, I probably need to think a bit more about it.  But, assuming a large enough number of ballots on a wide number of courses, careful selection of raters, clear criteria for evaluating a course, and proper training to at least calibrate the scale, a wider range of perspectives should result in superior rankings.  The dilutive effect, again, assuming large numbers, should be offsetting, perhaps resulting in overall lower values across the rankings, but mostly consistent in relative terms.

I see greater danger and the possible conflict issues alluded to by JC in having a small number of like-minded raters with no criteria by which to derive a value.  It is certainly easier to manage that process, but I think that it makes the product less useful for a wide variety of golfers. I've perused Golf's list and I can definitely see Ran's and gca.com's influence.  And that's ok.  Many of us know which of the major three speak to our subjective preferences and can use the information accordingly.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2019, 04:17:55 PM by Lou_Duran »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2019, 04:38:10 PM »
Sweet Lou

I understand the seeming value of "clear criteria", but so far as gca is concerned I am much less than convinced of its value. I have come across more than a few questionable criteria. Plus, I am convinced that most raters for most courses adjust numbers to fit their idea of how the rankings should be. I was a panelist for one magazine whose criteria I tried to follow as best I could. For sure when I was done my own numbers failed my own eye test. I sent the numbers in anyway because it wasn't my list. Presumably, the powers that be had very good reasons for their criteria and relative value.

If I was running a list I would consider it a failure if I felt it necessary to mandate criteria. That simply means I chose raters that I don't trust. If you want diversity of opinion it isn't simply a matter of choosing diverse people. You have to give them the freedom to express their diversity.

Happy Hockey
« Last Edit: November 26, 2019, 04:11:10 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2019, 11:08:50 PM »
Sean,


What does "Happy Hockey" mean.  Certainly nothing untoward, but .......!


How does one get to an unfamiliar destination without a road map?  What makes a golf course great?  How do we differentiate?  Is a free form impression on a given day based on the weather, how we're feeling, our quality of play, good company, an attractive "backdrop" better?


The two panels I am familiar with guide its members by asking for evaluations on seven or so aspects of a golf course.  It does involve trust that a properly selected (experience, demeanor, comportment, able to travel, etc.) and trained trained individual will consider those items deemed important by the magazine with seriousness and to the best of his ability.  I look at it more as a process of how to think than what to think.  And though the ordinal ranking necessitates some math and statistics, I have never heard anyone claim that the endeavor is not mostly subjective.


Like you, I am not entirely content with the specific criteria employed by both panels, as I am sure many would not be happy with those I would use if I was running my own ranking.  I generally don't have a serious quarrel with any of the lists.  Understanding their individual biases, I am seldom disappointed with the guidance they provide, though I do scratch my head sometimes.  I wish there was a way to discount exclusivity, especially in the state lists, but I have played enough elite courses to work around that.


Rankings, a true first world problem!  Comparing is in our DNA.  We just can't help ourselves.


Happy Holidays!
 

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2019, 11:45:24 PM »
I'll ask again, why do we bother to rate a golf course....other than $$$$$?


As for where we draw the line on wealth and access?  How about we start with Congress.
No one is above the law. LOCK HIM UP!!!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2019, 04:33:50 AM »
Sean,

What does "Happy Hockey" mean.  Certainly nothing untoward, but .......!

How does one get to an unfamiliar destination without a road map?  What makes a golf course great?  How do we differentiate?  Is a free form impression on a given day based on the weather, how we're feeling, our quality of play, good company, an attractive "backdrop" better?

The two panels I am familiar with guide its members by asking for evaluations on seven or so aspects of a golf course.  It does involve trust that a properly selected (experience, demeanor, comportment, able to travel, etc.) and trained trained individual will consider those items deemed important by the magazine with seriousness and to the best of his ability.  I look at it more as a process of how to think than what to think.  And though the ordinal ranking necessitates some math and statistics, I have never heard anyone claim that the endeavor is not mostly subjective.

Like you, I am not entirely content with the specific criteria employed by both panels, as I am sure many would not be happy with those I would use if I was running my own ranking.  I generally don't have a serious quarrel with any of the lists.  Understanding their individual biases, I am seldom disappointed with the guidance they provide, though I do scratch my head sometimes.  I wish there was a way to discount exclusivity, especially in the state lists, but I have played enough elite courses to work around that.

Rankings, a true first world problem!  Comparing is in our DNA.  We just can't help ourselves.

Happy Holidays!

Happy Hockey?  Its my acknowledgement that with the hiring of Stevie Y as the GM, the Wings can get on with a proper rebuild.  K Holland was great at many things, but understanding the cap situation in the NHL and its bearing on the Wings' rebuild was not one of them.  Hockey is great...golf is second great 8)

Sounds like we agree regarding editor generated criteria. Ranking is a subjective excercise, so it bothers me when people try to legitimize their rankings by criteria and math.

Happy Hockey
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2019, 10:57:18 AM »
I find many similarities between the GD/GW Ratings Panels and Scientology.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Peter Pallotta

Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2019, 11:16:11 AM »
I find many similarities between the GD/GW Ratings Panels and Scientology.
Ha ha!
Yes, 'dianetics' does seem like it's related to golf course architecture -- you know, the 'science' of using angles in templates, or something about drainage slopes.


Ryan Hillenbrand

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #48 on: November 29, 2019, 03:05:39 PM »
I'll ask again, why do we bother to rate a golf course....other than $$$$$?


As for where we draw the line on wealth and access?  How about we start with Congress.


Personally I always loved any of the magazine rankings before I stumbled upon this site and certainly before the prevalence of social media. If I was traveling somewhere and knew squat about what I should play I always referenced my stack of magazines.


Even today while we complain about certain ranking systems and talk about darlings here, I think we could agree that there really are only about 500 courses in the U.S that are truly special (haven't been to Europe or Australia yet). I'm sure that's why the Golf panel only assesses 400 - and that's the whole World! While we complain about GD's list for example, its not like any of those courses don't belong in the discussion


We take for granted how much this group knows about great golf, and for a lot of lay people the magazines are their only point of reference. If a magazine ranking gets someone to visit a Lawsonia, Cedar Rapids, Rustic Canyon, etc I think its a win-win for golf
« Last Edit: November 29, 2019, 03:07:35 PM by Ryan Hillenbrand »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel
« Reply #49 on: November 29, 2019, 03:15:44 PM »


While we complain about GD's list for example, its not like any of those courses don't belong in the discussion



Actually, there are three or four courses in their list that absolutely DO NOT belong in the discussion:  Rich Harvest Farms, Canyata, The Club at Black Rock, and maybe Alotian which is in their top 20  ::)


Note that I have only been to one of these myself, as I don't believe them worthy of the discussion.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back