Golf Digest 2021 US Top 100

[JC Jones]

Seems like even Golf Digest aren’t happy with the list 


https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2021/5/3/golf-digest-course-ranking-2021-you-get-what-you-charge-for

Glad Shackelford is finally "on the case"....


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67772.0.html

[Steve Lapper]

I feel very sorry for some of my GD rater friends....$300 & $1300 sorry.

So many great recognizable designs that are truly fun to play were absent from this list, yet I'm hardly surprised and expect that trend to continue for the GD list.


Several wonderful well-known clubs (that appear on both GolfWeek and Golf Magazine's lists) have already effectively banned Digest raters from access. It simply isn't worth being inundated with requests from thousands of practically ignorant "where are the tips" access junkies. Someone ought to tell Jerry Tarde, Derek Duncan and Stephen Hennessy to expect that list to grow.

[John Kavanaugh]

I want to know what course is worth playing if you have to look the pro in the eye and tell them you are a Digest panelist? Sending private documents to Shackelford while continuing to access courses does not make you a whistlblower, it makes you a...


I do find the frat boy photographs on the Digest site that I have stumbled upon to be hilarious. That you for that.

[BCrosby]

Hat-tip to Derek Duncan for pushing back against his own raters.


Bob

[jeffwarne]

I've had some pretty eye opening chats with several Digest raters in the last 2-3 years.
Based on my small anecdotal sampling, the list makes PERFECT sense to me.
You pay $1300, you aren't seeking out St. George's or Southampton-or I guess even Palmetto with another Fazio aesthetic Experience nearby.
You don't pay up for the Disney Speed Pass and then go to the State Fair-no matter how good the schedule of events

[JC Jones]

I feel very sorry for some of my GD rater friends....$300 & $1300 sorry.

So many great recognizable designs that are truly fun to play were absent from this list, yet I'm hardly surprised and expect that trend to continue for the GD list.


Several wonderful well-known clubs (that appear on both GolfWeek and Golf Magazine's lists) have already effectively banned Digest raters from access. It simply isn't worth being inundated with requests from thousands of practically ignorant "where are the tips" access junkies. Someone ought to tell Jerry Tarde, Derek Duncan and Stephen Hennessy to expect that list to grow.

Democracy may be close to tyranny but it still beats the hell out of oligarchy.

[Joe Hellrung]

Several wonderful well-known clubs (that appear on both GolfWeek and Golf Magazine's lists) have already effectively banned Digest raters from access. It simply isn't worth being inundated with requests from thousands of practically ignorant "where are the tips" access junkies. Someone ought to tell Jerry Tarde, Derek Duncan and Stephen Hennessy to expect that list to grow.

Steve, can you give me some examples of courses that have banned GD panelists but welcome GW and GM reviews?

[Jeff Shelman]

My feeling on the three major lists - GD, GM, GW - is that they are all like different kinds of pizza. Some like thick Chicago-style, some like New Haven, some like thin crust squares or whatever.


The GD list is not my favorite (disclosure, I’m a GW rater), but it is still interesting.


To me, the great thing is that there are ton of great golf courses in this country so that we get to have discussions about which contenders got left off the list. There are so many super fun places to play. So if you want to play every Fazio, fine, knock yourself out. If you only want to play courses designed by old dead guys, that’s an option.


We’re very fortunate to live in a place where there are more really good and really fun golf courses than there is time play them all.


So while there are a bunch of these places that would never be in my top 100, I’m not going to get too worked up over it. Plus, I have reached a point in life where I’m much more concerned about the names I write on the inside of the scorecard than I do about the name on the outside.


Maybe I’m getting old.

[Jim Sherma]

I always thought that Butler National was a George Fazio course? I guess that Tom may be taking credit for the good ones these days (Just joking - kind of). George made good courses that are honest tests. In my neck of the woods Moselem Springs, Hershey East and Downingtown are all better than solid courses that will reveal how good your game is whether your looking for the test or not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I just took a quick look at the list and noticed that, despite 15 Fazio courses, I thought the GD list was moving more to the traditional side than it had been. 


I know bashing Ron Whitten was a favored pastime on this site, but DD is one of us, no?  It seems to be moving the right direction, according to tastes here, where it always seemed to more heavily favor modern courses than other lists.  When it started, it was the leader, with GW trying to catch up.  Golf Mag was always around earlier on, and favored by some.  In some ways, it now seems like the GD list is the follower.


But, still, we moan and gripe about the few differences we see in the list.  Such is life.


Strangely, I still think a list favoring shot values would tend to favor newer courses, at least in many cases, with bunkers placed at the "correct" places according to their point system, designed by tour pros or with tour pros as consultants, etc.  At least for top players, and if the shot values was based on their preferences and game.

[JC Jones]

So, what is interesting about this list is that if you take the methodology described, and the data that is provided, their math is wrong.


For example, their described methodology is to take (2x Shot Options) plus (the other 6 categories). 


For Pine Valley, their published total score using this methodology is: 72.1554


However, if you take the published categories and enter them into their formula, Pine Valley's total score is: 71.8386.


Given that most of these scores are within tenths (or less) of each other, some rankings are different mathematically than their published ranking.

[Joel_Stewart]

Several wonderful well-known clubs (that appear on both GolfWeek and Golf Magazine's lists) have already effectively banned Digest raters from access. It simply isn't worth being inundated with requests from thousands of practically ignorant "where are the tips" access junkies. Someone ought to tell Jerry Tarde, Derek Duncan and Stephen Hennessy to expect that list to grow.

Steve, can you give me some examples of courses that have banned GD panelists but welcome GW and GM reviews?

Cal Club for one.  Golf Magazine has Cal Club at #50 in the world and Golf Digest doesn't have it in the top 100 in the US? 


When Cal Club first reopened after the renovation, they welcomed all panelists.  It became clear very shortly that the Digest panelists didn't know what they were talking about much less understand what they are seeing. As an example, Cal Club uses fescue grass.  It took 4-5 years before the fescue at Cal Club reached its peak. The conditioning category at GD benchmarks everything against Augusta (bent) so courses that use Bermuda or fescue are at a disadvantage.   

[Joel_Stewart]

Hat-tip to Derek Duncan for pushing back against his own raters.

Bob

It's just an extension of Ron Whitten. When they had the call announcing that Whitten was retiring, Whitten went on a rant about the panelists not listening, and poorly doing their jobs.  It was basically a big fuck you from Ron.


If Derek wants to invoke change, he needs to change the rating system.  Unfortunately,  that decision is up to the editor Jerry Tarde who likes the old system.  I can guarantee you Jerry Tarde at this second is calculating the number of clicks on the web site from people who are reading the ratings and monetizing it for the magazine.   

[JC Jones]

Several wonderful well-known clubs (that appear on both GolfWeek and Golf Magazine's lists) have already effectively banned Digest raters from access. It simply isn't worth being inundated with requests from thousands of practically ignorant "where are the tips" access junkies. Someone ought to tell Jerry Tarde, Derek Duncan and Stephen Hennessy to expect that list to grow.

Steve, can you give me some examples of courses that have banned GD panelists but welcome GW and GM reviews?

Cal Club for one.  Golf Magazine has Cal Club at #50 in the world and Golf Digest doesn't have it in the top 100 in the US? 


When Cal Club first reopened after the renovation, they welcomed all panelists.  It became clear very shortly that the Digest panelists didn't know what they were talking about much less understand what they are seeing. As an example, Cal Club uses fescue grass.  It took 4-5 years before the fescue at Cal Club reached its peak. The conditioning category at GD benchmarks everything against Augusta (bent) so courses that use Bermuda or fescue are at a disadvantage.

Joel,


Are you a member of Cal Club and saying this is a policy of the club?


If Digest panelists have to enter a score for conditioning, and you are saying that for 5 years the conditions were bad, wouldn't it then make sense that the conditioning score for Cal Club would be a drag?  Is that the fault of the panelist or the methodology?  30 evaluations from 10 years ago dropped off this year and Cal Club rose from 109 to 101.  So, given the math, they are likely only a cycle or two away from being in the top 100 and shedding the weight of their early conditioning issues.


Cal Club has over 150 current Digest evaluations, so access doesnt seem to be an issue.

[Tom_Doak]

  30 evaluations from 10 years ago dropped off this year and Cal Club rose from 109 to 101.  So, given the math, they are likely only a cycle or two away from being in the top 100 and shedding the weight of their early conditioning issues.

Except that they think they belong in the top 50   

[Bernie Bell]

"Plus, I have reached a point in life where I’m much more concerned about the names I write on the inside of the scorecard than I do about the name on the outside."

Love that. 

[Tim Martin]

The halcyon days of being a GD Rater appear to be waning. That doesn’t mean you can’t use the Buy It Now option on their website to pay the $1300 and give it go.

[Jim Franklin]

The halcyon days of being a GD Rater appear to be waning. That doesn’t mean you can’t use the Buy It Now option on their website to pay the $1300 and give it go.

I know plenty of people ready, willing, and able to fork over $1300 to get on panel. GD needs to do a better job vetting new panelists. I do believe they are trying.

[PCCraig]

Butler above Shoreacres?!? Come on...

I received a note from Steve and Derek with a screenshot of my comment above which they understandably not happy with.


I let them know that I didn't think I am a good fit for their current panel and I decided it was best I step away.


Golf Digest's list (or any ranking that matter) was never "perfect" but it is a shame to see the direction the list and the overall quality of the panel as gone. I hung around on the panel as I was hopeful that Derek, whom I respect, would attempt to make a positive impact on the quality of the list/panel but I'm not seeing it. As others have noted, the guy who pays $1,300 to get on the panel they are already not in it for the right reasons and current list reflects that.


It's too bad as I had had some good times as a panelist and I always enjoyed the "evaluation" process. I never would have stopped into Cedar Rapids CC in ~2016 unless it was on the GD "best new renovation" candidates and I found time to stop in while driving through Iowa. And if I hadn't done that I wouldn't have met Vaughn and it probably would of taken us a couple of more years to become friends   


I wish GD the best of luck. As Mr. Shelman said above, each list has their own flavor. My taste profile just happens to be much different than what they are serving these days.

[JC Jones]

  Unfortunately,  that decision is up to the editor Jerry Tarde who likes the old system.  I can guarantee you Jerry Tarde at this second is calculating the number of clicks on the web site from people who are reading the ratings and monetizing it for the magazine.

Were you under the impression there are other reasons for putting out ratings?

[John Kavanaugh]

Butler above Shoreacres?!? Come on...


Spring Hill at #100....sure.............................. 

I received a note from Steve and Derek with a screenshot of my comment above which they understandably not happy with.


I let them know that I didn't think I am a good fit for their current panel and I decided it was best I step away.


Golf Digest's list (or any ranking that matter) was never "perfect" but it is a shame to see the direction the list and the overall quality of the panel as gone. I hung around on the panel as I was hopeful that Derek, whom I respect, would attempt to make a positive impact on the quality of the list/panel but I'm not seeing it. As others have noted, the guy who pays $1,300 to get on the panel they are already not in it for the right reasons and current list reflects that.


It's too bad as I had had some good times as a panelist and I always enjoyed the "evaluation" process. I never would have stopped into Cedar Rapids CC in ~2016 unless it was on the GD "best new renovation" candidates and I found time to stop in while driving through Iowa. And if I hadn't done that I wouldn't have met Vaughn and it probably would of taken us a couple of more years to become friends   


I wish GD the best of luck. As Mr. Shelman said above, each list has their own flavor. My taste profile just happens to be much different than what they are serving these days.

Congrats. Have a JohnnyPanton on me.

[Mike Hendren]

Perhaps us ex-raters should form our own panel. 


Mike

[John Kavanaugh]

Perhaps us ex-raters should form our own panel. 


Mike

Who on LinkedIn would care?

[V_Halyard]

Butler above Shoreacres?!? Come on...


Spring Hill at #100....sure.............................. 

I received a note from Steve and Derek with a screenshot of my comment above which they understandably not happy with.


I let them know that I didn't think I am a good fit for their current panel and I decided it was best I step away.


Golf Digest's list (or any ranking that matter) was never "perfect" but it is a shame to see the direction the list and the overall quality of the panel as gone. I hung around on the panel as I was hopeful that Derek, whom I respect, would attempt to make a positive impact on the quality of the list/panel but I'm not seeing it. As others have noted, the guy who pays $1,300 to get on the panel they are already not in it for the right reasons and current list reflects that.

It's too bad as I had had some good times as a panelist and I always enjoyed the "evaluation" process. I never would have stopped into Cedar Rapids CC in ~2016 unless it was on the GD "best new renovation" candidates and I found time to stop in while driving through Iowa. And if I hadn't done that I wouldn't have met Vaughn and it probably would of taken us a couple of more years to become friends   

I wish GD the best of luck. As Mr. Shelman said above, each list has their own flavor. My taste profile just happens to be much different than what they are serving these days.

Thanks PCC!  The pleasure is all ours. We were having a great run at CRCC until the storm. The forensics are pretty clear and I can tie our buzz to a specific progression of evangelism by You, Jack Crisham, Joe Andriole, Shelman, Tom D, and Corey's Ross Super list, all on GCAtlas.  Brad Klein, GW and the GolfWeek Top 100 Raters did a bucket ton of heavy lifting of our profile.

The world of GCA in general is in an interesting place. Though nobody wants to be stuck at the bar with us in the 19th Hole, demand has blazed a spotlight on good golf architecture.  Classic and now even Modern golf course restoration is booming to the point that RFP shooting wars have broken out. Golf archies (and others) that used to eschew restoration are lobbing in bids. 
Munys, resorts and clubs are sold out of tee times, weeks, months years in advance.

While I was a rater for "Magazine A", I had a fantastic time hosting Jim Franklin and Andy Troeger From "Magazine B". Pat, besides you, Ryan Hillenbrand, and the GCA crew, they were our first visiting panelists from "Magazine B", who were kind enough to come, way the hell out of the way, to Iowa because we had been added to their list. That meant a ton to us. It was a fantastic round of shared experiences, conversation and learned GCA chatter.  But the conversation and ideas were informed with refreshing amounts of nuance.

Now, as I am a panelist for "Magazine C" (Not like I can hide it...), as unhinged as I can be, I will show restraint but share this opinion,  as architectural appreciation continues to nudge into the mainstream, selection of any panelist representing a "List maker" needs to be as selective as it was when you and others we know joined the panel.

I am a veteran of what was a bloody restoration war. I'm not guessing about what it takes to restore a classic course. We are in the process of having to do it again. The best thing about BUDA's, Mashies and the Dixie is that they bring true GCA types together on neutral ground, raters, panelists and unaffiliated. What cranks me sideways is when a card carrying panelist waltzes onto my home course, the one with my blood splattered all over the land, and tries to tell me that "the only way to truly evaluate my course is from the tips". They embarrass themselves and trigger my GTFOH reflex.

Informed GCA/Rater/Panelist Opinions and Lists have Value
We are now in the first of a two year repair/renovation of our award winning restoration after last year's Derecho. Every Rater/Panelsit/Top100 visitor that played and shared their thoughts have made priceless and positive contributions to our current effort in some interesting ways:
1: Their/your recognition and appreciation of our investment has raised the golf IQ of our membership
      (Other People's opinions and outsider thoughts carry weight and validation)
2: Though never as high as we would like it, that increased golf IQ has accelerated support for the drastic changes we need to make to the course based on the violence visited upon our entire property by Mother Nature.
3: The membership is proud of the previous work by Ron Prichard and Tom Feller and heartily supports the next iteration.
4: The first time, we had near fist fights and calls for resignation for "Ruining the Course" (Then a Donald Ross Tree Farm)
    - There are members I still refuse to speak to other than cordially
5: Excellent investments in great golf architecture at places like Davenport (Alison/Forse/Nagle) and Harvester (Foster.. and Foster again)have benefited from proximity visits and platitudes.

In closing, I will go on record, again, I am in favor of the lists.
The people that fill out the ballots need to know what the f*** they are looking at.
(You knew I was gonna' snap somewhere in here. Plus I can't believe anybody would send hate mail to PCC, a member of the Mashie Committee?!?)

[Steve Lapper]

Butler above Shoreacres?!? Come on...


Spring Hill at #100....sure.............................. 

I received a note from Steve and Derek with a screenshot of my comment above which they understandably not happy with.


I let them know that I didn't think I am a good fit for their current panel and I decided it was best I step away.


Golf Digest's list (or any ranking that matter) was never "perfect" but it is a shame to see the direction the list and the overall quality of the panel as gone. I hung around on the panel as I was hopeful that Derek, whom I respect, would attempt to make a positive impact on the quality of the list/panel but I'm not seeing it. As others have noted, the guy who pays $1,300 to get on the panel they are already not in it for the right reasons and current list reflects that.

It speaks volumes that those running the GD list would take the time to push back on legitimate criticism from a dedicated member of their own group. Thin-skinned editors signal to everyone just how tenuous their grip on reality is.


Clearly, the $1300 money grab has diluted what used to a be smaller group of decent assessors. The "Golden Ticket" may have filled the coffers, but it predictably trashed the franchise. The blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of Jerry Tarde and his bosses.


I've always wondered about GD's preference for low single-digit players. Having played with the likes of Ran, Brad Klein, Tom Dunne and several others with higher handicaps yet having great architectural "eyes," how is it that they can see what some "bomb & gougers" cannot? "Course IQ" should trump playing ability 100 out of a 100 times.


 Sure, anyone who can hit a 300yd drive will likely have a shot at going low at an Eastward Ho, a Creek Club a St. Louis CC, or White Bear Yacht, but doesn't it take more than that to learn to appreciate what makes them truly great? Having ranged from a 4hcp to a (current) 12, and having played the likes of a Canyata, Rich Harvest and Butler National (multiple rounds) my range of scores doesn't at all affect an judgement for their architecture.


What makes a course "great" enough to be labeled a US Top 100? It sure as hell  isn't 7200 yds or calf-deep rough. It most definitely isn't outsized artificial features or demanded long forced-carries. It's nuance, architectural character, use of terrain, routing, etc... I've known a few GD raters who see all that and understand how to award the appropriate merit. I know one of them has left, and suspect others like Pat Craig will follow. I give them credit for having the integrity and self-respect to know they "aren't for sale."