[Jonathan Cummings]

What?  No discussion of GD's new top 100??  I'm astounded! 

[Jim Hoak]

The list was "predictable."

[John Blain]

I think it has finally worn out its welcome. Honestly, who cares?

[Charlie Goerges]

I think the Ginger or Mary Ann thread meant to discuss it...at least tangentially.

[MCirba]

The fact that I've played only 55 of the GD Top 100 and only 29 of their second hundred means to me that we view golf course excellence very differently.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I have played two clubs on this list:

#39 Bethpage Black: by the end of my round, my thought were (almost comically) this is everything I don't like about "distance good" American parkland.

#96 Pasatiempo: a round of golf that was challenging to the point of frustration, but ironically, my mind keeps going back to, appreciating everything unique and subtle about the course. I still think the greens cut to the edge of bunkers is just amazing. The playable, turf-covered drainage on #14 is also just genius to me.

I think it suffices to say that, if I'm being generous, I don't understand the methodology and probably have a wildly different opinions of what makes a great course great.

[Alex Miller]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.


On second thought... perhaps not.

[Michael Chadwick]

It pains me to imagine people 150+ years from now referencing GD as the source proving that Tom Fazio was our greatest architect. 

[John Kirk]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.


On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

[Kalen Braley]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.
On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

John,

I agree these convos can get a bit absurd, especially on GCA.

A number of years back, I can't recall who did it, but he organized an extensive poll among GCA participants to determine the GCA top 100. If I recall correctly it had quite a high rate of participation, but after results came out I did some cross checks and it aligned fairly closely with the other lists (at least which ones made it on, a bit more variance in where they ranked overall).  Gave me a good chuckle in that they continue to be skewered here year after year.

[Alex Miller]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.
On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

John,

I agree these convos can get a bit absurd, especially on GCA.

A number of years back, I can't recall who did it, but he organized an extensive poll among GCA participants to determine the GCA top 100. If I recall correctly it had quite a high rate of participation, but after results came out I did some cross checks and it aligned fairly closely with the other lists (at least which ones made it on, a bit more variance in where they ranked overall).  Gave me a good chuckle in that they continue to be skewered here year after year.

One list to rule them all!


No I hear you guys, and it's probably just that lists have different levels of usefulness depending on the person. I know I looked at them a ton and when I hadn't played (m)any courses on them they're a great way to research and find great courses and architecture. They're a part of many people's path to learning about golf architecture and personal taste, certainly the case for me.


But at a certain point, perhaps one that many here are at, they start to lose their utility. Or at least interest. My friend recently challenged me to rank the courses I've played and while the exercise not only relied entirely on my personal tastes and experiences, I found it hard to create a criteria that was consistent and rewarded how I felt about the courses clearly. Is the courses the most strategic? The most fun? Did I want to play it again when walking off more than another one? How much did non-golf factors of the day impact my experience? Would I want to play it every day or is it excellent but only once a year?


If I couldn't come up with a list for myself, personally I find it difficult to find value in others. Especially since my awareness of the courses in contention of being ranked somewhere was the most beneficial thing I got from them.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Alex,


To that point, if I ranked my Top-100 courses (which I have to do, at least for GB&I) and then had my memory wiped of how I ranked them, the next time I was asked to do it, they’d probably be in a significantly different order…. No criteria really changes that outcome and I’d guess it’s the same for most people.

[Sean_A]

Alex,


To that point, if I ranked my Top-100 courses (which I have to do, at least for GB&I) and then had my memory wiped of how I ranked them, the next time I was asked to do it, they’d probably be in a significantly different order…. No criteria really changes that outcome and I’d guess it’s the same for most people.

Oh lord, I wouldn't stand a chance of getting the same 18 let alone same order...ranking is that artificial of an exercise. My brain doesn't work that way.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Presumably GD means Golf Digest ? But what is the "Top 100" referred to ? Top 100 courses in the world, or in the US, or the UK or something else ? It's hard to discuss something when you don't know what you're meant to be discussing. 


Niall

[Steve Lapper]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.


On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

3/4 of the list is respectable and reasonable. The remaining 25% is rubbish and a reflection of the having a system where 1800 revenue-generating low handicaps (ignoring the average golfer's appreciation of fine architecture) lean into a number of attention-seeking courses  granting them sought-after access. When nearly a dozen very good courses whose golden-age architecture is clearly superior to modern-age eye candy don't make the cut and a few more are wholly ignored inside the Top 200, the GD list remains rather rank IMO.

[Tim Martin]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.


On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

3/4 of the list is respectable and reasonable. The remaining 25% is rubbish and a reflection of the having a system where 1800 revenue-generating low handicaps (ignoring the average golfer's appreciation of fine architecture) lean into a number of attention-seeking courses  granting them sought-after access. When nearly a dozen very good courses whose golden-age architecture is clearly superior to modern-age eye candy don't make the cut and a few more are wholly ignored inside the Top 200, the GD list remains rather rank IMO.

Historically Golf Digest has required their panelists to carry a five or better handicap. When only one in ten players attain this distinction hasn’t it always been a big part of the disconnect with their ratings/rankings?

[John Kirk]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.
On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

John,

I agree these convos can get a bit absurd, especially on GCA.

A number of years back, I can't recall who did it, but he organized an extensive poll among GCA participants to determine the GCA top 100. If I recall correctly it had quite a high rate of participation, but after results came out I did some cross checks and it aligned fairly closely with the other lists (at least which ones made it on, a bit more variance in where they ranked overall).  Gave me a good chuckle in that they continue to be skewered here year after year.

One list to rule them all!


No I hear you guys, and it's probably just that lists have different levels of usefulness depending on the person. I know I looked at them a ton and when I hadn't played (m)any courses on them they're a great way to research and find great courses and architecture. They're a part of many people's path to learning about golf architecture and personal taste, certainly the case for me.


But at a certain point, perhaps one that many here are at, they start to lose their utility. Or at least interest. My friend recently challenged me to rank the courses I've played and while the exercise not only relied entirely on my personal tastes and experiences, I found it hard to create a criteria that was consistent and rewarded how I felt about the courses clearly. Is the courses the most strategic? The most fun? Did I want to play it again when walking off more than another one? How much did non-golf factors of the day impact my experience? Would I want to play it every day or is it excellent but only once a year?


If I couldn't come up with a list for myself, personally I find it difficult to find value in others. Especially since my awareness of the courses in contention of being ranked somewhere was the most beneficial thing I got from them.

Hi Alex,

Just to be clear, I was trying to make a joke and use the slang version of the word "rank".  I was trying to say that your post was amusing, and not rank.

But it was nice to see Steve pick up the rank ball and run with it.

I don't have much use for the rankings anymore.  I'm convinced that they are improving over time, and I would argue that the increasing agreement between the major lists is evidence of that improvement.  On the other hand, it could indicate a greater level of groupthink among those who rate courses.  I could do my usual thing and tell you which ones I think are rated too high or too low, but not today.

I remain adamant in my belief that a course must be reasonably walkable to be considered one of the greats.  If a healthy, fit 70-year-old man has difficulty walking the course, it should not be included in any top 100, or even top 200 list.  I think it is nonsense to even consider it.  If it's a more difficult walk than Pasatiempo, then it's probably too hard to walk and should not be considered.


So far, I give this thread three stars, with the possibility of future upgrades.

[jeffwarne]

I think I should make a ranking of the rankings so that we can identify the rankings that rank best and the rankings that rank worst. Actually everyone should do it. And then we can compare our ranking of the rankings and perhaps rank the ranking rankings themselves.


On second thought... perhaps not.

This is definitely not a rank effort.

The consensus opinion on the country's top courses is astounding.  You may not like Golf Digest's list as much, but the top twenty are almost identical between GD and Golf, and they share about 65-70 courses in their top 100.  Under new management, this new list show signs of moving closer to GCA ideals.  It's a very solid list, don't fool yourself.

3/4 of the list is respectable and reasonable. The remaining 25% is rubbish and a reflection of the having a system where 1800 revenue-generating low handicaps (ignoring the average golfer's appreciation of fine architecture) lean into a number of attention-seeking courses  granting them sought-after access. When nearly a dozen very good courses whose golden-age architecture is clearly superior to modern-age eye candy don't make the cut and a few more are wholly ignored inside the Top 200, the GD list remains rather rank IMO.

Historically Golf Digest has required their panelists to carry a five or better handicap. When only one in ten players attain this distinction hasn’t it always been a big part of the disconnect with their ratings/rankings?

To some degree, 5 or better makes sense, in that the "5's play the "most golf"..........
but they aren't the "most golfers".

Then, anecdotally, the opinions I tend to respect the least on architecture(outside GCA), almost uniformly(with the odd exception), tend to come from players in the low handicap category(to be fair that's usually skewed toward tournament players).
Higher handicappers kind've accept discomfort etc., because they are used to struggle.
Lower handicappers tend to dislike anything that makes them uncomfortable, and get lost in "framing" , "fairness", "conditioning", "proportionality"(see USGA and progressive cut/penalty),etc.

[Ted Sturges]

I've never understood the "you must be a good player to be a ratings panelist" argument.  Seth Raynor didn't play golf.  Should we dismiss his opinion?  Tom Doak ran the Golf Magazine panel for years and he's not an expert player.  Ran has shot under par in his life (regretfully, I was there the day that miracle occurred), but is also not a great player.  Raynor, Tom and Ran wouldn't qualify to be panelists for GD.  Yet, they are all "experts" on golf architecture in my opinion (few people in the world have seen more of the world's greatest courses than Tom and Ran).  Anybody who thinks excluding Tom and Ran from being qualified to offer their opinion on ranking the best courses in the world because they don't possess a low enough handicap is not someone with an opinion I would value.


TS

[Mike Hendren]

Steve, please name the “nearly dozen”golden age courses that didn’t make the cut. I don’t disagree - I’d just appreciate your take.  Off the top of my head, among those I’ve played I’d consider Eastward Ho!, Yeamans Hall, Moraine, Fenway, and Lawsonia.  Blue Mound and Glens Falls are close.


In the Volunteer state I would not include Spring Creek Ranch and Golf Club of Tennessee in the 2nd 100.  Then again I don’t buy Chattanooga G&CC in the second 100 on the Golfweek Classic list either. 

[Steve Lapper]

Steve, please name the “nearly dozen”golden age courses that didn’t make the cut. I don’t disagree - I’d just appreciate your take.  Off the top of my head, among those I’ve played I’d consider Eastward Ho!, Yeamans Hall, Moraine, Fenway, and Lawsonia.  Blue Mound and Glens Falls are close.


In the Volunteer state I would not include Spring Creek Ranch and Golf Club of Tennessee in the 2nd 100.  Then again I don’t buy Chattanooga G&CC in the second 100 on the Golfweek Classic list either.

Mike,


  All seven of the ones you mentioned. Add in White Bear Yacht Club, St. Georges (neither made the top 200), Ridgewood, Hollywood GC, CC of Fairfield, The Creek, St. Georges GC, Mountain Lake, Kirtland, St. Louis,  Palmetto, Mountain Ridg....and I could go on. Each and every one of those is far better than many of those moderns cited inside their Top 100. All of them are markedly more architecturally sound than over a dozen of the modern's appearing in the 2nd 100. The noticeable lack of what may well be Fazio's best course: Congaree speaks volumes. I stand by my assertion that it is a rank list made up of far too many raters who do little more than seek access and demonstrate their blindness to great architecture.

[Matt Schoolfield]

To some degree, 5 or better makes sense, in that the "5's play the "most golf"..........
but they aren't the "most golfers".

Wow, thank you for this comment. I think this may illuminate my confusion at why a course like Bethpage is so high on the list.

I do think this should wildly skew the ratings away from the type of high-variance courses that I love, toward low-variance courses that I can't stand. I'm in the starting phases of writing about "luck in golf" applying some ideas from some boardgame/videogame development to golf, and this makes a ton of sense.

The relevant thread that got me on this topic was the Club TFE post about how culture shapes golf. The culture of low-handicappers, and their approach and preferences for the game must be markedly different than the approach and preferences of mid-handicappers. It should lend itself as golf-as-tournament of metal play, versus the sort of golf-as-gambling of match play and of linksy, high-wind, wide open, effectively-random fairway bunkers I prefer. If you're just asking intense-to-professional basketball players, they would likely prefer the best-team-wins style of the NBA Championship to the win-or-go-home style of the NCAA Championship, where as I think many non-serious basketball fans prefer a higher variance style.

If anyone wants to nerd out on issues of skill-luck non-linearity in game design, the relevant lectures are:

Richard Garfield - "Luck in Games" talk at ITU Copenhagen (he is the creator of Magic: The Gathering)

Ben Brode - Designing 'MARVEL SNAP' at GDC 2023 (a talk based in large part on the previous video, which goes much more in depth with regards to types of luck/variance and how they interface with skill: input randomness vs output randomness)

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak ran the Golf Magazine panel for years and he's not an expert player.

Hey, now    I know how to play, and how great players play. I’m just not good enough to do it consistently.


It is not just GOLF DIGEST that looks down on this.  At least a couple of PGA TOUR players have denigrated my work because I’m not a great enough player to understand how they play, or so they think.  They can’t imagine I understand where I’m making it hard for them and that is the whole point.

[Jim Hoak]

A lot of the discussion here centers around a subject that seems to come up regularly on this site--For whom is the game of golf directed, the professionals or the average players?
Personally, I think we spend too much time and energy focused on the professionals.  I'm in love with the heritage and history of golf, and I believe that the professionals are really a minor part of the game I love.  I would love it even if there were no professional game.  And I applaud anything that focusses upon the breadth and universality of the game we all love and wish success.

[Tim_Weiman]

I have played two clubs on this list:

#39 Bethpage Black: by the end of my round, my thought were (almost comically) this is everything I don't like about "distance good" American parkland.

#96 Pasatiempo: a round of golf that was challenging to the point of frustration, but ironically, my mind keeps going back to, appreciating everything unique and subtle about the course. I still think the greens cut to the edge of bunkers is just amazing. The playable, turf-covered drainage on #14 is also just genius to me.

I think it suffices to say that, if I'm being generous, I don't understand the methodology and probably have a wildly different opinions of what makes a great course great.

Matt,


I haven’t looked at Golf Digest in quite a while, but I’m pretty sure they publish their methodology. Tom Doak can better comment on Golf Magazine’s approach (at one time he ran it), but if I recall correctly, it was intentionally more subjective. Their idea was to get a smaller, but well traveled group, to make their assessments.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()