Golf Digest's New 100 Greatest List

[JakaB]

Bellerive is a perfectly nice little course...if played at the US Open tee markers marked by bronze plaques or from the current championship back tees.  If the World Championship had not been cancelled due to Sept 11th...it would have proved itself once again on the world stage....just as it proved itself to me on a beautiful Sunday morning in February...a great membership...a great routing...a great test of all facets of the game...a modern masterpiece created over 40 years ago...RTJ was way ahead of his time on that one...if RR can just watch his ego...it should never leave anyones list.

[A_Clay_Man]

I went over the roster and was shocked that Pinon was suspiciously absent. Has it never made the list?

[Allan Long]

Hard to believe that Pinon is not on the list. But I can't believe that Duke doesn't make the top-100 public. Crazy.

Prairie Dunes 25? My only conclusion it that noone can find the
course to rate it higher. I have not been to Olympia Fields, but
I have to believe that upcoming events have it rated higher that PD.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Mr. Kilhern takes exception to the GW ratings with respect to a few courses.  In particular he mentions Eugene CC which is 83rd on the GD list.  It is 33rd on the Best Modern GW list.  If he would knock the chip off of his should er for a second he might figure out that Eugene is probably rated lower in its category by GW raters than the GD group.  Some statician could figure that out for me.  

My beef with the GD list is with two categories, Tradition points and resistance to scoring.  These two items skew the list toward the old and the long.  Baltusrol and Bandon Dunes are perfect examples of this from two different eras.  Both are very good golf courses.  But both require a power game and minimal strategy.  After time they would seem to lose some of their lustre.  Baltusrol is in particular too high on the list.

Resistance to scoring is a difficult thing to judge.  Firstly. the idea that the GD panel is all low handicaps is a fabrication.  Secondly, new courses playing at 7200 yards plus are too long for all but a few of the nations best amateurs.  

Strategic choice would seem a pertinent and useful category for all but the few elite golfers in this country.

signed
Another Idiot

[John_Conley]

Pacific Dunes #47 *Should have been higher?

Matt:

How?  If "tradition" is still a criterion, it probably scores zero here like Sand Hills does.  Strip "tradition" from the last list and Sand Hills became a Top 10.

[JDoyle]

After reviewing the new GD Top 100 I was disappointed to see Sand Hills drop two spots to #38.  Looking at the scoring sysytem it appears Sand Hills received a 1.15 score in the category of Tradition.  On one of the pages of thie site GD explains their categories.  They list all categories with a brief summary.  On this summary page the Tradition category has been replaced with Ambiance.

They define Ambiance as - "How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game"

I find this confusing.  Is Sand Hills receiving a 1.15 because it is a new course and has never hosted a major event?  Is it because it was built in the 90s?  

I find it very hard to believe that Sand Hills would receive so low a score for Ambiance.  Inverness, which jumped from #24 to #17 (Huge move up) received a 7.36.  This doesn't seem to add up.

Does anyone get this Tradition vs. Ambiance confussion?

[Matt Kardash]

I'm convinced these lists are getting worse every year  
are these people playing the same courses as everyone else?
how is crooked stick Dye's best? how does Dye not have a top 50 course? how do Sand hills and Pac Dunes rate so poorly?..how is the pete dye club not on this list?

how is augusta #2?
i think every year that goes by i get more and more sick of augusta...maybe because the public never shuts up about it

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

I am well aware of how "tradition" (the fudge factor) works. My point was a simple one -- on pure golf architecture ALONE Pac Dunes should easily be among the top 25 courses in the USA.

matt kardash:

Agree completely with your take. Pete Dye is likely the most influential designer in the second half of the 20th century and doesn't get even one course in the top 50. You might as well be saying that Barry Bonds is nothing more than just a footnote in baseball.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I find it very hard to believe that Sand Hills would receive so low a score for Ambiance.  Inverness, which jumped from #24 to #17 (Huge move up) received a 7.36.  This doesn't seem to add up.

Does anyone get this Tradition vs. Ambiance confussion?

J,

When you tee it up this summer in Mullen Nebraska, I promise you will not remember this list !!!

[Darren_Kilfara]

Has everyone noticed that The Country Club (Brookline) is not listed as the Composite course, but rather as the Clyde/Squirrel nines (i.e. the course that the members play every day, not the Open course including three holes from the Primrose nine)? I would think that most of us would call this a definite improvement, no?

Cheers,
Darren

[Gene Greco]

Regarding the GD list:







:O



:-/

?!?


There. I said it.

[Gene Greco]

Actually, the course raters did an excellent job if you look at the numbers minus "tradition".

The tradition category carries a disproportionate amount of weight affecting the overall final result.

Just because a course has held a few tournaments doesn't necessarily make it a better golf experience. (Think Belfry here).

Maybe bonus tradition could be scaled down to say 0, 1 or two points so that the GD list isn't SO DISCRIMINATORY towards new golf courses.

Build a course tomorrow which blows Pine Valley away and the Golf Digest list won't have it ranked in the top 40 because it is not old enough.

Makes very little sense.

The Golf Digest list is the oldest list and seemingly the most widely followed which should spark some sense of journalistic responsibility among the editors to report more accurately to  many of the readers, lay people and novice golfers who don't know better.      

Golf Digest's list relegates them to being no more than a Golfing Pravda.

[John_Conley]

John C:

I am well aware of how "tradition" (the fudge factor) works. My point was a simple one -- on pure golf architecture ALONE Pac Dunes should easily be among the top 25 courses in the USA.

Okay, then you do understand it.  My point is also a simple one - the panelists agree and have Pacific Dunes in the Top 10 of all American golf courses.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Gene/John C;

I think we all agree that the Golf Digest list is fairly reasonable once the Tradition points are removed, at least the regular Top 100.

The Top 100 Public and State lists on the other hand...

Which begs the question...Why is GD so afraid of the results of what 800?  700?  900? magazine-appointed raters come up with that they need to exercise final "editorial control" over the results, which change those results DRAMATICALLY!!

Why is great new architecture punished?

Is this all a result of Shadow Creek making it into the Top 10 in it's first year of eligibility, and the "powers that be" at the mag saying..."ok...who ARE these guys???...better wrest control back!"

[THuckaby2]

I'm gonna try to answer this, Mike, seriously at least to begin with.

I've argued many times that events of historic import occuring at a golf course effect one's play of the golf course, and ought to be considered.  I'm not going to restate this argument again, it's on here many times from the last two days and many times prior.

I'd also agree that what GD calls "architectural significance" does matter also - a lot.  Courses that changed the fabric of golf course design or that exhibit classic design features which survived the march of time ought to get credit for such as well.

My feeling is that very few people can adequately assess either of these things, or at least they can't assess them as readily as all the other criteria, such as shot values, etc.... Those are opinions, these two require substantive knowledge and study, more than the vast majority of golfers have time to do.

In a perfect world, all these ratings and rankings would be done by a small panel of people, all of whom have made this study and continue in it, with a cross-representation of public course and private club players covering a wide-range of skill levels.  NO magazine does this currently.  You and I both know a lot of people who'd be perfect in this role, however...

So we have what we have... and I'd say GD does their take on course assessments just fine.  I am quite OK that they don't trust the raters to do these last two assessments, because for every one who might have the substantive knowledge, there are likely 10 who have no interest in obtaining such.

And given I feel it does matter... it's great by me if the editors take this on.  Oh, it might skew the results in some places in ways we don't like, but to me it's better than the alternative of having all the raters try and assess this.

I mean no offense, btw, to my GD rater brethren.  I freely admit I'd have a very hard time assessing tournament history and architectural significance for all the courses I get to - hey, I do work for a living.

Maybe this helps, maybe not.  Please believe I'm not enamored with how the results came out - some of the ommissions are shocking to me, particularly in the public list.

But I believe the methodology and process is very correct.

I also believe that lots of people look at golf courses lots of different ways, so if they're different than me, well... as Tom Paul says, it's a big beautiful world of golf.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Even if I accept all of your premises, I can't understand the "results" of the "Tradition" category, as determined by those who are the "ultimate arbiters", by virtue of their superior historical course knowledge.

You mention that "courses that changed the fabric of golf course design or that exhibit classic design features which survived the march of time ought to get credit for such as well."  I can agree with that, for certain.

Then I look at the points awarded in the Tradition category and I see Oakland Hills #4, while Pine Valley is #20.  Or, Scioto at #25 and NGLA at 37!  

Frankly, in the end, with such illogical results, it starts to look like a jury-rigged crapshoot designed to adjust each course just enough to determine a final position of the editor's choosing.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

You could be right, I don't know.  I choose to remain blissful and trust that the educated assessments of the editors are honestly done.  You disagree with them, hell I disagree with a lot of them... I'm just gonna choose to believe that these are indeed honest differences of assessment.

Remember also that walkablity matters in this... bonus tradition points are based on:

20% tournament history
40% architectural significance
40% ambiance (as defined)

Then that is combined with any "walking" points merited, and all this combined gives what they call "bonus tradition points".

With all those factors, hopefully you can see that there are many ways courses and opinions about them can differ.

TH

[Jeff_Lewis]

Actually, the data has two separate categories. bonus tradition and bonus walking. i think you have correctly identified the components of the tradition category. walking is 0-2, so it has considerably less effect.

[THuckaby2]

Thanks, JL - I thought those were different but I wasn't sure.  Muchas gracias for setting this straight.

TH

[John Foley]

A few things that jump out at me.

Sand Hills at #38. You gotta be kidding me!! Even looking at it w/out the Tradition list it still should be higher.

Why is Kiawah Ocean not more revered? Spyglass better than Kiawah? No way.

As far as I know no major changes @ Oak Hill since the Ryder Cup in prep for the PGA. IS the jump due to better conditioning in prep for the major and the "I played next year's major course" factor in there big time?

No Barona, Wild Horse or Rustic Canyonon the Public list let alone the Top 100 list. There is no waty there are 100 better public coure than WH.  Hell, I don't think ther's 20!

Why the drop in Pinehurst #2!!

Does tradition play in the Top 100 Public courses? Doesn't seem right that it does.

[THuckaby2]

The Top 100 Public has me scratching my head also, JF.  Edgewood Tahoe at #35?  My god, if that's a better golf course than Wild Horse we all need to quit playing NOW.  And I mean this assessing such by the specific GD criteria....

I wonder if the same methodology was used for the Public list as the overall list... all specific results and explanations of methodology are given for the latter, but none is given for the former....

Just thinking out loud.

TH

ps - obviously you and I are of the same mind re Sand Hills.  But I'm trying hard not to question the results and only discuss the methodology... reasonable minds will differ, I keep telling myself....  

[Matt_Ward]

Let's be clear -- GD inserted the tradition and walking aspects (see Jerry Tarde's comments in the current issue) to introduce some aspect of "social engineering" into the process.
I'm waiting for GD to start to include points for "best locker room, best practice area, best 19th hole -- yada, yada, yada." Isn't the focus suppose to be on the quality of the golf course architecture?

A little history is necessary. The fanfare, a few years back, attached to Shadow Creek woke up plenty of people in Trumbull. Here you have a course that made it to the top ten through the minds of its astute panelists (for disclosure purposes I was one for 17 years). In order to make sure there wasn't a wholesale invasion of new courses making such sweeping entrances you get the introduction of the "fudge" categories (see above). As a panelist I made my comments known how such categories are really irrelevant to what was the ultimate purpose.

When you add just enough of the points from these "fudge categories" you get the desired result -- the near iron grip of status quo maintenance.

It's been said by a cross section of people here on GCA that plenty of superior modern courses opened in the last 40 years have to play some inane waiting game in order to be duly recognized. The "fudge" factor is really an introduction of making sure the end result will be a close replica to what it has been with just a few exceptions thrown in from time to time. Yes, Pacific Dunes finished 47th but clearly you have a course that's grossly penalized -- ditto what happened to Bandon Dunes.

How can one possibly explain the fact that Pete's Dyes most gifted design, The Golf Club, doesn't even break into the top 50. Heck, a case can easily be made that The Golf Club is the best golf course in the Buckeye State ahead of Muirfield Village which gets plenty of mileage out of its tie to the Golden Bear and in hosting a Tour stop each year.

Mike C:

You mention the aspect of the state and public rankings and I completely agree. To name just one course -- Cascata (Vegas area) is a Rees Jones course and is known more for its exclusivity than its design greatness. Does such a course merit a position when you have layouts as Rustic Canyon, Barona Creek and Wild Horse sitting on the sidelines? The answer is no. Too many of the panelists are spending an inordinate amount of time cherry picking off the "name" courses in certain key golf destinations (i.e. Myrtle Beach, Vegas, Florida, Hawaii) and failing to go below the surface and identifying the "gems" that truly exist. Simpy stating that you have 800 plus panelists or even a million is pointless. They say the proof of the pudding is the taste and the results one sees from GD is truly leaving a bad taste in my mouth as well as others.

[THuckaby2]

Let's be clear -- GD inserted the tradition and walking aspects (see Jerry Tarde's comments in the current issue) to introduce some aspect of "social engineering" into the process.
I'm waiting for GD to start to include points for "best locker room, best practice area, best 19th hole -- yada, yada, yada." Isn't the focus suppose to be on the quality of the golf course architecture?

Maybe to you it is, Matt.  I'd say to the vast majority of golfers, architecture is just one piece of the puzzle, and may or may not be the "focus."

TH

[Jeff_Lewis]

Though GD has a large number of panelists, many clubs do not necessarily make any special provisions for their access. Some even shun them. So, some clubs just don't get seen as much as they should. Perhaps this has affected the Golf Club, which I think is extremely underrated, too.  Also, some courses like Wild Horse are relatively inaccessible for most of the panel.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

cos,

With respect to Baltusrol, could you go over the course on a hole by hole basis and tell me where strategy is lacking ?

I don't know many golfers who play it all the way back, and I think too many people make their pronouncements from those tees, speaking as if they're amongst the best players in the world.

For members and guests, Baltusrol Lower and Upper have all the strategy you can handle, so I'm curious as to how you've concluded that the course has no strategy.