Golf Digest's New 100 Greatest List

« **Reply #50 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:03:04 AM »

Where in the hell does Golf Digest say or imply that their list is about the architecture....Its about the greatest places to play the game....architecture on the most base level that some on this site seem to profess is a very small condition. I don't even know what you people think architecture is anymore besides whatever it is that gets your friends or favorites the most recognition....hairy bunkers, lazer cut bunkers...natural or unnatural naturalnesss for natures sake....expansive views...colored cartpaths....removed trees because they might grow....planted trees because the ball goes too far....routings that suck because of a great greensite...greensites that suck because of a great routing....Rees genius by accident...Hanse genius through discovery....its all either likeable or not...by you, me or some other guy who either can't look into the face of their wife or a hungry child in the wrong side of town....its hard to find the time to enjoy the game...so why not go somewhere that has a total package....screw the architecture if some banal item pisses you off....screw the banal if the architecture makes you happy.....like what you like and ignore the rest.

« **Reply #51 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:05:03 AM »

jakab: that's a different - and better - way of saying what I've been trying to say for years here. Golfer Man does not live by architecture alone...

TH

« **Reply #52 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:22:26 AM »

I have more of a problem with some of the state lists also as I am more familiar with many of the courses. My two questions for golf digest would be and these are based on statements by Huckaby and Matt.

1. If the process needs to be rigged at the end "social engineering", because you do not like the results, why not just get better and more competant raters?

2. The tradition ranking is pretty ambigious but if one needs to "study" to find tradition, that tradition is pretty meaingless.

« **Reply #53 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:33:28 AM »

shivas:

Those are all great points without a doubt.

My feeling is that many raters are just ignorant enough not to "get" what they "should". For example, I have several friends who are good players, love the game, but have no concept of history and if I mentioned the name CB MacDonald they'd guess he founded the fast food chain.... I do trust that they could assess qualities of golf courses, but would we trust them to assess NGLA correctly and completely?

It's for people like this for whom big brother is needed.

Does this make better sense?

TH

« **Reply #54 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:49:17 AM »

I'm not giving up yet. See, the point is things like this SHOULD matter, and if idiot people miss them, the course should not be downgraded.

I do get what you're saying though and it is dangerously close to blowing my whole take on this out of the water. Hell, wouldn't be the first time that happened....

TH

« **Reply #55 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:55:31 AM »

Corey M:

"1. If the process needs to be rigged at the end "social engineering", because you do not like the results, why not just get better and more competant raters?"

I've been saying this for quite some time but you know what happened to John the Baptist -- right?

Too many panelists are really regional in scope -- they are not national panelists by any sort of reasonable logic. You also have the problem in which panelists all have an equal vote. That is laughable because the expertise level of the people involved is so widely divergent. You also have the issue of simply adding up numbers from people who have not played the cross section of courses necessary in order to make the fundamental comparisons that are needed for such an exercise. At the end of the day you have a Zagat's deal in adding up numbers from people and to make sure these numbers don't go off in some zany direction you have the "fudge" categories thrown in to preserve "harmony" among the old time treasures.

Corey, the botton line is that some of these treasures are like aging ball players when compared to the fine crop of modern courses that continually get a lower level of attention and respect. The function of any panel is to do the due diligence and search out those courses. It's up to magazines to decide just what is ultimate goal -- are we highlighting the core architecture of a course (i.e. the routing, diversity of holes, shot values) or is the goal to highlight the touchy feely golf experience (tradition, walking) with architecture being relegated to a side show.

You could easily go with far less people and make it a point for them to get off the main roads and see the types of courses that are out there. If one really looks at the public listing it's clear that many people prefer the main line destinations.

When Jeff Lewis says that a place like Wild Horse is too inaccessible for most of the panel I would then start to wonder what many of the panelists are indeed loooking at. Is it just the more known and easily accessed areas that get the fanfare and attention. I expect "golf's leading publication" to be a bit more demanding and sophisticated when it presents America's 100 Greatest and the 100 Greatest Public.

When you add fudge catgegories (whether they be by editors or even the panelists themselves) you get away from what real golfers (at least the ones I know) want to know at the core of the issue -- what courses are indeed the finest overall courses -- defined from the 1st tee to the 18th green. All that other crap is just window dressing and a prop to keep some old time courses in the mix and deny the grand new ones that are out there -- NOW!

« **Reply #56 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:01:40 AM »

1. By calling Wild Horse inaccessible, obviously he means geographically. It is very silly to expect every rater to get to that remote part of Nebraska.

2. No one ever said anything but the golf course, from 1st tee to 18th green, counts for any of this. There is just far more than "architecture" involved in that assessment as well. Of course we might just be arguing semantics - what you call architecture might include all the "other" things that I would think fall outside of that definition.

But Matt you and I have sure discussed this ad nauseam already. I'm just having a bit of fun being a thorn in your side this morning.

TH

« **Reply #57 on:** April 03, 2003, 10:13:47 AM »

Shivas,

When I read...very happily I might add...about the rise of Pine Meadow...the first thought in my head was that you have gotten the word out. Also don't you believe Butler is rising at GD because of its fall at GW....I think these guys read both mags and make adjustments as such.

« **Reply #58 on:** April 03, 2003, 11:35:23 AM »

Shivas (and Jakab),

Do you really think Pine Meadow is that good? or Kemper Lakes? Better than Cuscowilla or Yale (which I haven't played) or PGA West (which I have)? For the crummier golfer like me, Kemper seems just as manufactured as PGA West, though a lot less interesting, and Pine Meadow is a nice fun course with great hot dogs, but wouldn't you rather play even the unrated Lawsonia or Meadow-Valley courses than either?

Jeff Goldman

« **Reply #59 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:10:26 PM »

Jeff,

I have only played Pine Meadow and Kemper of all the courses you mention....as a young struggling father living in the big city...I found Pine Meadow to be a great place to play where I could afford and be afforded great respect by the staff and co-players....much like Rustic Canyon must be in L.A......I don't know why...but Kemper never did appeal to me and really doesn't meet what I would call public anyway. I really don't even remember one hole at Pine Meadow...I just remember it being a pleasure to be there....what more could a guy who had a young wife and kid at home want. Now that I am fat and old...happiness...while not hard to find comes in bigger doses and shorter spurts.

« **Reply #60 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:28:12 PM »

Pat,
I didn't say no strategy, I said minimal. Admittedly, It has been some years since I played Baltusrol, however my impression was that a relatively straight and long shot from the tee left a shot doable shot to the green. Bandon as I suggested has much the same feel. Long is good. PD in comparison on most holes favor choosing a route that often varies from the middle.

Trust me I didn't play from the tips. I rarely play from the tips and play to a 3-4 handicap. I am out there to have fun not beat my head against a wall.

I also never said that Baltusrol is not a great golf course. Just not the type I would choose to play as a regular diet. Any invitation would be gladly entertained. (This time I will be less naive and show up fully dressed; another story for another time)

« **Reply #61 on:** April 03, 2003, 12:54:16 PM »

Cos:

FYI -- The Lower has been modified by Rees Jones as it awaits to host the '05 PGA. I agree with your take on the course because so much of the Lower is tied to the fact that it has been the scene of so much golf history. Doesn't hurt either that Jack won two Opens there -- both memorable.

I also believe that if people have not seen the Lower recently it may not be as fresh as from past visits. I walked the layout late last year and it appears the desire to both lengthen the layout and add the apppropriate amount of rough is what will take place for the main event in '05.

But, here's the rub -- the Digest rates Baltusrol / Lower #2 in NJ and then follows that with Somerset Hills. The real missing ingredient is the layout that comes in at #4 -- Plainfield. If anything it's Plainfield that should be at #2 since it combines the best of both worlds from what you find at Baltusrol / Lower and Somerset Hills.

« **Reply #62 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:00:38 PM »

I distrust the Golf Digest list because it is an effort to "scientifically" determine, through numbers, which golf couse is better than the next.

Each course is rated in 8 categories: Shot Values, Resistance to Scoring, Design Variety, Memorability, Aesthetics, Conditioning, Bonus Tradition, and Bonus Walking.

Each category seems to be on a scale from 1 to 10, except Bonus Walking, which appears to be 1 to 2.

The final score is calculated by adding up the scores in each individual category, with only the "Shot Values" score counting twice.

So Golf Digest says that conditioning and aesthetics are exactly as important as each other, and are exactly as important as memorability, design variety, and resistance to scoring.

I would argue that these ratios differ from person to person. I naturally prefer a better-conditioned course to a lesser-conditioned course. But when I played Princeville, and the greens were in lousy shape, I didn't include that in my appraisal that the coure was "fabulous".

The numbers are a tool that the editors get to hide behind. Instead of presenting this as a subjective list, which it is, they can say, "Hey, this is how the numbers stacked up, with no tinkering on our part. This is purely objective."

It isn't objective.

« **Reply #63 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:11:46 PM »

Murph:

The editors don't say that, however. They freely disclose the subjective part of this, that is, the awarding of bonus tradition points.

I do agree with you in any case that each criteria is going to have different "worth" to different golfers, but how could one possibly quantify this? Make it too subjective and you might as well throw out the data and criteria completely - which seems to be exactly what Golf Magazine does!

There is no perfect way to do this, and I continue to refer to Brad Klein's recent article and the best take yet on all these rankings - they are plain just never going to make anyone happy.

TH

« **Reply #64 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:14:45 PM »

Lists and their numbers do not quantify greatness. Nor do they make me want to play them because of their numerical status. I have a book of GD's Greatest, circa 1982, and it is very dusty - cough cough. (Here's an exerpted caption... Tom Fazio and Uncle George may be among the foremost designers of tomorrow's courses.) Here's another one... "The dynamic clan (of RTJ, RTJjr, RS) have designed or co-designed 21 courses among the 100 Greatest listing.)

But no, there will be no book burning!

In my travels, the old course in Bandon has the most tradition as I've played it every year since it was opened way back in the last millenium. I still have the receipt in parchment for my maiden voyage. Surely that puts me on some kind of list of greatness.

"All things must pass" Hindu doctrine

« **Reply #65 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:41:39 PM »

Does Baltusrol really need additional length? and is it only new tees and the rough lines that are being changed?

One of the problems with the constant adding of tees and length is that the "regular" member tees seem to slowly drift back toward the "champion" tees. The most recent times I have played Baltusrol this is evident on #11 in particular as it is now real difficult from the regular tees you probably need 240-260 on the right side of the fairway to not be blocked.

« **Reply #66 on:** April 03, 2003, 01:48:59 PM »

Quote

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

The average "Bonus Tradition" score is 4.56. The Ocean Course got 1.67. Just getting the average would put us at 38th. I'm dying here...

And 1.37 for "Walkability." 82 of the top 100 scored higher. What's up with that? Y'all got to get out of the carts and walk the course. I walked it yesterday and played another 18 in the afternoon. Piece of cake...

« **Reply #67 on:** April 03, 2003, 03:08:15 PM »

I found that comment about accessability to Wild Horse to be quite telling that this GD list must then be biased towards metropolitian courses. Cog Hill and Pine Meadows placement can then be understood. Especially as shivas' points out there is no way it's better than many behind it.

« **Reply #68 on:** April 03, 2003, 04:00:34 PM »

Mike,
Tournament History: The Ryder Cup has to be as big as a major, and the World Cup is a big deal too.

Architectural history? Dye, after the hurricane?

Ambiance: Next to an Ocean.

Yet, Black Diamond, Blackwolf Run, Forest Highlands, Long Cove, Valhalla, Shadow Creek, and the Prince Course beat you for Tradition. I must not understand the criteria, or how they are combined. Only Valhalla would seemingly beat you on a tournament history and that is generous.
Architectural history?
Ambiance?

« **Reply #69 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:25:01 PM »

Someone mentioned The Golf Club...just to show you where GD is coming from..The Golf Club is somehow ranked 4th in Ohio. That's crazy... If someone said this course was 4th best in the country I'd actually have an easier time believing that.

Is it actually possible that Dye is underrated on this list?

Mike Vegis, i feel for you buddy. I was looking at the breakdown for the ocean course and i had to laugh. It' sad.

I would have never thought in a million years that the ocean course and whistling striats would actually rate more poorly then in their last list

« **Reply #70 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:59:44 PM »

Mike Vegis - I said it before in an earlier thread... The Ocean Course has made a commitment to walkers and to receive such a low score for "Walkability" is ridiculous. The course is extremely easy to walk and should be rated far above average in this category. There are MANY courses that were given higher walkability scores that are not as easy to walk as TOC. And now a caddie has the same status as a cart and is included in the green fee at no additional cost!!! What else could anyone ask for???

Are you kidding me... Greenville CC (Chanticleer) outpoints The Ocean Course (both South Carolina courses) for TRADITION and WALKABILITY!!!!! Chanticleer has no tradition (except for hosting an occasional State Am) and it is a bitch to walk compared to TOC. It is obvious glitches like this that bring this rating process into question. There is way too much politics involved in these ratings... otherwise Chanticleer would not even be on the list.

« **Reply #71 on:** April 03, 2003, 07:29:26 PM »

As the new guy here, can someone please explain to me how Wilmington dropped out of the top 100. I have always thought the South Course was an underrated track, and it should be in great shape this year with the Mid-Am coming to town. It is a visually stunning golf course that doesn't get the attention it deserves because it happens to be in Delaware.

« **Reply #72 on:** April 03, 2003, 07:40:13 PM »

Three things + a Bonus comment...

The Ocean Course is underated....and very walkable without a caddie.

Michael....instead of spewing the negative about Chanticleer...why not profile the course for us...that is what this site is spose to be about. Read the profile on this site...you may come away with why this course is so highly pointed...I was surprised at its historical and architectural significance.

Quassi...why not say five courses that you think should be on the list instead of putting down five...this type of negative attitude just hurts good people.

Bonus.....GolfWeek now thinks AGNC is not a top ten classic course.....a statement more wrong than any one thing on the GD list.

« **Reply #73 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:56:42 PM »

JakaB - No spewing here... I've read the profile of Chanticleer on this site several times over the past couple of years. And, after playing the course 30+ times, I agree with most of its points. It is an excellent course and has a high "resistance to scoring" value. I will whole heartedly agree it is set up to be one of the most difficult scoring courses one will ever play. I'm not trying to slack Chanticleer. Just point out that a course that has little true "Tradition" or historical significance (other than sentimental value derived from its designer) has been awarded more "Tradition" points than a course that has hosted several international competitions, including one of the most historically significant Ryder Cup competitions of the modern era. IMHO, as good as Chanticeer is, its architectural and historical significance pales in comparison to Pete Dye's creation on Kiawah Island. And, again, to award Chanticleer more "walkability" points than the Ocean Course is puzzling.

« **Reply #74 on:** April 04, 2003, 11:24:07 AM »

Shivas, remember that the walk in the park test has nothing to do with the ranking of the golf course in golfweek. That is based strictly off the final rating number. Golf Digest does include these numbers in their ranking. My question is how do they get their tradition numbers to .01? I can see all the first numbers being that way since they are averages, but unless their are specific points for specific things or a bunch of editors vote on tradition so you get an average, I can't see how you can say that Riviera has .01 points more tradition than Cypress Point.

News:

JakaB

THuckaby2

corey miller

THuckaby2

THuckaby2

Matt_Ward

THuckaby2

JakaB

Jeff Goldman

JakaB

W.H. Cosgrove

Matt_Ward

Martin Del Vecchio

THuckaby2

Norbert P

corey miller

Mike Vegis @ Kiawah

A_Clay_Man

Ben Cowan-Dewar

Matt Kardash

Michael Whitaker

Chip_Irons

JakaB

Michael Whitaker

JohnV