Texsport, on 29 December 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:
duffer987, on 29 December 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:
Texsport, on 28 December 2016 - 08:33 PM, said:
You might wish to study this Top 100 U S Public Courses
list - just published, and based on up-to-date 2016 reviews only!
Compiled from over 200,000 golfing member's responses - a whole lot more than any magazine with raters!
Very interesting results - no advertising involved to boost rankings - quite a different ranking list than magazines post.
2 of my favorite courses in Minnesota are highly ranked:
The Quarry@Giants Ridge is #8/100
The Legend@Giants Ridge is #28/100
I've not LOL'd at a list of "Top 100 Golf Courses" before. Thanks for the link
That crowd-sourced list makes GD's list look like it's done by PHds.
I am a PhD and know that you can buy your rating on many of the magazine lists - a very well known fact.
For this list, a course must have had 30 reviews posted - no reviews - no ranking! So the list is somewhat a popularity contest.
Also, if you're continuously bombarded with propaganda/advertizing/high magazine ratings for a course, you naturally start
to believe it.
Some famous courses are so over rated it's ridiculous - my 2 favorite examples being Pebble Beach and Pinehurst #2. I've played both several times, but would never go again - overly expensive, out of the way, and not nearly deserving of the fame they enjoy.
For those who haven't played the Bandon courses, do it - or else you have no basis for judging the best IMO.
Also, if you're not playing from the tips, you aren't playing courses at their maximum and best. Hard to judge part of courses. I see hackers giving opinions on the quality of courses and have to scratch my head.
I'm not fortunate to have played that many destinations, but Blunder is 100% correct: you can base your judgments on a list from what you do know. I know the AZ courses, not as welll as Matt, but certainly well enough to know the AZ list is garbage. If the AZ list is garbage, the other places on the list probably are as well.
Your PhD should tell you that any list can be a good or poor reflection of "reality", depending on who is surveyed, the survey choices, and a host of other factors. But the quality should be judged by knowledgeable players with a high degree of experience with the courses. The AZ sub forum (the SW forum) has remarkable participation from many local players and the degree of consensus about the best courses is very high. There are always one or two polarizing courses but agreement is much greater than disagreement.
As far as playing from the tips, pretty ridiculous statement. Well designed courses should have the teeboxes adjusted in such a way that the hazards are brought into play to the same degree. Sure there are exceptions, like 25 caps that still hit the ball 300, and 5 caps that can't drive the ball more than 200, but those are just that, exceptions. It is reasonable to expect that most designers realize that their courses are going to be played by players of all skill levels and handicaps, and - since you are a PhD you should understand this - therefore the distribution of likely players will fit the usual distribution of skill levels and handicaps found in the golfing population. Few courses are designed from the get go to be courses that will host major championships, and even those are going to be played by single digit caps some of the time and double digit caps most of the time.
But of course, how dare those hackers imagine that they are allowed to have an opinion!?! I must have missed that part of the statistics courses you took, the part that confirms that valid opinions about golf architecture can only come from golfers who play from the tips. Enjoy your snobbery.
Edited by DrSchteeve, 19 August 2017 - 06:36 PM.