Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

2017 Golf Magazine Top 100


127 replies to this topic

#31 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:37 AM

this thread is unreadable


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#32 rdillabo

rdillabo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 436492
  • Joined: 08/13/2016
  • Location:Australia
  • Handicap:6
GolfWRX Likes : 0

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:05 AM

Can anyone comment on why this list is quite different than the Golf Digest list? What list would you value more? I know lists change and things, but I find it interesting that some courses are ranked in totally different spots ie Bethpage Black does not show up on Golf Digest's list, and Kauri Cliffs in New Zealand is not on the Golf.com list. I guess its open for interpretation, but was list represents the Top 100 courses the best?
Cobra King LTD Pro - Fujikura Fuel 60 X
Callaway XR Pro 3 wood - 14 Degree - Fujikura Vista Pro 75 X
Callaway Apex UT - 18 Degree - KBS 120 S
Mizuno H5 3 iron - Nippon Pro Modus 130 S
Mizuno MP25 4-P - Nippon Pro Modus 130 S
Mizuno T7 52/08, 58/12 - Nippon Pro Modus 130 S
Odyssey O-Works #7
Bridgestone B330S

2

#33 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:29 AM

View Postrdillabo, on 12 September 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

Can anyone comment on why this list is quite different than the Golf Digest list? What list would you value more? I know lists change and things, but I find it interesting that some courses are ranked in totally different spots ie Bethpage Black does not show up on Golf Digest's list, and Kauri Cliffs in New Zealand is not on the Golf.com list. I guess its open for interpretation, but was list represents the Top 100 courses the best?

The three primary "lists" (Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, and Golfweek) all differ a bit in their methodology and what they care about.

Golf Digest has the biggest "panel" of raters (hundreds?) and asks each to rate every course they play on a variety of subjective metrics (shot values, difficulty, ambience, conditioning, etc.), and then they average all the scores (requiring a minimum number of evaluations for a course to be considered) and the rank is the simple average of the results. This one is probably the most "democratic" of the group, but recent elections may have proven that democracy is not infallible.

Golf Magazine has a panel of ~100 "experts" (they publish the list, it's mostly well-known golf course architects (Kidd, Jones, etc), executives (Keiser, Kohler, etc.), and others). They give these 100 a ballot of ~500 courses to rank, and then tally up the results for who got the most votes. This is probably the best curated list, but IMHO tends to over-value reputation and history. These panelists are mostly busy people, and they're being asked to rank 100 courses - many of which they would only be ranking by reputation.

The Golfweek list also uses a vote of ~500 panelists across 10 metrics, but its metrics are much more focused on the course itself (Routing, memorability of Par 3's, green complex quality, etc.). This is sort of the design nerd version of Golf Digest.

To compare to College Football, I'd say that Golf Magazine is the Coaches Poll (experts who might not be paying that much attention); Golf Digest is the AP Poll (qualified panelists passing somewhat arbitrary judgement); Golfweek is the Computer Polls (it's humans, but based on a tight set of criteria). Up to you to decide what method you trust - I think there's something to be said for each.

3

#34 adamjstl

adamjstl

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 120792
  • Joined: 01/19/2011
  • Handicap:2.6
GolfWRX Likes : 49

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:43 AM

I would rate Wade Hampton, The Honors Course, and Milwaukee C.C. well above Southern Hills.

4

#35 adamjstl

adamjstl

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 120792
  • Joined: 01/19/2011
  • Handicap:2.6
GolfWRX Likes : 49

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:45 AM

The Golf Digest and Golfweek rankings make much more sense to me. The Golf Magazine panel is so loaded with "Tour" courses, some of their rankings seem out of place to me.


5

#36 adamjstl

adamjstl

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 120792
  • Joined: 01/19/2011
  • Handicap:2.6
GolfWRX Likes : 49

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:49 AM

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

View Postrdillabo, on 12 September 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

Can anyone comment on why this list is quite different than the Golf Digest list? What list would you value more? I know lists change and things, but I find it interesting that some courses are ranked in totally different spots ie Bethpage Black does not show up on Golf Digest's list, and Kauri Cliffs in New Zealand is not on the Golf.com list. I guess its open for interpretation, but was list represents the Top 100 courses the best?

The three primary "lists" (Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, and Golfweek) all differ a bit in their methodology and what they care about.

Golf Digest has the biggest "panel" of raters (hundreds?) and asks each to rate every course they play on a variety of subjective metrics (shot values, difficulty, ambience, conditioning, etc.), and then they average all the scores (requiring a minimum number of evaluations for a course to be considered) and the rank is the simple average of the results. This one is probably the most "democratic" of the group, but recent elections may have proven that democracy is not infallible.

Golf Magazine has a panel of ~100 "experts" (they publish the list, it's mostly well-known golf course architects (Kidd, Jones, etc), executives (Keiser, Kohler, etc.), and others). They give these 100 a ballot of ~500 courses to rank, and then tally up the results for who got the most votes. This is probably the best curated list, but IMHO tends to over-value reputation and history. These panelists are mostly busy people, and they're being asked to rank 100 courses - many of which they would only be ranking by reputation.

The Golfweek list also uses a vote of ~500 panelists across 10 metrics, but its metrics are much more focused on the course itself (Routing, memorability of Par 3's, green complex quality, etc.). This is sort of the design nerd version of Golf Digest.

To compare to College Football, I'd say that Golf Magazine is the Coaches Poll (experts who might not be paying that much attention); Golf Digest is the AP Poll (qualified panelists passing somewhat arbitrary judgement); Golfweek is the Computer Polls (it's humans, but based on a tight set of criteria). Up to you to decide what method you trust - I think there's something to be said for each.

Spot on with the Golf Magazine rankings.

6

#37 FairwayFred

FairwayFred

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,875 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 149
  • Joined: 04/22/2005
  • Location:Hwy 97, Mile Marker 55
GolfWRX Likes : 910

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:06 AM

If someone else was going to come out with a Top 100, what criteria do you think would make the best list?  How would you set it up if you were in charge of it?
9* Callaway GBB Epic w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9° Cobra LTD w/ Kuro Kage XT 70
10.5* Taylor Made Mini Driver Tour w Fujikura Motore Speeder 7.2
10.75* Nike Vapor TW w Aldila Rogue 125 MSI Tour
9.5* Taylor Made M1 440 w Kuro Kage TiNi 60
9* Callaway 816 DBD w Aldila Rogue i/o 60
9* Ping G LS Tech w Project X Handmade
10.5* A Grind Classic 350 w Oban Izawa 60
10.5* Callaway GBB Epic Sub Zero w Aldila Rogue MAX 75
9* Bridgestone Tour B XD7 w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9.5* Mizuno JPX 900 w Ozik TP6HD
9.5* Nike Flex 440 w Kuro Kage XT 60
9.5* Taylor Made Tour Issue M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 3
9.5* Taylor Made 2017 M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 2

FREE AGENT CLUB HO

7

#38 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:11 AM

View Postadamjstl, on 12 September 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

The Golf Digest and Golfweek rankings make much more sense to me. The Golf Magazine panel is so loaded with "Tour" courses, some of their rankings seem out of place to me.

Just to push back on this a little bit...the annual PGA Tour stops on the Golf Magazine list are:

92. Colonial (Dean & Deluca Invitational)
87. Torrey Pines South (Farmers Insurance Open)
70. East Lake (Tour Championship)
54. Spyglass Hill (AT&T Pro Am)
45. Harbour Town (RBC Heritage)
29. TPC Sawgrass (Players)
28. Muirfield Village (Memorial)
19. Riviera (Northern Trust)
5. Pebble Beach (AT&T Pro Am)
3. Augusta National (Masters)

So that's 10 out of 100, and it's impossible to argue with almost half of them (ANGC, Pebble, Riviera, Muirfield Village).

If you add in the other courses that host an occasional major/event, it's more, but those events gravitate towards the best courses. By my count, there are ~60 courses on the list that are highly unlikely to host a championship event for whatever reason (e.g. Ballyneal is never hosting anything). That seems reasonable to me.

Edited by raynorfan1, 12 September 2017 - 10:16 AM.


8

#39 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:18 AM

View PostFairwayFred, on 12 September 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

If someone else was going to come out with a Top 100, what criteria do you think would make the best list?  How would you set it up if you were in charge of it?

I would combine Golf Magazine's panel approach (a smaller panel with deep expertise) with Golfweek's rating criteria. The trick would be convincing the experts to take the time out of their schedules to actually do the work.

To stick with the CFB analogy, you need to build the playoff Committee and force them to do the work.

Edited by raynorfan1, 12 September 2017 - 10:19 AM.


9

#40 az2au

az2au

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 185434
  • Joined: 06/10/2012
  • Location:Scottsdale, AZ/New York, NY
  • Handicap:3.6
GolfWRX Likes : 448

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:26 AM

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

View PostFairwayFred, on 12 September 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

If someone else was going to come out with a Top 100, what criteria do you think would make the best list?  How would you set it up if you were in charge of it?

I would combine Golf Magazine's panel approach (a smaller panel with deep expertise) with Golfweek's rating criteria. The trick would be convincing the experts to take the time out of their schedules to actually do the work.

To stick with the CFB analogy, you need to build the playoff Committee and force them to do the work.
I think this is probably a great way to do it but I doubt it would ever be possible.  I prefer Golfweek's ratings and also they split between eras but I think Golf Digest has tried hard to make their rankings and panelists do a better job in the last 3-5 years.  They used to be a popularity contest only.

FWIW, on an earlier point, I'm not a fan of Colonial at all.  I think it has several awkward shots and overall is a boring layout.  On a simple 1-10 scale I'd probably go 5.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#41 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:36 AM

View Postaz2au, on 12 September 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

I prefer Golfweek's ratings and also they split between eras but I think Golf Digest has tried hard to make their rankings and panelists do a better job in the last 3-5 years.

The Modern/Classic split was a clever way to solve one of the big beefs that people seem to have with these lists, that "old" venues get over-weighted for history/exclusiveness/etc.; it gives the panel a way to reward new courses without knocking out "untouchables".

11

#42 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:04 AM

View PostFairwayFred, on 12 September 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

If someone else was going to come out with a Top 100, what criteria do you think would make the best list?  How would you set it up if you were in charge of it?


I think this is a good question.  If I was chief golf course ranker for a day, I would make a list with criteria most relevant to the golfing masses, perhaps call it the top 100 "everyman" should play (just because its public doesnt mean every golfer can play it).  Factors would include access to tee times, course design and playability, value relative to experience (including ambiance), proximity to other good golf.  I would see it as a list that if most golfers wanted to schedule a golf trip they could easily find a course to enjoy.

I see it rewarding great courses like Rustic Canyon, Bandon Dunes, and WeKoPa Saguaro.  All very playable yet a good test, and although pricey not wallet busters.

Possible examples of 4 courses as rated by me (3 HCP):
Out of 10 based on 1. Access to tee times, 2.Course Design,  3.Playability, 4. Value vs experience, 5.Proximity to other good golf

Whistling Straits
1. 6
2. 8
3. 5
4. 3
5. 7
Total score 30

Pebble Beach
1. 5
2. 8
3. 8
4. 5
5. 8
Total score 34

Bandon Dunes
1. 7
2. 7
3. 9
4. 7
5. 9
Total score 39

WeKoPa Saguaro
1. 9
2. 7
3. 7
4. 7
5. 7
Total score 37

Winged Foot
1. 1
2. 7
3. 6
4. 6
5. 6

Total score  26

Just a few thoughts.

Edited by vallygolf, 12 September 2017 - 11:28 AM.


12

#43 One_Putt_Blunder

One_Putt_Blunder

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,837 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 56737
  • Joined: 05/28/2008
  • Location:Scottsdale Az
GolfWRX Likes : 3453

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:08 AM

Only problem with ^^^^ is #1, #4, and #5 have nothing to do with the actual course itself.
@oneputtblunder
10.5 Aeroburner TP Fujikura Speeder Pro XLR8
14.5 X2 Hot 3 Deep Tour Green
18* X2 Hot Pro Hybrid
RSI TP 4-PW KBS Tour 120
Byron Morgan DH89 Rincon Neck deep mill
Vokey 52/56/60 SM5/TVDK/TVDVgrind DG S300
WITB Link

13

#44 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:12 AM

I would also prefer a Michelin-star type system instead of flat-out rankings, which I think are contrived (oooh, look, Cypress Point is higher than Pine Valley this year!):

* A Very Good Golf Course in it's Category
** An Excellent Course, worth a detour
*** An Exceptional Course, worth a special journey to experience

14

#45 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1145

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:18 AM

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

View PostFairwayFred, on 12 September 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

If someone else was going to come out with a Top 100, what criteria do you think would make the best list?  How would you set it up if you were in charge of it?

I would combine Golf Magazine's panel approach (a smaller panel with deep expertise) with Golfweek's rating criteria. The trick would be convincing the experts to take the time out of their schedules to actually do the work.

To stick with the CFB analogy, you need to build the playoff Committee and force them to do the work.

The difference between CFB and golf courses is that golf courses really require that you play the course to evaluate it.  CFB has a huge library of videos that can be used for evaluation.  Golf courses do not, and I suspect most raters don't have time to play many of the top courses every year and also spend the time completing a scientific rating.  You need a large number of raters to get sufficient coverage.


15

#46 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:22 AM

View PostRoadking2003, on 12 September 2017 - 11:18 AM, said:

The difference between CFB and golf courses is that golf courses really require that you play the course to evaluate it.  CFB has a huge library of videos that can be used for evaluation.  Golf courses do not, and I suspect most raters don't have time to play many of the top courses every year and also spend the time completing a scientific rating.  You need a large number of raters to get sufficient coverage.

To do it right, you're still talking about watching a ~3 hour football game (actually, many 3 hour football games). The real difference is the number of contenders. You've really only got to pay attention to ~10 football teams. We're talking about ranking a couple hundred golf courses.

But if you said that the goal was to come up with a "Top 10", the committee would be pretty effective.

16

#47 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:30 AM

View PostOne_Putt_Blunder, on 12 September 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Only problem with ^^^^ is #1, #4, and #5 have nothing to do with the actual course itself.


I agree, but for me that is what makes them courses every man should play.  Not the greatest or best course.

17

#48 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1145

Posted 12 September 2017 - 11:36 AM

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 11:04 AM, said:

View PostFairwayFred, on 12 September 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

If someone else was going to come out with a Top 100, what criteria do you think would make the best list?  How would you set it up if you were in charge of it?


I think this is a good question.  If I was chief golf course ranker for a day, I would make a list with criteria most relevant to the golfing masses, perhaps call it the top 100 "everyman" should play (just because its public doesnt mean every golfer can play it).  Factors would include access to tee times, course design and playability, value relative to experience (including ambiance), proximity to other good golf.  I would see it as a list that if most golfers wanted to schedule a golf trip they could easily find a course to enjoy.

I see it rewarding great courses like Rustic Canyon, Bandon Dunes, and WeKoPa Saguaro.  All very playable yet a good test, and although pricey not wallet busters.

Possible examples of 4 courses as rated by me (3 HCP):
Out of 10 based on 1. Access to tee times, 2.Course Design,  3.Playability, 4. Value vs experience, 5.Proximity to other good golf

While I disagree with your criteria, I think your objective is spot on.  I would also produce a list based on what appeals to 90% + of golfers who just want to have fun, enjoy the course and the entire experience.    

My criteria would be;

1, Course design.  This is the cornerstone of a rating and includes the variety of holes including elevation changes, variety of lengths, doglegs, high risk/reward holes, and holes with strategy options.
2. Beauty.  Almost everybody likes beautiful vistas including oceans, mountains, rugged desert, and nice trees (Pebble Beach, Cabo del Sol, Castle Pines GC, etc).
3. Conditioning.  While every course varies from time to time, some are on average much better conditioned than others.
4. History.  There is no denying that a rich history adds to the experience.  Playing a course you saw the pros play on TV makes it more interesting.  Playing the Old Course is special because of it's history. Playing Augusta is special because it has hosted more majors than any other course by a long shot. Etc.
5. The rest of the experience.  There is no doubt that a spectacular practice facility (LochenHeath and Flint Hills National) or first class service (Augusta National and the Red Sky courses) and other non course factors play into the enjoyment of the outing.

The result would be a rating that would help most golfers choose where to play.

18

#49 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:03 PM

And this is the crux of the "course" vs. "experience" debate.

I tend to lean towards FairwayFred on this one, mostly because rating by experience introduces a bunch of new variables to the mix that are really tough to control for.

Compare / Contrast a trip to Bandon Dunes with a trip to Gleneagles.

Five day golf getaway with the guys? Bandon. Not close from a golf quality standpoint.

Five day getaway with the family, where you want to play some golf? Gleneagles is a really fun choice.

Once you start balancing off stuff that's not tee-to-green, what's important to different people - even in different moments, changes dramatically.

19

#50 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1145

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:22 PM

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

And this is the crux of the "course" vs. "experience" debate.

rating by experience introduces a bunch of new variables to the mix that are really tough to control for.

"Tough to control for" meaning they change from time to time?  Or that there are no standards?

Quote

Once you start balancing off stuff that's not tee-to-green, what's important to different people - even in different moments, changes dramatically.

I hear you.  And yet we have three different magazines supposedly using "professional" tee-to-green only methods and arriving at very different lists.

I believe some, if not all, of the magazine rankings consider stuff that's not tee-to-green.  I recall some of them including course history and the notes below would indicate they consider a lot more than "tee to green".

This is regarding the Golf Digest rankings;
----------------------
The expansion news hits as the latest ranking received its bienniel dose of criticism for focusing on experience, conditioning and course difficulty over design. GolfClubAtlas.com's Ran Morrissett wrote:


A great playing experience, a great clubhouse and great architecture sometimes go hand in hand - but frequently don't.  It is a disservice to the game when a prominent magazine masquerades a list of large, expensive clubhouses under the banner of great courses.


--------------
And I don't know if andy Johnson is correct, but if he is then these rankings are not too dissimilar to my approach.
-----------------
Andy Johnson at The Fried Egg pointed out that 37.5% of the Golf Digest criteria has little to do with architectural character. Unless you think resistance to scoring is something to be celebrated.
http://www.geoffshac...panel-by-2.html


Think about it. Only 37.5% is about architectural character.  That means a whole lot of the rating is about the experience.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#51 2ball

2ball

    LEFTY

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 15610
  • Joined: 06/20/2006
  • Location:Was - Chicago Now in - Orange County, CA
GolfWRX Likes : 98

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:34 PM

Zigfield Troy didn't make the list?

21

#52 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:42 PM

View PostRoadking2003, on 12 September 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

And this is the crux of the "course" vs. "experience" debate.

rating by experience introduces a bunch of new variables to the mix that are really tough to control for.

"Tough to control for" meaning they change from time to time?  Or that there are no standards?

Quote

Once you start balancing off stuff that's not tee-to-green, what's important to different people - even in different moments, changes dramatically.

I hear you.  And yet we have three different magazines supposedly using "professional" tee-to-green only methods and arriving at very different lists.

I believe some, if not all, of the magazine rankings consider stuff that's not tee-to-green.  I recall some of them including course history and the notes below would indicate they consider a lot more than "tee to green".

"Tough to control for" meaning that different people value things (both on and off course) differently. It might be really important to me that the course has a really nice 19th hole; not important to somebody else at all. Keeping it to "just the course" reduces the number of things that are being evaluated, which should yield more consistency.

With respect to the rankings as they stand, Golf Digest includes a fair amount of credit for ambience, difficulty, and conditioning - things other than the "pure" architecture.

Golf Magazine is even more subjective - they just ask their panelists to choose "great" courses with relatively little objective guidance.

Golfweek is the only one that tries to stick to the merits of what's in the ground.

There's no right way to do this.

22

#53 FairwayFred

FairwayFred

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,875 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 149
  • Joined: 04/22/2005
  • Location:Hwy 97, Mile Marker 55
GolfWRX Likes : 910

Posted 12 September 2017 - 02:27 PM

View PostRoadking2003, on 12 September 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

And this is the crux of the "course" vs. "experience" debate.

rating by experience introduces a bunch of new variables to the mix that are really tough to control for.

"Tough to control for" meaning they change from time to time?  Or that there are no standards?

Quote

Once you start balancing off stuff that's not tee-to-green, what's important to different people - even in different moments, changes dramatically.

I hear you.  And yet we have three different magazines supposedly using "professional" tee-to-green only methods and arriving at very different lists.

I believe some, if not all, of the magazine rankings consider stuff that's not tee-to-green.  I recall some of them including course history and the notes below would indicate they consider a lot more than "tee to green".

This is regarding the Golf Digest rankings;
----------------------
The expansion news hits as the latest ranking received its bienniel dose of criticism for focusing on experience, conditioning and course difficulty over design. GolfClubAtlas.com's Ran Morrissett wrote:


A great playing experience, a great clubhouse and great architecture sometimes go hand in hand - but frequently don't.  It is a disservice to the game when a prominent magazine masquerades a list of large, expensive clubhouses under the banner of great courses.


--------------
And I don't know if andy Johnson is correct, but if he is then these rankings are not too dissimilar to my approach.
-----------------
Andy Johnson at The Fried Egg pointed out that 37.5% of the Golf Digest criteria has little to do with architectural character. Unless you think resistance to scoring is something to be celebrated.
http://www.geoffshac...panel-by-2.html


Think about it. Only 37.5% is about architectural character.  That means a whole lot of the rating is about the experience.

You got that backwards, 37.5% has little to do with architectural character not the other way around.
9* Callaway GBB Epic w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9° Cobra LTD w/ Kuro Kage XT 70
10.5* Taylor Made Mini Driver Tour w Fujikura Motore Speeder 7.2
10.75* Nike Vapor TW w Aldila Rogue 125 MSI Tour
9.5* Taylor Made M1 440 w Kuro Kage TiNi 60
9* Callaway 816 DBD w Aldila Rogue i/o 60
9* Ping G LS Tech w Project X Handmade
10.5* A Grind Classic 350 w Oban Izawa 60
10.5* Callaway GBB Epic Sub Zero w Aldila Rogue MAX 75
9* Bridgestone Tour B XD7 w Fujikura Speeder Platinum 6
9.5* Mizuno JPX 900 w Ozik TP6HD
9.5* Nike Flex 440 w Kuro Kage XT 60
9.5* Taylor Made Tour Issue M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 3
9.5* Taylor Made 2017 M2 w Fujikura Speeder 757 Evo 2

FREE AGENT CLUB HO

23

#54 Zeverson

Zeverson

    DallasBoy

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 191836
  • Joined: 07/13/2012
  • Location:TX
GolfWRX Likes : 30

Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:23 PM

View PostOutBackHack, on 10 September 2017 - 07:21 PM, said:

View PostNorth Texas, on 09 September 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

Here's one for you.

Colonial CC in Fort Worth is the only Texas course on the Top 100 USA list.

Here in North Texas we have a local magazine that rates all of the DFW private and public courses. They have 9 private courses ranked ahead of Colonial in the DFW area.

I think access to courses may play into that. There is one course I know well that I can use as an example.
Frederica has to be a top 100 course, without doubt. But it never gets rated, I have read it's because the course raters are not allowed on the course. I believe that's probably true.

I would assume there are other tracks in the same boat.

You could probably add Ocean Forest as well at Sea Island.

24

#55 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 12 September 2017 - 04:17 PM

"which should yield more consistency"

I dont think consistency is a major problem, relevance is.  If it werent for WRX, I would have a difficult time REALLY knowing what courses to book on a trip.  I recognize this is subjective, but it would be nice if rankings took common subjectivity and rated courses for the common golfer.  A perfect example is Golf Digest Ranking best in state of Massachusetts 2017-18.  If Im planning a trip there and want to play golf, the only public option in the top 20 is Granite Links.  Any golfer from Boston can point to better public options (Pine Hills, Crumpin Fox, etc) that may be a short distance away.  I know it is a difficult ask, but IMO this would be relevant.  If Pine valley vs Augusta vs Cypress is #1 isnt really relevant to the average golfer.


25

#56 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 590

Posted 12 September 2017 - 04:23 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

"which should yield more consistency"

I dont think consistency is a major problem, relevance is.  If it werent for WRX, I would have a difficult time REALLY knowing what courses to book on a trip.  I recognize this is subjective, but it would be nice if rankings took common subjectivity and rated courses for the common golfer.  A perfect example is Golf Digest Ranking best in state of Massachusetts 2017-18.  If Im planning a trip there and want to play golf, the only public option in the top 20 is Granite Links.  Any golfer from Boston can point to better public options (Pine Hills, Crumpin Fox, etc) that may be a short distance away.  I know it is a difficult ask, but IMO this would be relevant.  If Pine valley vs Augusta vs Cypress is #1 isnt really relevant to the average golfer.

You do know that they also publish a "best you can play" by state, right?

26

#57 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 12 September 2017 - 04:54 PM

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

"which should yield more consistency"

I dont think consistency is a major problem, relevance is.  If it werent for WRX, I would have a difficult time REALLY knowing what courses to book on a trip.  I recognize this is subjective, but it would be nice if rankings took common subjectivity and rated courses for the common golfer.  A perfect example is Golf Digest Ranking best in state of Massachusetts 2017-18.  If Im planning a trip there and want to play golf, the only public option in the top 20 is Granite Links.  Any golfer from Boston can point to better public options (Pine Hills, Crumpin Fox, etc) that may be a short distance away.  I know it is a difficult ask, but IMO this would be relevant.  If Pine valley vs Augusta vs Cypress is #1 isnt really relevant to the average golfer.

You do know that they also publish a "best you can play" by state, right?

Obviously, but again if the rankings are architecture and resistance to scoring based they are less relevant to the common golfer.   Not a knock on rankings in general.  It just seems at times it is not aimed at the majority of golfers.  Take my home state for instance:  Here is golfweek top 6 in state
  • 1. We-Ko-Pa (Saguaro), Fountain Hills (m)
  • 2. Quintero GC, Peoria (m)
  • 3. GC at Dove Mountain (Saguaro/Tortolita), Marana (m)
  • 4. Verrado GC, Buckeye (m)
  • 5. Troon North (Monument), Scottsdale (m)
  • 6. TPC Scottsdale (Stadium), Scottsdale (m)
For sure all of these are decent tracks (post renovation TPC scottsdale can barely be called decent.... it was below average before), If you came to Arizona and played these courses you would not be disappointed, however if you factored in other subjective criteria most of the #2-6 would fall outside the top 8-10.  I (and many locals) would only recommend two of those courses if you had 6 to play.

Edited by vallygolf, 12 September 2017 - 04:58 PM.


27

#58 vallygolf

vallygolf

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 366851
  • Joined: 03/17/2015
  • Location:az
GolfWRX Likes : 69

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:10 PM

FYI: here is a list put out by a fellow WRX'er on a fantastic Phoenix thread on the Southwest forum (Thanks OnePuttBlunder).


1: Wekopa Saguaro
2: Ak Chin Southern Dunes
3: Troon North Pinnacle
4: Camelback Ambiente
5: Grayhawk Raptor
6: Wekopa Cholla


Subjectively we dont agree perfectly, but I dont think I could knock any of his choices.  In the end he (and what I would love for rankings to be) just thought "what course would I like to play".  
Would it be so hard to have a ranking where locals just list where they want to go play today.  Innately it will factor in all the subjective stuff, price, design, distance, etc. Wishful thinking

Edited by vallygolf, 12 September 2017 - 05:11 PM.


28

#59 az2au

az2au

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 185434
  • Joined: 06/10/2012
  • Location:Scottsdale, AZ/New York, NY
  • Handicap:3.6
GolfWRX Likes : 448

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:10 PM

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

View Postvallygolf, on 12 September 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

"which should yield more consistency"

I dont think consistency is a major problem, relevance is.  If it werent for WRX, I would have a difficult time REALLY knowing what courses to book on a trip.  I recognize this is subjective, but it would be nice if rankings took common subjectivity and rated courses for the common golfer.  A perfect example is Golf Digest Ranking best in state of Massachusetts 2017-18.  If Im planning a trip there and want to play golf, the only public option in the top 20 is Granite Links.  Any golfer from Boston can point to better public options (Pine Hills, Crumpin Fox, etc) that may be a short distance away.  I know it is a difficult ask, but IMO this would be relevant.  If Pine valley vs Augusta vs Cypress is #1 isnt really relevant to the average golfer.

You do know that they also publish a "best you can play" by state, right?

Obviously, but again if the rankings are architecture and resistance to scoring based they are less relevant to the common golfer.   Not a knock on rankings in general.  It just seems at times it is not aimed at the majority of golfers.  Take my home state for instance:  Here is golfweek top 6 in state
  • 1. We-Ko-Pa (Saguaro), Fountain Hills (m)
  • 2. Quintero GC, Peoria (m)
  • 3. GC at Dove Mountain (Saguaro/Tortolita), Marana (m)
  • 4. Verrado GC, Buckeye (m)
  • 5. Troon North (Monument), Scottsdale (m)
  • 6. TPC Scottsdale (Stadium), Scottsdale (m)
For sure all of these are decent tracks (post renovation TPC scottsdale can barely be called decent.... it was below average before), If you came to Arizona and played these courses you would not be disappointed, however if you factored in other subjective criteria most of the #2-6 would fall outside the top 8-10.  I (and many locals) would only recommend two of those courses if you had 6 to play.

That's really a tragic list in so many ways.  If a friend of mine came here and played that list exactly I'd be disappointed that I let it happen.

They're fine other than #1 I disagree completely with it from a pure course standpoint.

29

#60 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1145

Posted 12 September 2017 - 05:31 PM

View PostFairwayFred, on 12 September 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

View PostRoadking2003, on 12 September 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 12 September 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

And this is the crux of the "course" vs. "experience" debate.

rating by experience introduces a bunch of new variables to the mix that are really tough to control for.

"Tough to control for" meaning they change from time to time?  Or that there are no standards?

Quote

Once you start balancing off stuff that's not tee-to-green, what's important to different people - even in different moments, changes dramatically.

I hear you.  And yet we have three different magazines supposedly using "professional" tee-to-green only methods and arriving at very different lists.

I believe some, if not all, of the magazine rankings consider stuff that's not tee-to-green.  I recall some of them including course history and the notes below would indicate they consider a lot more than "tee to green".

This is regarding the Golf Digest rankings;
----------------------
The expansion news hits as the latest ranking received its bienniel dose of criticism for focusing on experience, conditioning and course difficulty over design. GolfClubAtlas.com's Ran Morrissett wrote:


A great playing experience, a great clubhouse and great architecture sometimes go hand in hand - but frequently don't.  It is a disservice to the game when a prominent magazine masquerades a list of large, expensive clubhouses under the banner of great courses.


--------------
And I don't know if andy Johnson is correct, but if he is then these rankings are not too dissimilar to my approach.
-----------------
Andy Johnson at The Fried Egg pointed out that 37.5% of the Golf Digest criteria has little to do with architectural character. Unless you think resistance to scoring is something to be celebrated.
http://www.geoffshac...panel-by-2.html


Think about it. Only 37.5% is about architectural character.  That means a whole lot of the rating is about the experience.

You got that backwards, 37.5% has little to do with architectural character not the other way around.

Right. Sorry.  But it's still a significant portion of their ratings.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors