New World Top 100 Courses Ranking Golf Magazine

[LICC]

To your questions- Yes, Sawgrass was better than I thought it would be. But most of the high profile courses I’ve played have more or less been as I expected, with some minor disappointments or positive surprises. Obviously the details and experiences add or detract but usually the big picture is on point.

Yes, I’ve played all the Streamsong courses and two other courses that Tom Doak has done substantial renovations and added several new holes. I thought his work at Atlantic City CC and particularly his new holes there were excellent.

[Chanceman]

 

There used to be a TV advertisement for Guinness in the UK in which a drinker at a pub was asked what he thought of Guinness.

His reply was "I never tried it, cos I dont like it."

[LICC]

You think someone can’t be well read or informed to have an opinion that Cypress Point is better than say, Baltusrol?

And you are missing a key point. Someone can look at the makeup of the list and be knowledgeable about golf and golf courses generally and make observations about apparent or not so apparent biases without having played all the courses on the list.

[FairwayFred]

I think that Cypress Point would be ranked higher than Baltusrol and most people would think it's better almost simply based on the land its on. Which no you don't need to see in person to see that Cypress is on one of the most amazing pieces of land of any course in the world. You can see that in pics and on Google earth etc. But your using a very extreme example there are very few courses on land like Cypress. That's why I used Pebble as my example. They are on similar land. Similarly you would have to actually play 2 highly ranked inland parkland courses to see which one you think is better.

Nobody said you have to have played all the courses on the list to have an opinion about said list. I doubt many on here have. I know I have not played them all I have only played 71 of their top 100. However you have named specific courses by name that you have not played that you claimed were over rated and or did not deserve to be on the list. That's not even close to the same thing.

 

[LICC]

You are using two courses both in the top-11 as your example, which is also extreme. And I never opined on whether Cypress Point was better than Pebble Beach.

To your second comment, most of the instances here where I named courses were in response to someone asking me to name courses. I identified specific courses to further the discussion and based on my knowledge and information from others, fully disclosing that I have not played a good number of them. Instead of adding to the discussion, you can't seem to stop harping on this. And in one case where you did add your opinion, Old Macdonald, you agreed with me.

[hollabachgt]

That was my point. Ran may have had some impact on the rating process, but to suggest that Ran himself is capable of making a statement within the aggregate rankings of 75 individual view is ludicrous.

[LICC]

This is straw man nonsense. No one is saying he manipulated the courses to his choosing. But he did make substantial changes to the rater pool which seemed to result in dramatic changes to the rankings that are more aligned to his preferences in golf course design.

[raynorfan1]

I had to re-read the "Doak" Scale before I gave it a grade. My gut was that it was between a 5 and a 6, but the definitions are (per GolfCourseGurus.com):

5: Well above the average golf course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if you're in the vicinity and looking for a game, but don't spend another day away from home to see it, unless your home is in Alaska.

6: A very good course, definitely worth a game if you're in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn't disappoint you.

7: An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

The bolded areas are how I slotted it between a 6 and a 7:

Based on 5 - don't spend another day away from home to see it - if I were at Streamsong playing the Red, would I go home rather than spend the next day on the Blue? My answer here is definitively no. 100% no. Zero chance that I would recommend that somebody "not spend another day away from home".

Based on 6 - definitely worth a game if you're in town - again, if I'm at Streamsong, the Blue is definitely worth playing.

Based on 7 - worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles - this one is interesting, because 100 miles puts you both in the Tampa and Orlando areas. So IF I was visiting Tampa or Orlando, would I make a special trip to play Streamsong Blue? I couldn't convince myself of this. I think the combination of Red/Blue/Black makes Streamsong a no-brainer destination from either Tampa or Orlando...but would the Blue course alone merit the trip? I think it probably would not. So I concluded that the Blue was somewhere between a 6 and a 7.

In terms of the "Top XX" rating of the course, you have to accept that the distribution gets large. In the Golf Digest methodology, the difference between course #101 and course #200 is about 2.5 points - the same difference as between #1 Pine Valley and #3 Cypress Point. So from my perspective the difference between, say #250 and #100, is pretty fractional and not worth haggling over. I think the Blue is in that group. Where exactly it falls is more a matter of luck and random chance than anything else. I wouldn't argue with anybody who thought it was #100 or anybody who thought it was #250. Same thing, as far as I'm concerned.

[LICC]

Good analysis and certainly a sound opinion. Doak has said that he has rated only about 100 courses at 7. I'm quoting him directly here:

"I think you are right about the number of 7's (around 100) and that the distinction between 5's, 6's and 7's is an important one. It is much more in the eye of the beholder tha[n] the gap from 7 to 8. I have compared these gaps to "quantum levels" that either you're in one or the other but it's a big leap up.

I think that the bulk of modern courses (if not the majority) may rate a 6 on the Doak scale. They're all well constructed, impeccably groomed, and few of them have really stupid features. (Indeed, some of the courses which I rated a 0 would be a 6 for others.) There are a lot more 6's in the world than there were when I wrote The Confidential Guide, and my own associates say with some confidence that we ought to be able to build a 6 on any site, if we just go out and do a good routing and build a good set of greens.

If it's a below-average example, handicapped by the setting or by housing or by a mailed-in design, then it's probably a 4 or 5 instead.

So then what's a 7? A 7 is a course that sets itself beyond the typical Tom Fazio or Jeff Brauer or Tom Doak course. If it's just an average example of our work, then it isn't worth traveling to play, any more than any other of our courses. A 7 has to have something about it that's really special -- a unique setting, a better set of greens, a couple of truly great holes, etc. Almost by definition, that would make it a legitimate contender for Best New Course of the Year (as opposed to all the 5's and 6's which advertise that they were "nominated" for the award)."

I agree with what you said about thinking of the Blue as if it were the only course at the resort. I certainly wouldn't travel to play it; if I were in the area for some reason and wanted to play, it would be worth a round; but I disagree about staying an extra day. If it were the only course at the resort, and I had a vacation in the area, I don't think I would add an extra day for just the Blue. Which is a little bit different that the scenario you stated.

I think a 6 is a valid score for the Blue but I would lean more toward a 5-6. There are some great holes on that course and the front-9 is very, very good. But I think it wasn't nearly as memorable on the back-9 (except the 12th hole which is great) and I didn't care for the look of the bunkering throughout.

[raynorfan1]

To each his own. But there’s no scenario where I’m staying at a resort with the Blue as the only course on property and I’m not playing it.

My biggest issue was #7, where it was playing probably 185 yards, all carry, straight into a ~25mph wind. I think I hit driver and ended up over the hole; but there was just no good way to play that hole in those conditions...which are apparently not uncommon.

[hollabachgt]

What specifically do you mean by dramatic changes to the rankings? Are you speaking of the process or the results?

If you're speaking of the results, what aspect of the results for 2019 go against historical or recent trends in the rankings? How have these changes quantitatively shifted the rankings?

[vallygolf]

"It is much more in the eye of the beholder" At least Doak feels you should "behold" a course before you rank it..... So at least there is that.

[LICC]

But it is a memorable-looking green site. I played the composite tees so I think it was 165 yards or so, from an elevated tee box.

[raynorfan1]

If you look at the overall movement, there was a lot more movement this year than in the prior iteration. From 2015 - 2017, the largest move in the rankings (not counting first-time courses) was Oak Hill (East) moving down 25 points from 68 to 93. There were very few other moves of more than 10 places (in either direction).

From 2017 to 2019, there were some pretty massive moves. Oitavos Dunes going from 55 to off the list; Diamante Dunes going from 36 to 70; Trump Scotland going from 46 to 100; Nine Bridges going from 41 to 94.

You can argue what the driver was, but there is no doubt that there was more volatility in the list this year than in the previous edition.

[LICC]

Merriam-Webster definition of "behold": to perceive through sight or apprehension.

I "behold" plenty of courses ...

[LICC]

Wow you like to beat a dead horse. Courses that have dropped off, courses that have been added, courses that have moved substantially up from two years ago, courses that have moved substantially down from two years ago ...

[hollabachgt]

I keep asking the same questions because you're not answering them. It appears you've established a bias off of single years results. I'm suggesting that the difference in this years results is not as significant as you would think. But as you choose not to compare 2019 to 2017 to 2015, to any other previous year how do you know this year is significant?

 

[vallygolf]

LOL This is too perfect.... Apprehension: "In psychology, apprehension is a term applied to a model of consciousness in which nothing is affirmed or denied of the object in question, but the mind is merely aware of it" This explains perfectly how you apparently have formed your opinions of courses. Carry on.

[LICC]

Who are we to argue against such venerable definitions ... LOL

[hollabachgt]

There was more volatility. For those that feel that the rankings have a bias towards older courses and don't turn over established courses, the volatility that are displayed in the rankings this year should be seen as a good thing. As it suggest that in future years the status quo may not be as stable.

But outside of a few outliers, the volatility this year was not way out of bounds for the ranking historically. The removal of courses / introduction of new courses had little aggregate change on the rankings, and the overall composition of courses in regards to age/era is much the same. One of the biggest changes we see this year is in the turnover of foreign courses for the replacement of American courses. Which is something I'm curious about looking at a little bit further. During the 80's and early 90's it seemed like the growth of golf as a global game was well showcased on the top 100, but today I'm wondering if the top 100 is becoming more centrally congregated.

[LICC]

That is more than a few outliers, and as noted above, certain architects or time periods were affected more than others. Give it up man ...

[Roadking2003]

No. I never said that.

 

What I said is that you can have an opinion about a course without playing it. Obviously, your opinion is enhanced by playing the course. As you stated, you don't need to play Cypress to have an opinion that it's better than my local muni.

 

It's not ignorant to have an opinion about a course without playing it, contrary to what some on this board have said. These things are not binary, but rather progressive. You can have a good opinion without playing the courses, but every time you play it your opinion improves.

[FairwayFred]

Fair enough. I'd agree w all of that though I'm not sure you can have a good opinion of a course without playing it unless it's very visible, holds tournaments etc in that case id agree. That's probably as close as we're going to get. Lol

[Roadking2003]

I think "manipulating the results" is too strong and I don't recall anybody saying that. But he did select the raters, chose the ranking algorithm, and the pool of courses. And I seriously doubt that he didn't give the raters some instructions or guidelines.

[Roadking2003]

OK.

Here is what I mean by the progressive forming of an opinion.

 

Your see pictures in a golf magazine and have an opinion. Cabot Cliffs and Old Head are good examples. As soon as you see them you say "Wow!"You see that a course is ranked highly by a magazine and your opinion is influenced by that ranking.You watch a tournament on TV and refine your opinion. ANGC and Pebble are perfect examples.You play the course once and your opinion becomes sharper and based on personal observation.You play the course several times and your opinion improves even more.

[FairwayFred]

Fair enough I'd agree with all of that. I'd always thought of myself not really forming an opinion until I actually played the course and 1/2/3 were what piqued my interest and got me to seek out playing that course but that's essentially the same thing.

[hollabachgt]

The ranking algorithm used in 2019 was the same that was used in 2017, and all the way back to 2011 and 2009.

I don't have the panel list from 2015 or 2017, but comparing this year's panel to the rater panel from 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 more than 50% of this years panel were holdovers from previous years.

On average, the list of courses for the panel to vote on includes ~460 courses, this years list of 430+ is lower than average, but not nearly as low as the 408 used in 2009. At the same time, with a write in feature, no course is actually excluded.

[LICC]

Therefore, many people were removed from the panel and almost 50% were new raters? That is a major change to the rater pool.

[hollabachgt]

Without the list of 2015 and 2017 raters I can not confirm the complete overlap from the 2019 list. Even without the two most recent years, the panel is made up of MORE THAN 50% old raters. comparing this years panel to 2015 and 2017 will probably confirm another 8-12 raters, bringing the balance closer to 70% experience raters.

If anyone can publish those lists we'll be able to confirm for good.

[Schley]

I'd say this is saying Ran manipulated the rankings and I stand by my cheap shot post that undermines what GM has done in changing their editor. You may not like what GM has done, but the editor didn't manipulate the opinions of the panel and publish his own results.