New World Top 100 Courses Ranking Golf Magazine

[Roadking2003]

Or, maybe you have it backwards. The "experts" under-weight exclusivity and history.

[LICC]

And I'm not sure if they would. I would guess they would go for a great course on a beautiful oceanfront setting. Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, etc.

[FairwayFred]

Put me into the average golfer would rate Augusta #1 camp. I think the exclusively of the place, plus the familiarity people have with the course from The Masters, the anticipation of playing there and being the envy of ALL your friends, even the ones that have never heard of Cypress Point etc makes it a slam dunk that even an amazing ocean front setting wouldn't overcome.

[LICC]

I think that would come down to are you rating the entire experience (including exclusivity and friend bragging rights) or just the quality of the golf course?

[FairwayFred]

I think most struggle to differentiate the 2 when it comes to golf courses.

[tboh]

As an avg joe golfer I would agree that differentiating the 2 would be difficult ... but I'll add if anybody needs an avg joe golfer to test this theory please Dm me anytime

What defines being a course rating expert

I'll also add that in my subjective Tv opinion I would rather play Royal Melbourne than Pebble Beach

[FairwayFred]

To me the main criteria to being a course rater is experience playing alot of top courses. Course ratings and opinions are all subjective so there is no right or wrong. However if you haven't played a bunch of top courses you don't have the point of reference needed to be a rater.

As an example there r 2 people on this forum that I tend to disagree with all the time. One of them has played a bunch of top courses, he has strong opinions that I generally disagree with but they are based on actual experience. This person could make a good rater and add a different perspective and opinion to a panel. Diverse opinions are good.

The other person has played very few top courses and gets his strong opinions by reading and parroting other people's opinions and just repeating things he finds online. This person would not make a good panelist as he completely lacks the requisite experience to be able to identify what is the best of the best.

[tboh]

Wait ... what ... You guys disagree?

[FairwayFred]

Once or twice.......

????

[LICC]

Thinking that just playing lots of top courses itself makes someone a good rater is misguided in my opinion. Having some understanding of course design, how different course features affect strategies, and other fundamental knowledge on course architecture and how different principles apply when playing a course is key to being a good rater.

[Schley]

You can't have one without the other, they are both necessary. However the guy who plays great courses at least knows what it looks and plays like. The more you know about GCA and the more you play courses that have good bones you evolve and learn and become more and more educated. It is that way with me. Just 10 years ago I didn't have much of a clue and now it is a hobby perhaps.

[FairwayFred]

Yes you need both for sure. I know a bunch of people who have played a ton of great courses and they all have a pretty good understanding of golf courses and architecture. I believe that comes from playing alot of great courses. You can read a bunch of books and do a bunch of research but unless you see it on the ground and in play you can't really understand it.

[vallygolf]

I dont see anybody making assertions that JUST playing top courses makes one a good rater. However I have seen some claim to be good raters without playing top courses. IMO you need both. Smart= knowledge gained though study of a topic. Wise= applied knowledge through experience and learning. I would much rather be wise (both facets) than simply smart. Pick any field of work. Would you prefer the new grad who knows everything but has never experienced much, or the veteran who possibly was educated with now outdated material but has been in the trenches for years problem solving. If im seeking input from a rater on courses to play I will always give more weight to someone who has actually played it. It would be incredibly ignorant not to.

[LICC]

I have played quite a good number of great courses. I have played with others who have played lots of great courses. Many of them don't have much substantive depth of knowledge on course design and wouldn't be the most trusted raters. Some really pay attention to the details and features, and others just enjoy the atmosphere and hit their golf shots.

[tboh]

Is there a poll that shows the low - high rankings ...

I'd be interested to know if someone ranked TOC 47th & Bethpage 4th ...

I'm not sure if experience at being a rater is that necessary to get things "correct" ... but being an experienced golfer may be a different story

[vallygolf]

I hope getting things "correct" is not the goal. For example @LICC has expressed that a "correct" list would include more of Jacks courses. A rater should be one who judges a course based on merit. Each rater will have a different idea of what merit is, but should in fact have some inkling of architecture and an idea of what constitutes great merit. They also should have some acumen for the game of golf to be able to judge fair or strong features vs cookie cutter. In this vein, to be a good judge experiencing standards for exceptional golf is essential.

[LICC]

Please show the exact quote where I used the word "correct".

[vallygolf]

Narcissist much? I was responding to Tboh

[tboh]

Lolol ... @vallygolf i agree w you & i tjink were talking about the same thought process ... but ... don't all the polls tend to get you to a "correct" ... if they didnt there would be some significant deviations frm poll to poll ... right?
I have not played many (if any) of these courses (sorry I haven't looked thru them all) but that doesnt mean that i wouldn't be as good at rating them as all of the others ... as a matter of fact some may say that going in wo any preconceptions may be beneficial although i would actually disagree ... i think the best view of a work of art would be on the 2nd 5th or 10th loop
(Going to go check all Top 100 lists now ... hope Podunk muni is on there) ????️‍♂️⛳

[Roadking2003]

There are no "correct" or "incorrect" ratings. There is an "agree with their rationale" continuum and you have to decide for each listing where you are on that continuum.

You have to choose which raters mean the most to you. Do you choose Doak, Nicklaus, or your best golf buddie? Do you choose the Golf Magazine list or the Top 100 web site.

 

Golf Digest says ANGC is #2 in the USA. Golf Magazine says it's #6. Which is correct? Neither and both.