New World Top 100 Courses Ranking Golf Magazine

[FairwayFred]

Have you played Moraine (since the redo)?

Have you played Creed Club (since the redo)?

Have you played Old Town?

Have you played Lawsonia?

What about Alotian?

 

[Schley]

These are the courses that are on the GD Top 100 list right now that don't appears on the GM World Top 100/next 50. The number is the GD ranking.

 

[Shilgy]

This may be mentioned in later posts,I’m not reading the rest of the thread, but if you bother to read the ranking criteria the history and tradition are a big factor in the rankings. The rank is not purely the best golf experience. It is the greatest courses based on history and tradition playing a huge part in the order of the list. So yeah, nostalgia plays a role.

[Schley]

Wait.... you mean that is necessary???????

 

[FairwayFred]

Call me old fashioned if you must.............

[LICC]

The irony of someone making an obnoxious comment about reading the criteria who did not himself read the criteria. Directly quoted from Golf Magazine:

”Our voting process is fairly straightforward. We present each rater with a list of 430-plus eligible courses, then ask them to place every course they’ve played into various buckets, starting with “My Top 3.” Because we don’t prescribe a particular method to assess courses as other ranks do ...”

[LICC]

You guys are dodging because it is getting harder for you to deny the old course bias.

Im not saying all these courses aren’t great courses. I’m saying it is hard to explain how they are ranked above all these other great courses in such overwhelming numbers, other than bias, and some GCA bias against certain designers.

[FairwayFred]

I'm not dodging anything. I asked a pretty straightforward question. Which you didn't answer.

[LICC]

A question meant to dodge you giving reasons to support your opinion.

[FairwayFred]

 

Actually a question trying to see if you have any basis for your opinion.

So that's a no then?

Amazing that you can somehow come to that conclusion having never seen any of those courses. Basically the definition of ignorance.

Are there any courses on the list you HAVE played that you think don't deserve to be there??

[Schley]

I also asked you a question, which we are still waiting for as well. By your silence I take it you haven't played the courses I asked you about. I guess the same for Fred's courses. There is nothing wrong with not having played XYZ course....... however, without having played or seen a course it seriously hampers one's opinion. Thus, people typically refer to those who have, as opposed to quoting others from the internet who may share an uninformed opinion you may have. This is not unusual for almost anything..... what is your favorite restaurant? Vacation spot? food? etc. Don't you kind of need experience to express yourself of what you like? At the very least, don't you think it helps?

I have my own opinion and continuously shared it and it is influenced by others who may have more educated opinions than I and have my respect. There is nothing wrong with saying, "you maybe right as I haven't played it." Or perhaps you don't have your own developed view of GCA. Mine is continually evolving and I look forward to gaining more knowledge as I go. It is from that perspective that we can have respect, not just trying to troll every post that your ignorant opinion doesn't align with.

[LICC]

So you have nothing to add but dodging. Got it. I take that as a concession that you have no good reason for why such old courses overwhelm the ranking.

[LICC]

I have played a small number of the courses, including among those you named, but I am not going to state by name on a public forum a course of which I was a guest of a member in a way that could be perceived as negative. Similar I assume as to why you didn’t name the course you played that you think doesn’t deserve to be in the ranking. And they are all great courses. I’m arguing about ranking bias, not that the courses are bad

[vallygolf]

This is a very long thread revolving around the premise: Old courses are overrated, but don't take my word for it.... somebody on the internet said so..... Always interesting to me how in the face of actual experience ignorant opinions seem to dig in for a fight. Yes, having an opinion based on others experiences is by definition ignorant, but not useless.

[FairwayFred]

Your the only one dodging direct questions in this thread.

Please show me where in this thread I opined that older courses were better than newer ones in general?

The only opinion I have stated in this thread is that you cannot have a valid opinion of a course you have never played and have no experience with. I strongly stand by that statement.

My personal course rankings are based on what's on the ground and the quality of the golf course. I don't care when it was built, or if it's in a top 100 list or it it's held majors or what my friend Bob thinks about it.

My 2 favorite courses in the world are modern. My 3rd favorite is on the same ground as an older course that closed in the 1930s and was re-opened in 2008. If I'm biased against newer courses I'm not very good at it.

I also believe that Moraine and Old Town are maybe the 2 most underrated courses in the USA and absolutely deserving of being in any Top 100 list. But that's based on, you know, actually playing them.

 

[FairwayFred]

So your willing to call out said courses as over rated and not deserving of being in the Top 150 but not tell us if you have actually played them because you are worried about offending the member who hosted you? That makes no sense at all other than to dodge my direct question. If they saw your post woudnt they know they had hosted you and still be offended?

[LICC]

You haven't given an opinion either way, other than agreeing that the Old Course is overrated. I would genuinely like to hear if you think the ranking is incorrectly biased toward older courses and why or why not.
I am basing my view on the courses I have played, the overall pre-1940 and modern courses I have played, my readings on the subject, and the opinions of others I know who have played these courses. You may not think that is enough to base a valid opinion, but I think it is enough to support a valid argument. Very few here have come back with any substantive information to counter my argument. @Schley had the best response when he pointed out that post-WWII course design in general dramatically changed and different techniques and principles became highly common that today are viewed as inferior to the previous design principles. I said that argument had some merit. But given the changing dynamics of course design over the decades since 1940, particularly most prominently at the outset of Pete Dye's career 50+ years ago, I don't think the post-WWII design change argument is the answer.

[hollabachgt]

In your original comments you suggest that the new management of Golf Magazines top 100 has impacted the rankings heightening a bias towards older golf clubs. The information I've provided illustrates that this bias is not new and has been present for the entire existence of these rankings. Furthermore, since 2003 we have actually seen a reduction of pre-war courses on the rankings.

The golden era period from 1900-1940 has historically equaled nearly 50% of all of the courses represented on this poll. As such, is massively significant and worth greatest evaluation. Pre-1900 courses typically make up the smallest margin of ~20% and post-war courses represent the last ~30%.

I'm not directly ignoring the pre-1900 courses, but their impact on the rankings is rather insignificant and has been fairly constant for the past 35 years. What I find most interesting is half or the rankings are very constant and half of the rankings are very volatile. you have the standard half that have appeared in every year's rankings and then you have the rest who move through the rankings at a constant rate. Look at the drift of courses from the 1940's-80's that appeared on the polls in the early 1980's, they have been almost completely eliminated from the poll and replaced with newer courses. While not evident within the graph, there has been the same amount of volatility within the golden age courses. 50% of those courses are long time standards and 50% of those courses have moved in and out of the rankings with short terms. Some have been rediscovered through renovations and greater publicity and some have slipped away through lack of attention and public spotlight.

This is why I posted the list of the courses that have appeared in every year of the rankings. Those are the ones that must be debated against. If you want sweeping change within the rankings you'll have to get rid of courses that for 4 decades have been viewed as the best in the world.

[LICC]

But why not include the pre-1900 courses in your graph? You don't have to do it by decade but at least you would be incorporating the full list.

[FairwayFred]

I will come back to you on that. Will take a little time and thought and I'd like you to answer my question first.

Im specifically curious how you determined the courses that you specifically called out by name as being overrated and not worthy of the Top 150 since you havent played them. Same w the ones you have not played that you decided deserved inclusion.

[hollabachgt]

Look at the graph.

Look at the legend and the color code for 1900's = Lime green.

Look below 1900'a where it says 7 more, 7 more = The categories of decades before 1900

look at the body of the graph and the sections that are in lime green.

Notice that there are colored sectors below the lime green sectors, those sectors represent courses built before 1900.

 

The fact that was not obvious showcases the low significance of these courses on the rankings as a whole.

[hollabachgt]

 

Hopefully this reads a little more clearly for you.

[LICC]

That is much clearer, thank you. At first glance it appears that the courses built in the 2010s that have been added to the list have come at the expense of reducing courses built in the 2000s, 1990s, and maybe 1970s. It also looks like the pre-1900 courses bumped up this year.

But to the main point, I don't think the graph affects anything. That the number of older courses hasn't changed much from the overwhelming dominance of the list over the years, and most change comes from cycling out modern courses for even more modern courses, doesn't change the thesis that there is an older course bias.

[LICC]

Some Golf Magazine writers chimed in on which courses in the list were overrated. Sens said Brookline, overrated based on its history and exclusivity. Brown said Sawgrass because of pour routing (what?), Wagner said Cypress Point because of a poor finishing hole and not very good par-5s on the front nine. Holt said Oakland Hills South because it only has three memorable holes.

[tungstenplug]

It's unfortunate that any time in the near or far future, readers will stumble upon this thread hoping for insight on the world's top golf courses, but, instead, will read through pages and pages of grumpy men arguing online about completely subjective rankings

[hollabachgt]

Just to let you know that was the exact same graph, with an expanded legend. The data was exactly the same as the previous graph.

The inclusion of 1990's courses in the late 90's, 2000's courses in the late 2000's and 2010's courses in the most recent years mirror each other. Some have survived and some have stayed, but the biggest decades to forfeit courses on the poll throughout the years have been the 50's-70's, which at one point occupied over 30% of the courses in the top 100.

The graph does not show it, but the number of post war courses that have been cycled in and out is not unique. Since 1979 68 courses built before 1940 have cycled in/out of the rankings. In comparison, there are 90 post-war courses that have cycled in/out of the polls. Of those 90, 46 of those courses were ranked in the top 100 their first opportunity after construction. The poll likes to include brand new courses to the rankings, but they don't often have staying power. As they age they begin to slip away. For the golden age courses, they have the benefit of experience and the ability to improve their course over time. Restorations to these properties bring them back in the public light and the pop up on the rankings, but not for long. Over half of these courses cycle in/out within 6 cycles of the rankings.

This is why I stress focusing on the list of courses that have never left the rankings. Of that list of 47 courses you only been able to identified 4 courses for removal from the top 100. If you can't remove more of those courses and propose replacements that are deservedly better then you're not going to get anywhere in "fixing" the rankings.

[FairwayFred]

I don't think he has played those 4 courses that he thinks should be removed from the list either so he is basically just showing his own bias towards newer courses.

[LICC]

Golf Magazine noted today that Great Britain and Ireland now have 60% more courses in the list than they did in 1987. I only named 4 US courses. I would have to research more of those non-US ones, but let's assume in addition to the 4 I mentioned I would name another 4 in GB&I or elsewhere in the world. That is 17% of your "core" list. Then you have the other 30 or so older courses in the list to scrutinize. I think if you really removed old course bias and somehow were to objectively rank courses without such bias, you would have a significant impact. I'm not saying all or even half of the old courses would be removed, but the difference would be significant. And the point isn't only about being on the list or not, it also is about where on the list the courses are ranked.

[LICC]

@FairwayFred Still waiting for you to give any sort of opinion on the issue ...

[FairwayFred]

I'd appreciate an answer to the direct questions I've asked multiple times that you continue to dodge. How did you decide which of the courses that you have not played should be removed from the list and then how did you decide the courses that you have not played that should have been included? Your just making yourself look silly and ignorant.