New World Top 100 Courses Ranking Golf Magazine

[Roadking2003]

Interesting. So each voter has his own private criteria.

 

 

[FairwayFred]

I could be wrong but I don't think that's a change from before. I think that's how Golf Magazine has always done it.

[raynorfan1]

Correct; the change is only in the makeup of the panel.

[BNGL]

Is the criteria for the rankings available? It has to be I’m just not seeing it. Obviously I may have some East coast bias, but I’m not sure about Seminole’s ranking at 34-35? To me it’s a much better golf course than Cypress and San Francisco (having played each of them).

As far as the number, 1 Pine Valley is fantastic, but Augusta being 8 (or was it 9) is vexing to me. I used to be of the opinion that no golf club was ever worth the praise heaped on ANGC, then I walked it and played it. It’s perfect...I know of no other word to describe it. I’m always surprised it’s not number one, I almost wonder if it’s a victim of its own success from past years.

 

just my 2 cents I don’t know nearly as much about architecture as some to debate it.

[tiderider]

Augusta has been falling for some time, now ... i think the current wave of renovations/restorations/minimalist designing has people thinking/wanting that they might want to quit making adjustments to the course that stride further from its origins, which by all accounts were more linksy in character - wider fairways, fewer trees, etc ... there are interesting articles and podcasts out there on all of these courses ...

[Schley]

GM doesn't have a published criteria that their panel must follow. The criteria is simply an overall opinion of they feel each of what they select 250 of the possible 430 courses presented to them rank. The results are aggregated and list generated. Of course the 80 person panel is personally made up from what Ran's view of GCA and rankings should be. I happen to appreciate his view and in agreement. Below are the point value for each panelists bucket value for all their courses ranked.

[Schley]

Actually they have a little more transparency.

 

[LICC]

Someone please explain how Tom Fazio has zero courses in the top 100 list and just one in the next 50 list. Between him and Jack Nicklaus, two of the most prolific and successful architects of all time, there is one course in the top 100 and two courses overall in the 150. Seems like some sort of bias, either toward old courses or for a particular design style. If the latter, then the list becomes the top 100 Golf Club Atlas list rather than a broad spectrum opinion list.

[CMCSGolf]

It may be bias, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Why aren't there pictures of me in Men's Fitness? Is it because they are biased against me or because their definition of a quality guy doesn't align with what I look like? The new rankings define quality differently and Fazio/Nicklaus doesn't fit as well. As with all these debates, it get's back to the subjectivity of rankings. If your preferences align with another rankings, use those to find the best courses.

[Roadking2003]

Bad analogy. It's more like all the men in the fitness pictures have red hair.

It's obviously bias. Morrissett has his agenda and it's different from others. The results of his list define his bias.

 

[LICC]

But this is Golf Magazine. One of the two most widely read and influential rankings in the golf world. Wouldn’t it be nice if it had a broad spectrum of thought and preference incorporated into its rankings process? Tom Doak, who is a rater, said that the panel of raters should be expanded to include Nicklaus, Greg Norman, and more great players in order to have a better variety of views.

[FairwayFred]

What is his agenda exactly?

[CMCSGolf]

Why doesn't the magazine put one course in from every architect then, would that be better? It would be a broad list and would include some courses far worse than Coore and Crenshaw's second best course. Like I said, it may be bias, but it may be a different definition of quality. This ranking has pretty clearly stated what they view as the best courses given a specific definition of what good golf is. You're asking for a wide sample of good courses which is not the same thing as trying to identify the best. One ranking can't be all things. The rankings that list best classic and best modern try to get around this, but it's impossible to do it perfectly.

[raynorfan1]

To get a little extreme...why doesn't McDonald's have a Michelin star? It is undoubtedly the most successful and popular cuisine of all time! Just look at the number of locations they have, and the billions and billions of people served! The people have spoken, McDonald's is the best!

 

There is no doubt that the editors of Golf Magazine have a certain set of "bias" in terms of what makes a golf course great, and the list reflects that "bias".

[LICC]

I'm not asking for a wide sample of good courses, or for the list to be composed of any lesser quality of courses. I'm asking for a ratings panel that isn't biased to one style of design. A panel with highly qualified raters but that also has a broad set of perspectives and views on golf courses. I don't think Golf Magazine should have a "specific definition of what good golf is" that biases its rankings in this way.

[LICC]

Ha! I don't think that is a good analogy at all. You are saying that Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus are the McDonald's of golf courses. I don't think you really meant it that way.

A better analogy would be if a World's Best Restaurants panel was predominantly composed of raters who all believed that only Italian and French cuisine can be the best in the world, and if the Top 100 Restaurants list had 72 out of 100 French and Italian restaurants.

[CMCSGolf]

What? Your first and third sentences are contradictory. "I'm not asking for a wide sample of courses", but want a broad set of perspectives that value different courses? How can you rank anything without a definition of what good is? They've made a claim in the style of golf they think is best and ranked courses accordingly. You disagree with their definition, that's totally fine and acceptable. A similar ranking could be made that favors Nicklaus and Fazio.

[LICC]

I'm not asking for a minimum number of different types of styles of courses ("a wide sample"). You don't need a definition of what is good in order to rank golf courses. Some people will value certain attributes more than others, and a ratings panel should have a mix of those different perspectives. Especially a ratings panel for a publication like Golf Magazine. This isn't the "Minimalist Links Style Golf Course Journal". It is a magazine that should be writing to the golfing public at large. I wouldn't want a ranking panel that biases toward Nicklaus and Fazio either.

[hollabachgt]

St. Andrews Links-Old, Royal County Down, Royal Melbourne-West or Comp, Muirfield, Trump Turnberry-Ailsa, Ballybunion-Old, Carnoustie-Championship, Royal St. George's, Hirono, Royal Birkdale, Portmarnock, Royal Troon-Old, Woodhall Spa-Hotchkin, Casa de Campo-Teeth of the Dog, Royal Portrush-Dunluce, Sunningdale-Old, Kingston Heath, Royal Liverpool, Walton Heath-Old

 

There you go, that's your list. Might I suggest you take the week end and research these courses in order to remove 4 more.

When you do I'd expect for you to explain your reasoning behind the 8 removals, what courses you would replace them with, and the merits of those new additions that out weight the removals.

[raynorfan1]

This was, actually, how the Michelin guide worked for a very long time. They had a disproportionate emphasis on classical french food, and also on classical formal french service. There were open (and reasonable) questions about what the criteria was: was it merely quality of food, or did presentation, setting, ambience, service, etc. matter? They've done a reasonable job over the years addressing some of these issues and being more open to establishments that are more non-traditional.

My view (FWIW) is that it's their magazine, they can create whatever criteria they want. Personally, I think their view of "great" is too narrow and monotonous for my taste, but I'm not offended that they have different preferences than I do.

[hollabachgt]

Fazio has done something like 120 courses? what about Ross and RTJ, they each did over 400 courses during their careers and Ross has 3 on the list, RTJ has only 1. It would be hard to argue that Ross and RTJ were not more prolific and successful as Fazio, yet they are not overwhelmingly represented on the list.

[LICC]

Ross has 4 courses on the top 100 list (counting Oakland Hills) and another 3 on the Next 50 list. RTJ has 1 on the top-100 list or 2 if you want to give his re-design of Oakland Hills credit (which drops Ross to 3 on the top-100 and 3 on the Next 50), and RTJ has 3 on the Next 50 list. I think Ross is overrated but that's for another topic. RTJ isn't rated that highly by anyone so his numbers would seem to align with anyone's preferences.

[hollabachgt]

You're justification is that designers like Ross and RTJ, which you are not fond of, are over represented and fairly represented even though they appear in the top 100 only 5 times total, and a designer that you are fond of who did 1/4 of the work of either Ross or RTJ is underrepresented with 0 inclusions, even though each of these three designers were considered one of the best in the business during their hey day? I'm not trying to argue that the more courses the better, but c'mon. Fazio has done some great work and has been a consistent representative on these rankings for a long time, but so have Ross and RTJ.

If you believe that a designer like RTJ, who was at one time considered the greatest in the world and had 6 courses represented on the top 100 in a single year could fall from public favor, then why couldn't Fazio today?

[CMCSGolf]

Can you explain how you can rank anything without a criteria or definition for it?

If I were going to rank stocks, you could do it a variety of ways. I could rank them by annual return or I could rank them by volatility for example. Both of those rankings serve different purposes and different investors might value one more than the other. But there is a a criteria for how they are ranked. To oversimplify it, these rankings think wide courses are better. If that is the definition they are going with, these results are not surprising.

It's fair to say that you think these rankings are missing something or value something you disagree with, but to think a different set of panelists would remove bias isn't true. It would have a different bias which may or may not be better.

[LICC]

Ross and RTJ combined have 5 courses in the top 100 and 11 in the overall 150. Fazio and Nicklaus combined have one course in the top 100 and 2 in the overall 150. So your comparison here is not exactly equal.

[LICC]

Golf courses don't have definable data metrics to rank their quality. Why don't you ask the new Golf Magazine rankings editor, because Golf Magazine does not use a set criteria or definition for its rankings. It leaves the ratings up to the subjective opinion of each rater, as @Schley noted above in post #156.

[cardoustie]

interesting that the most courses in are Harry S Colt designs

Would be one more if Hamilton was in vs St Georges

[James the Hogan Fan]

Well I have played one of the courses on the list! #33, Yay! And I have to say I did not find it any more or less enjoyable than the 2 other's on its stretch of English shoreline, though I do recall most of the holes. It goes to show how subjective it all is, since for my personal enjoyment the North Foreland golf club and Princes were equally good to me. I guess that's why I'm not a rater, I'm just happy when I get to golf!

[Chanceman]

Is it biased to have more golden age designs than modern in a list of best courses? Maybe they were better. More likely though that the best design principles were articulated early in the history of golf and courses built accordingly. As time has gone on, some new ideas have emerged but the old principles live on because they were basically sound. In the same way Beethoven, Mozart, Bach & co are still considered masters and there are few modern rivals -why? because they used most of the best musical ideas while they were fresh. New instruments and ideas arrive but not much new music can compare. It could be the same with golf courses. Another factor might be geography - a new golf course will usually take the best land leaving less and more remote locatons for the next lot. Take Royal Melbourne and the Sandbelt - there's about 6 other courses in the area but housing now covers what could be good sites. Or coastal sites which have been snapped up quickly. You have to have a very good (or remote, think Bandon or Sand Hills) modern course to knock off the old ones. IMHO.

[vallygolf]

This thread would get infinitely more interesting if @LICC would rate the top 100 courses in the world. Every list has bias. Most of us just prefer lists that feed our own bias. My opinion is any list by @LICC would feature more significant bias than the one discussed.