New World Top 100 Courses Ranking Golf Magazine

[jwellefson1]

That's a good question Ari, I honestly think that it has its ups and downs. I think it gives a lot of flexibility, because some people will inevitably have one style they prefer over the other. Some people are big Fazio/Nicklaus design fans, others prefer a lot of minimalist or golden age design styles. I definitely like it because it gives courses like Philly Cricket a great place to shine, where it may not be a Top 100 in the world but it is a true classic and great place for a round. The way that it sort of rubs me the wrong way is how do courses like Oak Hill factor in? A classic Ross ripped apart by Fazio twice, and is now getting restored in hopes of bringing that Ross feel back. Oak Hill was a classic course, and is a club filled with history, but the design is definitely not Classic anymore (hopefully Andrew Green fixes it). The other way I feel it isn't the best is for courses designed by Coore and Crenshaw or Doak. They're meant to feel classic, they're meant to feel old school. For example if I compared Dormie Club to Caves Valley they are incredibly different. CV has a Ritzy feel, a whole village for a "clubhouse", and beautiful conditioning. Dormie is minimalist, their halfway house is one you'd expect at a Muni, and the conditioning is not pristine. That said if I had ten rounds to split I would play 8 at Dormie. Both of them are modern but both of them are so different. I would personally struggle to rank Dormie among the other modern courses I've played, just because it is so different from the other Fazio/Nicklaus courses I've played.

[LICC]

Golfweek splits the lists but it does give numerical scores to each course. Couldn’t someone compare across lists pretty easily?

[FairwayFred]

The only other place I've seen it is Doaks Gourmet Choices in his Confidential Guide. Only one course per architect. Definitely alot of courses in those that wouldn't be in his 31 overall favorites which makes it a neat list to look at.

[LICC]

You think Golf Magazine’s ranking is better if it aligns with your biases. I think it would be better if it had more varied input that didn’t skew heavily towards any bias, especially given Golf Magazine’s prominence in the golf world. I also think your bias underrates newer courses and certain architects without good reason.

[LICC]

Bad analogy. In football, teams have win-loss records which are the defining measurement of the teams.

[Schley]

That isn't the point, the point is that Bill Belichick who many think is the greatest coach ever is trusting this player to perform for him. His reputation and record is affected by this player, thus there is no higher endorsement. I don't have to ask him why this player is playing, he doesn't have to justify to me anything, because he is there it cuts through that hurdle.

[Schley]

True it is a nice feature of TCG.

[Roadking2003]

 

I agree. Frankly, most of us can't tell the difference between a course ranked #20 vs a course ranked #40.

When I rank the top 100 that I have played, I have trouble deciding between courses outside my top 40.

 

 

 

[Roadking2003]

Absolutely!

Similarly, you could rank walking courses separate from riding courses.

 

 

 

[Roadking2003]

Over half of all golf courses in the world are in the USA so you would expect that a similar percent of top rated courses would be in the USA.

[FairwayFred]

That's a good idea I'd like to see that ranking. The only issue would be determining which list some courses end up on.

[FairwayFred]

45% of the worlds courses r in the USA and 79/150 of this list is in the USA. Not a huge statistical variance but a small one. Id bet other world lists are more USA centric but I haven't actually checked to see.

[LICC]

Alan Shipnuck, Golf Magazine writer, thoughts on the rankings:

Some overrated courses plummeted, as they should have: Nine Bridges, Trump Aberdeen, Oakland Hills. Others fell off the list entirely, deservedly: Baltusrol Lower, Yas Links, Oitavos Dunes. I *love* some of the courses that are new to the Top 100, especially Sleepy Hollow, Bandon Trails and Yale. Of course I have quibbles: Cape Wickham at 60 is waaay too low. That Royal St. George’s is higher than Cruden Bay and North Berwick West is an abomination. Cape Kidnappers ahead of New South Wales? C’mon. Whistling Straits ahead of Kingsbarns? I think not. And I’m going to have a problem with any Top 100 that doesn’t include MPCC Shore. But second-guessing is what makes these lists so fun

[Schley]

So LICC is sleeping I take it?

[LICC]

? Please explain.

[Schley]

My other guess was out shopping on black friday.

[Roadking2003]

Any time a course goes from #46 two years ago to #100 today you have to question the new ratings. Basically, Morrissett is saying the 2017 raters didn't know how to rate courses.

[hollabachgt]

I may be wrong, but after Morrissett created a ballot and sent it out to the raters did he take the results of those ballots and modify them based upon how he wanted the rankings to appear? If not how is a course falling 54 spots equate to Morrissett making a statement vs. the pool of raters collectively evaluating a course? Considering the course in question at 46, it's hard to draw any conclusions about what the raters are trying to say. This applies to most courses, as you pointed out earlier, after a certain point in the rankings it becomes extremely hard to differentiate one course from the next.

[LICC]

Morrissett drastically changed the pool of raters, and he wrote how the new rater pool resulted in dramatic shifts in the rankings.

[raynorfan1]

If you look at (and think about) the methodology that Golf used this time around, it helps you understand some of what LICC and others perceive as "bias". I tend to agree that the data model is structured to favor older courses.

The panel is presented a ballot of 430 eligible courses, which they then "group" into buckets of:

Top 3 (100)

4 - 11 (85)

11 - 25 (75)

26 - 50 (60)

51 - 75 (50)

76 - 100 (40)

101 - 150 (30)

150 - 200 (20)

201 - 250 (10)

251+ (0)

Each course is assigned the number of points associated with its "bucket" and then the total points received are averaged. The average rater voted on 191 courses (giving 20 points to their lowest rated courses). The interesting thing here is that for raters who have seen a lot of courses, they can't have much influence on the top of the rankings - their Top 3 are worth no more than anybody else's - but they can murder a course deeper down.

Take any bubble course. Say 3/4ths of the panel have seen it. Sixty raters. Ten think it's 25th - 50th (+600 points); twenty think it's Top 75 (+1,000 points); twenty think it's Top 150 (+600 points); ten think it is the worst course they've ever played (zero points). That's going to get you an average of 36 points, which is not good enough to be in the Top 100, despite half of all raters putting it in the Top 75, and ten who put it in the Top 50. But...what if those ten who thought it was the worst course they had ever played had only played 150 courses (less than average)? In that case, you get to 41.666 points...and probably into the Top 100.

If I'm a well traveled rater, and I've "only" seen 150 courses, is there any chance that The Old Course isn't among them? I don't think so. When you get to guys who have seen 250+...those are the ones who can 'vote' for lesser-known courses, but they're also the only guys who can give a lower score to them.

[tboh]

Mind-numbing to most chops (including me) ... but i love trying to decipher all of the debating, arguing & quantifying about it

If anybody ever needs an impartial golf ho to tag along & be a tiebreaker please feel free to message at any time

?️‍♂️⛳

[LICC]

Based on planetgolf scores, some of the courses significantly overrated include: Brookline, Royal Birkdale, Garden City, Postmarnock, Southern Hills, Royal Troon, Camargo, Bethpage, Royal Lytham, Maidstone, Royal Liverpool, Inverness, Yale, and Peachtree.

Courses that appear significantly underrated: Royal Melbourne East, Barnbougle Lost Farm, St. George's Hill, Ellerston, Kingsbarns, Whistling Straits, Castle Stuart, Cape Wickham, Teeth of the Dog, Ballyneal, Swinley Forest, Barnbougle Dunes, Kingston Heath

[Roadking2003]

"The average rater voted on 191 courses "

This could also be a problem. It is unlikely that these raters have played 191 or more courses out of the 430 recently. So unless they are taking copious notes every time they play, they are relying on long ago memory to make their selections.

 

[raynorfan1]

In what world is Planet Golf some kind of gold standard?

[raynorfan1]

I agree that this is a real issue with the way that Golf Magazine has structured the ratings. For example, I know one rater who voted on my home course but last played it more than 30(!) years (and two significant renovations) ago.

[LICC]

Ha! It is another perspective, from someone who is quite studied in the area and who has designed one of the most highly regarded modern courses in the world. It is not a gold standard but it is a reputable opinion.

[raynorfan1]

IMHO it loses all credibility in rating Cape Wickham #11...Hmm, a bit arrogant to name my one course ever a "Top 10 in the World" design...so #11 sounds good!

[Schley]

To disagree with the results of the ranking is one thing, to accuse Ran/GM of manipulating the results their stated methodology delivered is entirely another and uncalled for cheap shot with no basis.

[Schley]

What exactly do you think everyone else in the world, including all of us use? I don't take a lot of notes, although I keep some small ones, but nowhere near being able to write up a review.

[Schley]

Have you played Cape Wickham? If so please share your thoughts on it.