I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this.
Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?
As a member of several of the clubs on the list I disagree with the guesses. I find this list to have too much groupthink. Only a few of the raters, played my courses this past year and made a judgement. Why should I care?
I am a panelist btw.
For the record, I am a panelist. Take the opinions of well-traveled members over mine as a panelist. They know the courses better and can have a more developed opinion.
Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?
The restoration was 12 years ago, so that's had plenty of time to take hold. It was #35 before the restoration; since 2013 it's been 19, 20, 13, 12, 10 on this list, with no major changes in that time. Incidentally, Riviera has gone from 21 to 14 in the same time period with no major changes. Maybe SoCal is just getting its due. To me, LACC at #10 is not obviously overrated.
I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this.
That is just not how it works. Very few of the raters would have played Augusta National in the past two years, or changed their grade on it if they did. So it's probable that a few panelists [maybe but probably not the same ones referenced above] went back to Sand Hills or saw it for the first time, and gave it their highest rating. The way the voting works, it's really about how many panelists vote for each course among their top three, and "top 3" is a very arbitrary and fickle list.
Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?
I suspect that part of the reason is that the renovations to greens like the 8th at Pebble have not been warmly received, so Pebble Beach has fallen a bit in some people's minds. [I haven't seen the changes myself.] But Augusta, Pebble and Pinehurst are all courses that have been resting a little on their forever status as top-10 courses, and panelists today are a little less scared to question that status than they used to be.
I have read your book too many times to know how smart you are. I consider you to be a true genius! In other words, your opinion counts for more than mine.
I found the switching of places between Sand Hills and ANGC interesting, as I'd be curious to know what raters saw or experienced different between the two to warrant this.
That is just not how it works. Very few of the raters would have played Augusta National in the past two years, or changed their grade on it if they did. So it's probable that a few panelists [maybe but probably not the same ones referenced above] went back to Sand Hills or saw it for the first time, and gave it their highest rating. The way the voting works, it's really about how many panelists vote for each course among their top three, and "top 3" is a very arbitrary and fickle list.
Second, is LACC (North's) ascension in the rankings over Pebble and Pinehurst #2 more to do with it being the latest restoration darling or its genuine improvement to both of these classic courses?
I suspect that part of the reason is that the renovations to greens like the 8th at Pebble have not been warmly received, so Pebble Beach has fallen a bit in some people's minds. [I haven't seen the changes myself.] But Augusta, Pebble and Pinehurst are all courses that have been resting a little on their forever status as top-10 courses, and panelists today are a little less scared to question that status than they used to be.
I have read your book too many times to know how smart you are. I consider you to be a true genius! In other words, your opinion counts for more than mine.
Jake, you kind of blow-up your own argument in this last statement :) Like you, I'd value Doak's one play of a course more than a casual member's 100x plays of that same course. So for this list, do you value the opinions of the panellists listed, knowing that for a lot of them, tehy probably only saw the courses they rank once or twice?
https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/ (https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/)
If yes, then you'll probably find the list as a nice guide of courses worth seeking out if that's your thing. If not, then this list is just a random ranking of courses :)
As a member of several of the clubs on the list I disagree with the guesses. I find this list to have too much groupthink. Only a few of the raters, played my courses this past year and made a judgement. Why should I care?
I tend to trust people who are well-traveled and belong to X and Y, to give their judgment on X vs Y rather. the person who is well traveled and played each once. Or let's say there were three, and to that: weigh opinions don't just count them.
I am a panelist btw.
For the record, I am a panelist. Take the opinions of well-traveled members over mine as a panelist. They know the courses better and can have a more developed opinion.
I think that's a major part of the problem. While I'm a huge fan of just about all golden age arhcies and courses and am a member at one, I feel too much defernce is given to them in the rankings simply because, well, they're old and revered because of it. Does it necessarily equivocate still to the best examples we have of great golf architecture in the U.S. despite the plethora of excellent courses that followed them - in particular those built the past two plus decades? And if Pine Valley is the "gold standard" by which all other courses in the U.S. are judged, then what type of course needs to be designed/built that hasn't to date in order to surpass it? Is this even achievable?
Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.
Ciao
I think that's a major part of the problem. While I'm a huge fan of just about all golden age arhcies and courses and am a member at one, I feel too much defernce is given to them in the rankings simply because, well, they're old and revered because of it. Does it necessarily equivocate still to the best examples we have of great golf architecture in the U.S. despite the plethora of excellent courses that followed them - in particular those built the past two plus decades? And if Pine Valley is the "gold standard" by which all other courses in the U.S. are judged, then what type of course needs to be designed/built that hasn't to date in order to surpass it? Is this even achievable?
Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.
Ciao
I think much of the problem is the lens through which courses are evaluated. IMO, history and longevity should not even factor into a courses rating. It should be viewed from the perspective that if every course in the country had been deigned and built today, where would it rank - all amenities aside if we're approaching this purely from a design and playability perspective.
Again, I'll go back to my argument given the group of uber talented designers we have in existence today, the knowledge they've gained from studying the past legendary course architects, the techology and tools they have at their disposal and the massive budgets some have to work with on certain projects; how is it we've not been able to design a course in this country more challenging, aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable than the Top 10 courses in the rankings - Sand Hills nothwithstanding?
I would hope politics doesn't play into this, but as with many things in the life, I'm sure there's some element of that involved here as well.
Mike-Just to play devil’s advocate is there a modern in your opinion that surpasses Pine Valley?Tim, I've not had the pleasure or opportunity to play PV, but it's on the bucket list. Know that I'm not trying to diminish its significance or place in the pantheon of golf course architecture. From all accounts I've read and images/videos I've seen, it's stunning and impressive without a doubt. All I'm saying is that in the 100+ years since it's been built are we really saying nothing that's come after it measures up and that PV is the holy grail of U.S. golf course architecture still to this day? That could very well be the case and I'll be totally accepting of it if it is. But I question if some of the courses built the last 30 years are being held back in the rankings simply due to their lack of longevity and history and aren't being judged on a level playing field?
I think that's a major part of the problem. While I'm a huge fan of just about all golden age arhcies and courses and am a member at one, I feel too much defernce is given to them in the rankings simply because, well, they're old and revered because of it. Does it necessarily equivocate still to the best examples we have of great golf architecture in the U.S. despite the plethora of excellent courses that followed them - in particular those built the past two plus decades? And if Pine Valley is the "gold standard" by which all other courses in the U.S. are judged, then what type of course needs to be designed/built that hasn't to date in order to surpass it? Is this even achievable?
Isn't the essence of panels groupthink? Opinions get boiled down to one voice.
Ciao
I think much of the problem is the lens through which courses are evaluated. IMO, history and longevity should not even factor into a courses rating. It should be viewed from the perspective that if every course in the country had been deigned and built today, where would it rank - all amenities aside if we're approaching this purely from a design and playability perspective.
Again, I'll go back to my argument given the group of uber talented designers we have in existence today, the knowledge they've gained from studying the past legendary course architects, the techology and tools they have at their disposal and the massive budgets some have to work with on certain projects; how is it we've not been able to design a course in this country more challenging, aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable than the Top 10 courses in the rankings - Sand Hills nothwithstanding?
I would hope politics doesn't play into this, but as with many things in the life, I'm sure there's some element of that involved here as well.
Mike-Just to play devil’s advocate is there a modern in your opinion that surpasses Pine Valley?Tim, I've not had the pleasure or opportunity to play PV, but it's on the bucket list. Know that I'm not trying to diminish its significance or place in the pantheon of golf course architecture. From all accounts I've read and images/videos I've seen, it's stunning and impressive without a doubt. All I'm saying is that in the 100+ years since it's been built are we really saying nothing that's come after it measures up and that PV is the holy grail of U.S. golf course architecture still to this day? That could very well be the case and I'll be totally accepting of it if it is. But I question if some of the courses built the last 30 years are being held back in the rankings simply due to their lack of longevity and history and aren't being judged on a level playing field?
I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.
I don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.Totally agree with your take on The Loop for the reasons mentioned in a topic you posted on your experience playing there.
Ciao
I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.
I agree 100% that it's difficult, if not impossible, to throw out and ignore history when evaluating and ranking golden age courses. It's an element of their charm and appeal.QuoteI don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.Totally agree with your take on The Loop for the reasons mentioned in a topic you posted on your experience playing there.
Ciao
BTW, I hope you had a chance to make it to Lafayette Coney Island downtown Detroit during your travels to our state. It's an icon of the city, as is American Coney Island adjacent to it. Had I known you and Ally would be there this summer I would have invited you both to play Sylvania CC as my guests. Cheers!
I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.
I agree 100% that it's difficult, if not impossible, to throw out and ignore history when evaluating and ranking golden age courses. It's an element of their charm and appeal.QuoteI don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.Totally agree with your take on The Loop for the reasons mentioned in a topic you posted on your experience playing there.
Ciao
BTW, I hope you had a chance to make it to Lafayette Coney Island downtown Detroit during your travels to our state. It's an icon of the city, as is American Coney Island adjacent to it. Had I known you and Ally would be there this summer I would have invited you both to play Sylvania CC as my guests. Cheers!
I always make it to Lafeyettes when in Detroit. A few weeks later it was shut down for health reasons!
Ciao
I tend to agree with you about throwing out legacy, history, reputation, championship history etc when evaluating a course. Although, I think that is harder done than said.
I agree 100% that it's difficult, if not impossible, to throw out and ignore history when evaluating and ranking golden age courses. It's an element of their charm and appeal.QuoteI don't know how much the walk, efficiency of design, max use of a limited size property effects many raters, but for me these elements add up to a degree of charm which many modern courses lack. I think that is just the way it is with modern design..health and safety, eye candy, bigger budgets etc. So sure, all things being equal, I can easily see myself siding for some of the classic courses. However, this is where The Loop seriously shines. In my eyes it's a modern masterpiece. But it lacks the bells and whistles of what gets modern courses ranked highly. Its a shame, but that's the reality. As always, I say just go with what you like. Anybody who has been around a few decades playing golf and reasonably aware of what's going on doesn't need a top 100 to guide them.Totally agree with your take on The Loop for the reasons mentioned in a topic you posted on your experience playing there.
Ciao
BTW, I hope you had a chance to make it to Lafayette Coney Island downtown Detroit during your travels to our state. It's an icon of the city, as is American Coney Island adjacent to it. Had I known you and Ally would be there this summer I would have invited you both to play Sylvania CC as my guests. Cheers!
I always make it to Lafeyettes when in Detroit. A few weeks later it was shut down for health reasons!
Ciao
This only confirms my suspicion that I was pretty lucky to survive some of the places you took me to.
Ultimately if you look the ratings really separate themselves in the top 10-20, a bit 20-50, and after 50 its almost splitting hairs. For instance, for Golf Digest the gap between 1 PV at 72 points and Fishers at 9 (66.47 points) is as big as the gap between 9 and 100 (Spring hill at 61.0191 points). Thats why a few ratings can really tip things in the 40-100 range. Ultimately that's why I prefer a Doak scale type exercise to a top 100 list.
By the way, Tom can correct me if I am wrong but I am sure Tom Doak’s personal Top 100 list looks very different from GM’s Top 100 list. Given we all respect Tom’s opinions, does that make the GM list null and void ;)
By the way, Tom can correct me if I am wrong but I am sure Tom Doak’s personal Top 100 list looks very different from GM’s Top 100 list. Given we all respect Tom’s opinions, does that make the GM list null and void ;)
I don't really have a personal top 100 list. And I kind of resent that the GOLF Magazine voting system makes me try to have one, when I am much more comfortable with giving out my 10's, 9's, 8's, and 7's. Those are subjective, too, but they are a little less precise, and better for it.
I've thought about quitting the panel as Ian says he is going to do, but I keep getting guilted into staying on because I have seen a lot of the contenders in the places where fewer people travel, and they need every vote they can get to have a quorum.
Mr. Doak, should my opinion of say a good course in Michigan that I've play 100x be more informed than a course in Augusta that I played 2 years ago through some lucky invite? I don't agree that each opinion carries equal weight.
8)
Having played the wonderfully designed and maintained Sand Hills multiple times (54 in one day lol) ...thank to all you members...it has great architecture, an incredible site , great hospitality but it it just isn't quite Pine Valley. Crump lived his dream like no other that has followed
so I wouldn't be surprised if PVGC holds the top spot for a long long time
Tom,
It seems like they just take it one extra step...take that list of 7 thru 10s (regardless of the criteria used for that process) and sort them in a list, more or less.
P.S. I presume you keep your list of courses is in a xls somewhere, pretty easy to select all, and sort by DS... largest to smallest? :D
| Alotian (Roland, Ark.) |
| Atlantic — Bridgehampton, N.Y. |
| Augusta Country Club (Augusta, Ga.) |
| Austin Golf Club — Austin, Texas |
| Baltusrol (Upper) — Springfield, N.J. |
| Beverly — Chicago, Ill. |
| Blackwolf Run – River — Kohler, Wisc. |
| Blind Brook Golf Club — Purchase, N.Y. |
| Bloomfield Hills — Bloomfield Hills, Mich. |
| Boston Golf Club — Hingham, Mass. |
| Brook Hollow — Dallas, Texas |
| Canterbury — Beachwood, Ohio |
| Cascades (Upper) (Hot Springs, Va.) |
| Castle Pines — Castle Rock, Colo. |
| CC of Fairfield — Fairfield, Conn. |
| Cedar Rapids — Cedar Rapids, Iowa |
| Challenge at Manele Bay — Lanai City, Hawaii |
| Chambers Bay — University Place, Wash. |
| Charlotte Country Club (Charlotte, N.C.) |
| Chechessee Creek (Okatie, S.C.) |
| Clear Creek — Carson City, Nev. |
| Colorado Golf Club — Parker, Colo. |
| Concession (Bradenton, Fla.) |
| Country Club of Charleston (Charleston, S.C.) |
| Desert Forest — Carefree, Ariz. |
| Diablo — Diablo, Calif. |
| Dismal River – Red — Mullen, Neb. |
| Dormie Club (West End, N.C.) |
| East Lake (Atlanta, Ga.) |
| Entrada — St. George, Utah |
Erin Hills — Erin, Wisc.[/t][/size]
|
Having never been to Pine Valley, I can't comment on the merits of the course. However, from the photos I have seen, I am surprised that raters don't hold (what appears to be) a massive encroachment of trees against it. I know some people love trees on golf courses and the feeling of isolation that can create from one hole to the next. When I think about my own list of favorite courses, it isn't until I get to Yale at #11 that I find a course with an abundance of trees. And at 11, it has moved up quite a bit from where it was prior to all the tree clearing. Newport moved up significantly for me when they knocked out a ton of trees/gorse, as did Kittansett. Same is true with the Country Club. Is Pine Valley so insanely good that even with what looks to me like claustrophobic overgrowth it's still better than every other course in the world?Dan,
Well there appears to be one huge error on the regional lists:
Salem Golf Club, North Salem, NY
I don't know anything about this course. But I suspect the Salem that people voted for was the perennial top-100 contender on the north side of Boston.
Well there appears to be one huge error on the regional lists:
Salem Golf Club, North Salem, NY
I don't know anything about this course. But I suspect the Salem that people voted for was the perennial top-100 contender on the north side of Boston.
I only noticed this error because in looking through Michael Chadwick's pretend list of courses 101-200, it seemed like the northeast was under-represented . . . I kept thinking there were plenty of courses around Boston and Philadelphia that I would rate higher than half the courses listed. In fact, I suspect many of them DID finish higher, but if you only take 50 from each region, that's what Michael's list on the last page gives you.
The recent presentation about Woodhall Spa by Richard Latham at the BUDA is one piece of evidence demonstrating that rankings have a direct impact on decisions courses make.
I periodically hear folks say, "We did this work so that we can climb in the rankings." I don't always understand it, but it is true, nevertheless.
;D Tommy, I believe that is Sociology 101, folks change their behavior when the know they're being watched or ranked! Gotta keep up with the neighbors be they next door or on a list... How're you going to interest golfers or Tournament Sponsors or puff out your chest?
I get amuzed by the rankings and their insignificant decimal points forcing order... I'll always remember Brad Klein's remarks at a GW Raters School we attended in Biloxi a long time ago, what's the overall take-away thoughts? Write them down ASAP, you'll need them to differentiate course numerical ratings and follow your point of view.
It’s enough of the same with a pinch more different than the above.
It’s enough of the same with a pinch more different than the above.
I get the architecture part (from the posts, it looks like a very good take off of Ballyneal), but how do enough raters see it so close to the publication of the list? Can that few people in that amount of time drive the rankings? (a rhetorical question).
Ira
Steve,
I completely accept your assessment. I was going by the photos which always is imprecise. I hope to make it to Landmand and Caprock. My comment was intended to make clear that I was not judging the merits of the course.
My question was only about process. How is there enough time between a course opening a couple of months ago and making the rankings? Isn't there a minimum number of raters that need to evaluate a course?
Thanks.
Steve,
I completely accept your assessment. I was going by the photos which always is imprecise. I hope to make it to Landmand and Caprock. My comment was intended to make clear that I was not judging the merits of the course.
My question was only about process. How is there enough time between a course opening a couple of months ago and making the rankings? Isn't there a minimum number of raters that need to evaluate a course?
Thanks.
I have been helping Landmand with PR and rater relations. We worked closely with Golf Digest to try to get a quora of their raters there, and Vaughn is a Golf magazine rater and has taken several of his fellows to see the course.
Adam and Steve,
Thanks for the fulsome information. I am envious of all of you who get to travel and play so frequently. We are pretty fortunate to get to see some great courses, but not to the same extent as some of you.
Ira
As Adam mentioned, Vaughn was energetic about attracting a healthy # of GOLF Magazine panelists to visit. Ultimately, approximately a dozen panelists have played the course (>10% of the Panel) Most of the experienced amongst us scheduled enough time to play Landmand multiple times. Panelists I played with found the 2nd round even more revealing and informative than the first. It helped that we were fortunate to play with Rob Collins.
The last few posts have really caught me off guard. Is the the hiring of a consultant to coordinate with publications to get a course rated a common thing? Is this part of the checklist for opening a new course these days? I genuinely don’t have s clue and I’d like to know more.
As Adam mentioned, Vaughn was energetic about attracting a healthy # of GOLF Magazine panelists to visit. Ultimately, approximately a dozen panelists have played the course (>10% of the Panel) Most of the experienced amongst us scheduled enough time to play Landmand multiple times. Panelists I played with found the 2nd round even more revealing and informative than the first. It helped that we were fortunate to play with Rob Collins.
So you all stayed there longer and played multiple rounds [including with the architect], and the course still didn't make the top 100?
As Adam mentioned, Vaughn was energetic about attracting a healthy # of GOLF Magazine panelists to visit. Ultimately, approximately a dozen panelists have played the course (>10% of the Panel) Most of the experienced amongst us scheduled enough time to play Landmand multiple times. Panelists I played with found the 2nd round even more revealing and informative than the first. It helped that we were fortunate to play with Rob Collins.
So you all stayed there longer and played multiple rounds [including with the architect], and the course still didn't make the top 100?
Steve,
I completely accept your assessment. I was going by the photos which always is imprecise. I hope to make it to Landmand and Caprock. My comment was intended to make clear that I was not judging the merits of the course.
My question was only about process. How is there enough time between a course opening a couple of months ago and making the rankings? Isn't there a minimum number of raters that need to evaluate a course?
Thanks.
I have been helping Landmand with PR and rater relations. We worked closely with Golf Digest to try to get a quora of their raters there, and Vaughn is a Golf magazine rater and has taken several of his fellows to see the course.
As Adam mentioned, Vaughn was energetic about attracting a healthy # of GOLF Magazine panelists to visit. Ultimately, approximately a dozen panelists have played the course (>10% of the Panel) Most of the experienced amongst us scheduled enough time to play Landmand multiple times. Panelists I played with found the 2nd round even more revealing and informative than the first. It helped that we were fortunate to play with Rob Collins.
Is there a minimum number and/or percentage of raters that need to rate the course in order for it to qualify? I could not find that information on the GD or GM websites.
The small number is precisely how the process got corrupted years ago . . . one of the panelists was found to be taking large [as in $$$,$$$ or even $,$$$,$$$] cash payments from certain new courses overseas, and then arranging for certain panelists to be the first to see those new courses. Everyone involved should be very wary of such chummy arrangements.Good to see the "pay to play" mode of doing business is still alive and well, TD. LOL! I and I'm sure, others, appreciate your candidness on the subject. This just reinforces why I prefer sites such as this where people passionate about golf course architecture come together and have (typically) civil debates about their likes, dislikes, what's good and what isn't from an informed point of view and by doing so allow others to form educated conclusions from there, as opposed to putting 100% faith in the raters and panelists that work for the leading industry publications knowing a certain percentage of them are compromised by influence.
For GOLF DIGEST, with their panel being 5x to 10x larger, I think it takes 25 votes to be eligible for the best new course of the year, and more than that to be eligible for the top 100 in America. But it's easier to have a higher minimum for American courses than it is if you are trying to get people to go to Thailand, France, Vietnam, etc. [Even so, I remember the GOLF DIGEST panelist who told me an architect arranged a private jet trip to take a few panelists to see some of his work across the Rocky Mountain states . . . so influence is alive and well in all these rankings.]
Is there a minimum number and/or percentage of raters that need to rate the course in order for it to qualify? I could not find that information on the GD or GM websites.
For GOLF Magazine, it used to be ten panelists, and I would guess that's still the number, as it is hard to get more than that to go to a remote spot in short order. Many new courses / architects / publicists then try to make sure not only that they get enough people there, but they also start thinking about managing who those ten panelists are, to find the ones who are most likely to like the course. [That sort of happens naturally, anyway . . . the first people to go and see my new course in New Zealand will be the ones who already like my work or love Tara Iti.]
The small number is precisely how the process got corrupted years ago . . . one of the panelists was found to be taking large [as in $$$,$$$ or even $,$$$,$$$] cash payments from certain new courses overseas, and then arranging for certain panelists to be the first to see those new courses. Everyone involved should be very wary of such chummy arrangements.
For GOLF DIGEST, with their panel being 5x to 10x larger, I think it takes 25 votes to be eligible for the best new course of the year, and more than that to be eligible for the top 100 in America. But it's easier to have a higher minimum for American courses than it is if you are trying to get people to go to Thailand, France, Vietnam, etc. [Even so, I remember the GOLF DIGEST panelist who told me an architect arranged a private jet trip to take a few panelists to see some of his work across the Rocky Mountain states . . . so influence is alive and well in all these rankings.]
good point