News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Patrick_Mucci

GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And why ?
« on: February 28, 2003, 07:15:59 PM »
Just received the GolfWeek edition listing the top 100 Classic and top 100 Modern ratings.

What surprises you about the ratings, and why ?

What courses that you've PLAYED, that aren't in the top 100, do you think deserve to be in the top 100, and why ?

What courses that you've PLAYED, that are in the top 100, do you think deserve to be removed from the top 100, and why ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2003, 08:13:31 PM »
I'm curious why no comment (yet) on Dunlop's White article on "accessories." It was slated for the America's Best issue, and though I haven't seen the printed issue (mine comes in the mail like everyone else's) I know it was supposed to be in there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Brendan Madigan

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2003, 08:42:55 PM »
Mr. Bradley Klein
I'm not a usaul particpant of this group and I'm unfortunately not even a Golfweek subscriber. I usually read it for free on the internet.

I do have some questions though about the process of becoming a rater.

*How the are votes are tabulated and in relation, as well as how many raters need to see it for it to become elgible?

*Does a course in a rural area like Montana, Wyoming, or the Dakota's have to have the same amount of raters visit as a course in a larger populus in Florida or New Jersey?

*I have seen your critieria on the website but how do you make sure that the raters all understand it the same to insure accuracy? Is diversity accepted?

*As with Apache Stronghold{BTW, A very good side article} you have removed them from consideration. Does this mean that all raters will have to visit the course again when it is improved?

*With all of the talk on this website about Hidden Creek in New Jersey and Rustic Canyon in California, how come they didn't get rated?

*Are raters allowed to be in the golf business? Can they be involved or remotely involved in golf course maintenance, design and construction?

I appreciate all the work you have done to accumulate such a list. I'm sure it is difficult to some degree.

Thanks,
Brendan
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2003, 08:57:39 PM »
Brendan;

You ask some good questions.  I won't speak for Mr. Klein, but in the case of Rustic Canyon and Hidden Creek, my sense is that not enough raters played those courses during their year of inception to be included.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2003, 09:31:27 PM »
I was surprised Atlantic moved up 40 places to #37 especially when you consider Nantucket and Old Kinderhook are not rated.

Kinloch at #10, it has to be one of the quitest great new course. With the universal praise given Kingsley I was surprised it was only #56. Based on the hype I would have thought these courses would've been in opposite positions.

Tom Fazio has 19 courses, Pete Dye 13 - What conclusion, if any, can we draw from this?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2003, 10:13:08 PM »
Pat,

My opinions on this topic are posted in the respective threads bearing their names.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Daryl "Turboe" Boe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2003, 10:56:12 PM »
I dont know if "surprises me" is the right topic, but this thread will have to do.

I was pleased to see my home club take another nice jump up in this years list.  Musgrove Mill GC went from 49 to 42 on the Modern list.  Does anyone have the ratings lists of every year going back since they started by chance?  Scott B. if you want to truely be our "Rain Man" I am sure you will know this.  I just was wondering I think Musgrove Mill has gone upwards in every list that has come out.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Instagram: @thequestfor3000

"Time spent playing golf is not deducted from ones lifespan."

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

ForkaB

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2003, 12:57:19 AM »
Patrick/Brad

As I implied on another thread on this general topic, the only course I have played which was glaring in its omission was Applebrook, which I would rate in the Top 10-20 New (comparing it very favorably to the several other top 10-20 "New" courses that I have played).

As an afterthought, I would also add two Harbottle tracks Stevinson Ranch and Cinnabar Hills (Huckaby is going to kill me for that latter mention!) as courses which are every bit as good as say #94 Barona Creek (which I have also played and is very good!).  If the inaugural King's Putter had been held at Stevinson rather than Barona, might not the GW rankings have been just a wee bit different......?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »
Logged

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2003, 08:03:14 AM »
Dave,

Thanks for the tip. Now I can post all my stupid remarks that seem to only make myself laugh under a pseudonym. I wish I could take back all my other posts.

Joe
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Jeff_Lewis (Guest)

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2003, 08:06:33 AM »
Proposal to Ran. From now on, only logged in people can post, and in order to log-in, one must use a real e-dress to which would be sent some sort of confirmation code. Enough of all this anonymous stuff.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2003, 08:16:19 AM »
Did I miss something, I didn't see Dunlop's article? Last years Top 100 issue was packed with interesting articles.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2003, 08:24:09 AM »
Dunlop's article was scheduled for the Golfweek issue, though perhaps it was pulled owing to space contraints. I don't know since I haven't gotten my copy. It's posted on the Golfweek.com Web site, though, as part of the America's Best package.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Lou Duran

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2003, 08:24:37 AM »
Aw, hell, let everybody play (unless there are some bandwith issues).  Variety is the spice of life (so they say), and even some of the less than learned opinions may provoke some thought.  On the other hand, Ran, tying the e-dress (I like that) to a name makes some sense in getting rid of the riff-raff, but unless it required an immediate confirmation back from the originator, how would you control that he is not sending you a working address that is not his own?  If it ain't broken don't fix it?

BTW, personally, I don't think that Pebble Beach belongs in the Top Ten.  But what do I know.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2003, 08:48:51 AM »
One positive surprise I got from reviewing the new lists was that the Kapalua Plantation course is finally getting its due!  

Ranked much too low at #84 as recently as 2001, the Plantation course is now moving up - all the way to #44.

I have been a big proponent of this excellent course and, IMHO, it should probably be in the top 25 (at least).  So nice job, Golfweek, the Plantation course is moving in the right direction!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Bob Stevenson

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2003, 09:17:03 AM »
Lou
What is your top 10?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

buckeye_bob

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2003, 09:20:16 AM »
I am stunned with Cassique's high ranking.The front is very artificial,however,holes(11-18)are minimalist,incorporating the unique 'Low Country/Feel of the South'.Holes #11&#15 are excellent(P5's),trully #15 is spectacular.Since this is Watson's first US design, perhaps levity is understood; however Sand Ridge(OH) and Colleton River(Dye) were wrongfully omitted.It appears well designed New Courses achieve Top'100' rankings but lose favor every subsequent rating.Is this a factor of the 'New Kid on The Block' or an accurate,individual comparison with previous '100' courses?How does the rater play all the Old/New courses within a (2)year interval?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike Hendren

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2003, 10:06:37 AM »
I am PLEASANTLY surprised at Holston Hills' lofty ranking at 35 among the classics.  Probably the poster child for "leave the damned golf course alone!"  Also a testament to Doak's sensitivity to classical architecture.  Its purity, superior routing and atypical (for Ross) quirk (double fairway at 7 and mounding at 15) could be easily overlooked by the less astute and its ranking gives credibility to the GolfWeek panelists, IMHO.  Hopefully, this ranking will deter those who would wish to stretch the course to accomodate technology >:(

I love Holston Hills. And - for the record once again, Donald Ross got jobbed in the Dead Architect's Survivor Series :' (Although Paul Turner has my attention when it comes to the winner, Mr. Colt.)

Regards,

Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike Hendren

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2003, 11:58:05 AM »
redanman,

Is it possible to attribute Augusta's lofty ranking to the genius of The Good Doctor notwithstanding its history as a science lab for its subsequent stewards?  Could any other classical course have withstood such tinkering, not to mention major surgery, and remained so highly ranked?  I believe it belongs in the company of such greats as PV, PB and CP but actually suffers, at least in the GCA mindset, from its excessive television exposure and its location in "flyover" country.  

I have spent only five days on the course during practice rounds and am astonished by the extent to which the course differs from its televised depiction.   Its strategic merit tends to be smothered by its aesthetics and conditioning, but it has it in spades, I'm guessing, for players of all skill levels.  

Regardless, no doubt MacKenzie provided Augusta with a great set of bones.

Regards,

Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Matt_Ward

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2003, 01:24:16 PM »
Pat:

A few comments ...

*Why is Skokie in Illinois NOT in the top 100 Classic? How does Shoreacres merit a top 30 position? Yes, the Raynor course has a few holes of note but where's the beef? Medinah #3 at #29? Really.

*I credit GW for getting Plainfield to the #30 position on the Classic listing, however, the course should be even higher when you consider that fellow metro area courses such as Fisher's Island, WF/ East and Quaker Ridge are all rated higher.

*Can't imagine how a superb public layout like Rustic Cayon FAILS to get enough rater support when the layout is located in the 2ND BIGGEST CITY IN THE USA! Must be tough to find the directions to Moorpark. ::)

*How does Interlachen and White Bear Yacht Club, both from Minnesota, crack the top 50 and Hazeltine doesn't even finish among the top 100 for Modern?

*Can someone explain to me the appeal of these courses?
Champions / Cypress Creek
Both courses at Saucon Valley
Firestone / South
Cherry Hills

*How does Augusta National continue to be rated so high? Isn't the layout really getting brownie points because it hosts the Masters? Do too many raters look like deer in the headlights when the subject of ANGC comes up for discussion?

*How does Shinnecock Hills not crack the top three courses in the USA? In my opinion -- it's #1 but it should be no lower than the first three.

*I like Pebble Beach but agree somewhat with Lou Duran -- I'd have the course more towards the rear of the top ten instead of it finishing in the top half.

*Can't imagine that Prairie Dunes and Fisher's Island are rated #11 & #12 respectively and that WF/ West and Riviera finished a bit way further down at #16 & #23 respectively. You will not find more thorough examinations of the complete golf game than at WF / West and Riviera.

*Can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Tom
MacWood -- how come Olde Kinderhook, just outside Albany, NY didn't crack the top 100 modern? It's a first rate layout and one of the finest Rees Jones has ever done and no less in quality than Atlantic and Huntsville which were both included.

*How does Ocean Hammock -- the superb Jack Nicklaus course in Florida not crack the top 10 public listing for the Sunshine State and the top 100 listing modern?

Just a few comments for now ...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Ken Fujioka

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2003, 02:30:43 PM »
Matt Ward

* More thorough examination = harder

* Golf Digest used to indentify the 100 Toughest, I'm under the impression GW is focused on architecture.

* Riviera is being punished for disrespecting George Thomas. WF-W is very testing, but lacks variety and charm.

* What is compelling about Hazeltine's architecture? The course lacks character.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike_Sweeney

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2003, 02:53:48 PM »
78. Whippoorwill Club (p)*
Armonk, N.Y.

On the Classical list, I was very excited to see Whippoorwill debut. I have had the pleasure of playing there once a year or so with a friend who is a member. I have said to him a number of times what a great course it is. It is an interesting piece of property sitting on a some hilly rolling terrain. The front is classic Westchester through trees and hills. The back has some holes that can actually be classified as "heathland". I have not seen Fenway yet, but the secret appears to have finally gotten out on Whippoorwill which has done work to its course and has also built a new clubhouse in recent years.

It is typically credited to Ross, but I know there is alot on Banks there too. Does anyone know the details?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2003, 03:13:53 PM »
I am surprised by the fact Rustic is not included.

I feel that when people say "golf needs more courses like this", it is taken to mean that we need more inexpensive public courses.

Fro me, it means we need more world-class courses, which exudes wonderful architecture, strategy and playing conditions.

Rustic is as strong a course and I have seen so far this year, and that puts it high on any list for me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Buck Wolter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2003, 03:15:15 PM »
I was pleasantly surprised by Arcadia Bluffs high debut. It'll be interesting to see how AB and The Kingsley Club progress over time.
Disappointed however to learn AB has hit the $200 mark for the coming year, I always benchmarked it that I'd rather play Arcadia three times than Pebble once for the same money. Not sure about less than twice.

Locally I wonder where Bellerive would have been had the WGC event not been cancelled after Sept. 11, I think it should be higher than it is.

Buck
Buck
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience -- CS Lewis

hickorygolfer

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2003, 03:37:53 PM »
The Kingsley vs Arcadia ratings are interesting. Is it more common for the raters to choose style over substance? Or did fewer raters visit Kingsley?
R
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

guest

Re: GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And w
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2003, 03:52:19 PM »
I thought Golfweek raters could only submit ratings for courses they have played in the prior year.  Does Augusta get that much play from GW raters? and Rustic Canyon does not?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back