News:

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


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #225 on: November 02, 2020, 08:37:04 PM »
Did a quick review by some architects

Doak
6 OD  + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes



I don't think they should list Redesign & Restoration credits at all, but I have actually done work on seventeen of the courses on the list, plus the six I designed or co-designed.  I'm honestly not sure which three they are giving me credit for, or why!

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #226 on: November 02, 2020, 09:28:45 PM »
Tom

The 6 OD from you / your assoc. + co-design
Bandon (Pacific Dunes)
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Bandon (Old Macdonald)
Streamsong (Blue)
Sebonack


That 9 in the list was my take on things. Some magazines list a lot of redesigns and restoration work while others don't.

The other 3 being:
Somerset Hills
Pasatiempo
Palmetto









William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #227 on: November 02, 2020, 10:17:15 PM »
Tom

The 6 OD from you / your assoc. + co-design
Bandon (Pacific Dunes)
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Bandon (Old Macdonald)
Streamsong (Blue)
Sebonack


That 9 in the list was my take on things. Some magazines list a lot of redesigns and restoration work while others don't.

The other 3 being:
Somerset Hills
Pasatiempo
Palmetto


who would be best to do R&R work on any of TD's ODs?  ::)
It's all about the golf!

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #228 on: November 03, 2020, 06:09:54 AM »
Did a quick review by some architects

Doak
6 OD  + 3 RR
1 Top20 = Pacific Dunes



 


I don't think they should list Redesign & Restoration credits at all, but I have actually done work on seventeen of the courses on the list, plus the six I designed or co-designed.  I'm honestly not sure which three they are giving me credit for, or why!


Is that really fair to the likes of a Kyle Phillips, near wholly redesigning the likes of the Cal Club or Wilshire CC? Or Gil's work at Sleepy Hollow, Mike Stranz & Jackson/Kahn at MPCC?


Restoration work, sure...give the originals their due, but aren't near wholesale redesigns a fresh and original work of art?
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #229 on: November 03, 2020, 07:19:59 AM »
They just posted the list by architect on the Golf website. I would include a link if I knew how. They go give a few, but only a few, modern architects credit for work on courses originally designed by others. A couple mentioned by Steve are included.


Ira

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #230 on: November 03, 2020, 07:26:50 AM »
Here's the link to the Golf.com article Ira referenced in his post.


https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-architect/



"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #231 on: November 03, 2020, 07:53:06 AM »
To demonstrate how little difference there is among the cream of the cream, they also list the Top 50 by four regions. On a quick read, there is quite a bit of difference where a course in the overall Top 100 lands in its respective regional ranking.


Ira

Buck Wolter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #232 on: November 03, 2020, 07:53:20 AM »
Embedded video with 'The Man' himself discussing the process.



https://golf.com/travel/top-100-course-raters-panelists/


Check out the rater profiles with a last name starting with H!


edit -- fixed font


« Last Edit: November 03, 2020, 08:21:04 AM by Buck Wolter »
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

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #233 on: November 03, 2020, 08:04:37 AM »
Here's the link to the Golf.com article Ira referenced in his post.


https://golf.com/travel/top-100-courses-us-architect/


Thanks!

Ryan Hillenbrand

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #234 on: November 03, 2020, 11:42:15 AM »
Tom

The 6 OD from you / your assoc. + co-design
Bandon (Pacific Dunes)
Ballyneal
Rock Creek Cattle Company
Bandon (Old Macdonald)
Streamsong (Blue)
Sebonack


That 9 in the list was my take on things. Some magazines list a lot of redesigns and restoration work while others don't.

The other 3 being:
Somerset Hills
Pasatiempo
Palmetto


Tom - any chance you tuned into the Champions Tour event last week?


They had Brett Quigley and Lee Janzen mic'd up and Quigley was talking about Rock Creek, and offered to take Janzen out there. Janzen said "that's a Doak, right?"

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #235 on: November 03, 2020, 01:23:56 PM »
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?


Ira

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #236 on: November 03, 2020, 01:36:56 PM »
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?


Ira


Another variable is the composition of the panel.  I don't know enough to suggest whether that affects the outcome Ira notes, I'm just noting that it is a variable that could do so. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #237 on: November 03, 2020, 02:02:06 PM »
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?

Ira


Its a good question Ira, and certainly been discussed here at length.  Yes they certainly had few if any environmental restrictions and far more open/available land to work with, but I still don't know if these are the big differentiators.

I think it came down to the practical realities of the time.  Without a fleet of dozers at their disposal, I think they really had to use their noodle and their feet in in many days walking the site and doing the upfront due diligence, to find the holes that fit in a cohesive routing, as opposed to finding a routing that worked and creating holes.  I think this led to identifying many out-of-the box, one of a kind holes that gives the course a unique identity like a Pine Valley or a Yale.  And all these years later, seeing and playing these layouts is often a special kind of day on the course.  Throw in the history and aurora of a place and no doubt it can leave a lasting impression when it comes time to check the boxes...

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #238 on: November 03, 2020, 02:28:04 PM »
I also am curious about the breakdown between Sand and Clay.


Thanks.


Ira

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #239 on: November 03, 2020, 03:43:12 PM »
Has anyone put a chart or table together contrasting and comparing the Top 100 U.S. lists from Golf, Golf Digest and Golf Week to see where huge variances and discrepancies exist? The reason I ask is because I noticed today, while doing some research, that there are a number of courses on Golf's current Top 100 U.S. list that are outside Golf Digest's Top 100 U.S. list from 2019. Here are but a few examples that stood out.


Pasatiempo: Golf rating = 59; Golf Digest rating = 106
Sand Valley (SV): Golf rating = 91; Golf Digest rating = 110
Streamsong (Red): Golf rating = 77; Golf Digest rating = 112
Baltimore CC (East): Golf rating = 75; Golf Digest rating = 116
Kingsley Club: Golf rating = 79; Golf Digest rating = 121
Newport CC: Golf rating = 84; Golf Digest rating = 134
Harbor Town: Golf rating = 73; Golf Digest rating = 136

The greatest discrepancy was with Eastern Ho! Golf ranks it 53 in their Top 100, while Golf Digest had it outside their Top 100 in 2019 and ranked it 153 up from 154 the last time they did these rankings. WTH!? That's a 100 point swing.

While I understand that Golf Digests ratings are nearly two years old, they are worlds apart on courses that have been in existence a number of years. I haven't gone and compared these to Golf Week, but I was taken aback by the divergence in some of these ratings and wondered how panelists from two distinguished publications can see the same courses so differently? I know some older courses have undergone renovations or restorations thus pushing their ranking higher, but on some of the newer courses that play the same now as they did in 2018, what's changed?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2020, 03:53:25 PM by Mike Bodo »
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #240 on: November 03, 2020, 03:56:18 PM »
Mike,

I guess I see it differently.  Given there are approx 15,500 courses in the US, all of these are in the top 1%, on either list.

The % difference for each are:

0.30%
0.12%
0.23%
0.26%
0.27%
0.32%
0.41%

Seems a bit of a tough task to figure out why they vary so little across potentially hundreds of different raters and ratings.  I'm guessing if you're in the top 1%, you've certainly already grasped the proverbial brass ring.

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #241 on: November 03, 2020, 04:07:00 PM »
I guess I see it differently.  Given there are approx 15,500 courses in the US, all of these are in the top 1%, on either list.
Seems a bit of a tough task to figure out why they vary so little across potentially hundreds of different raters and ratings.  I'm guessing if you're in the top 1%, you've certainly already grasped the proverbial brass ring.
I totally get your perspective. However, if it were as simple as that you wouldn't have people getting bent out of shape over why certain courses fell out of the Top 100 or complaining how certain courses got in or why they're rated so much higher than they were previously.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2020, 04:09:44 PM by Mike Bodo »
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #242 on: November 03, 2020, 04:14:53 PM »
I guess I see it differently.  Given there are approx 15,500 courses in the US, all of these are in the top 1%, on either list.
Seems a bit of a tough task to figure out why they vary so little across potentially hundreds of different raters and ratings.  I'm guessing if you're in the top 1%, you've certainly already grasped the proverbial brass ring.
I totally get your perspective. However, if it was as simple as that you wouldn't have people getting bent out of shape over why certain courses fell out of the Top 100 or complaining how certain courses got in or why they're rated so much higher than they were previously.


Fair enough Mike,

Humanity has never been a particularly rational species on basically anything, and no doubt it continues today.  So I'm not surprised there are those who get bent out of shape over a rating algorithm that tries to numerically represent an irrational process with explainable results.  ;D

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #243 on: November 03, 2020, 04:20:19 PM »
So the ODGs seem to have more courses than the post-Sand Hills architects. Is that a function of the ODGs having built more courses, having less environmental restrictions, having better sites near major population centers, or some other variable or a combination of all of the variables?


Ira


Another variable is the composition of the panel.  I don't know enough to suggest whether that affects the outcome Ira notes, I'm just noting that it is a variable that could do so.


That is a very impressive panel that Ran has assembled.  Of course its composition makes a big difference.  As does having a relatively small number of members, which, I assume, means that the number of votes for a course to qualify is relatively small.  I think it would shed some light to know the number of votes each course in the Top 100 received, as well as a list of courses which did not receive enough votes to qualify, if any.


Another factor is the criteria used to determine the rating for each course.  GD has the Challenge category (previously resistance to scoring) that is controversial for many on this site and seemingly at odds with the zeigeist that has golf as a fun, walk in the park.  GW has several, but the overall rating is independent of an arithmetic calculation from these.  I don't know that GOLF gives its raters any specific directions.

Adam G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #244 on: November 03, 2020, 04:31:33 PM »
It's really about the margins being so microscopic once you get past the top handfull of courses. Golf magazine does not release their numbers, but they said that "the statistical difference between No. 80 on our list (Sheep Ranch) and No. 120 (Boston GC) is the smallest it has ever been".


Golf Digest and GolfWeek do release numbers. At Golf Digest, for instance, the gap between #1 (Pine Valley) and #3 (Cyperess Point) is as big as the gap between #36 (Bandon) and #100 (Mayacama). The gap between #1 and #10 is bigger than the gap between #10 (Fishers) and #100! And there are 34 courses within a point of #100. The point being that a handfull of ballots can change the ranking quite dramatically, especially with only 100 raters. I bet the weighting for the points for the different buckets you can list courses in e.g. "50-100" can affect things as well.

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Golf Magazine US Top 100
« Reply #245 on: November 03, 2020, 04:50:12 PM »
It's really about the margins being so microscopic once you get past the top handfull of courses. Golf magazine does not release their numbers, but they said that "the statistical difference between No. 80 on our list (Sheep Ranch) and No. 120 (Boston GC) is the smallest it has ever been".
I totally see this from yours and Kalen's perspective and your arguments are sound. However, to play devil's advocate, tell this to the average retail golfer, club member or layman why course "X" is no longer in the Top 100, but course "Y" is? They don't care about microscopic differences in determining the rankings. They care about placings. I'm sure there are resort owners and private club boards that are upset that their course is no longer in the Top 100, same as there are those who are ecstatic that their course was recognized as being amongst the Top 100. While these differences may not seem all that significant to many here, the impact of being downgraded or upgraded has a huge impact on the respective courses, clubs and resorts in question.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2020, 04:51:49 PM by Mike Bodo »
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back