9/10/2009 This is a letter I sent to the "powers that be" in hopes to enact change to better the game
The Illogical Golf World
Although many in my intended audience have more experience than I do related to golf, I would argue that I care
just as much, if not more, about the game of golf. This love for the game and its integrity caused me to loose
sleep last night. For me this was significant, as I rarely loose sleep over anything. I am a business man who runs
a firm that has hundreds of millions of dollars of assets and even in this economy, I don’t loose any sleep. Why?
The reason I don’t worry or loose sleep is that everything I do has a logical, well-thought out process by which I
adhere to and over time I have found this leads to fantastic results. However, the absurd practices and illogical
behavior related to the golf world overwhelmed me and caused me to toss and turn in frustration and borderline
anger last night.
This frustration has its roots in the golf course rating system that many participants in the golfing community adore
and monitor. I run a “just for fun” website, www.mrpgolf.com, and on this website I have a section where I analyze
golf course rankings. Although I have reviewed many, many people’s ratings, I have settled on “The Big 3” as my
most reliable source of information. I am sure you all are aware of who “The Big 3” are but, nevertheless, I will
state for the record that they are Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, and Golfweek. For quite sometime, I have been
comparing and contrasting the ratings of these entities and taking note of which courses are favored, and or
ignored, by each and every one of them. I’ve written about my findings on my website and noted some obvious,
and some not so obvious, quirks. At the conclusion of one of my pieces, I stated that all of “The Big 3” do an
excellent job. However, my latest findings call this statement’s validity into question.
One of the sections in my website is called “Controversial Courses.” This section highlights courses that were
rated very highly by one or more golf course rating entities and ignored, or rated at a drastically lower level, by the
others. My stated objective for noting and tracking these courses is to eventually play them and see who is right
and who is wrong. However, the latest Golf Magazine issue may have cleared all of this up for me in rapid fashion.
The content of this issue made it clear to me that the one member of “The Big 3” that has it right is Golfweek.
Simply perusing the ratings over time has led me to conclude this by using the “eyeball test”. However when I
received this latest issue of Golf Magazine and I began to dig deeper into the issue, it became clear to me that this
finding is robust enough to pass many tests which are even more stringent than the “eyeball test.”
Before I critique the raters and their process, let me first describe the evidence as I see it. Chambers Bay was built
in 2007 by Robert Trent Jones, Jr. and Bruce Charlton. In its 2008 ratings, Brad Klein and his team at Golfweek
had this course rated as the 17th best Modern Course in America. No other member of “The Big 3” rated this
course as being in the Top 100. In its 2009 ratings, which came out in June, Golfweek dropped Chambers Bay to
the 19th spot on this list. Once again, no other rater had Chambers Bay on their Top 100 list. For this reason, I
had Chambers Bay listed on my “Controversial Course” list as it was very highly regarded by Dr. Klein and
completely overlooked by everyone else.
Then along comes Golf Magazines “Top 50 Course Built in the Last 50 Years”, which appeared in their July 2009
issue and Chambers Bay was ranked 27th! And they just released their Top 100 list this month and Chambers
Bay is ranked as the 46th best course in the United States. All this occurs over a year after Golfweek recognizes
the course as one of the top-tier courses in the U.S. and just a few months after Chambers Bay was awarded the
2015 US Open and the 2010 US Amateur. Frankly, being a business man I could really say some things regarding
this strange phenomenon. However, I will simply say that in the late 1990’s Wall Street analysts got in huge trouble
for pumping stocks that their investment bankers were underwriting and I will leave the rest for interpretation.
Additionally, I could call into question the validity of these Golf Magazine lists due to their lack of consistency and
reliability by citing examples such as Wade Hampton being rated higher than Calusa Pines in the Top 50 list, but
below it on the Top 100 list…but maybe I should simply ignore the Top 50 list.
Continuing with my original thesis, these controversial rankings don’t stop with Chambers Bay. Other courses in
which Golfweek appears to get it right in a much more timely fashion are: Ballyneal, The Pete Dye Golf Club of
West Virginia, Old Sandwich, Boston Golf Club, Monterrey, Sutton Bay, Concession, and Bayonne.
For instance, Ballyneal was rated by Golfweek as the 8th best modern course in its latest rankings, 13th the year
prior, and 43rd in its initial ranking in 2007. Ballyneal is rated Golf Magazine as the 48th best course in the US and
the 83rd best course in the world. To date, Golf Digest doesn’t rank Ballyneal in its Top 100.
The Pete Dye Golf Club is currently ranked as the 4th best Modern Course by Golfweek, a place it has hovered
around for years. It was previously unranked by Golf Magazine, but showed up on their Top 50 in the Last 50
Years list in July and was just awarded the 81st position in their Top 100 list. Golf Digest ranks it number 57 in the
U.S.
I’ll conclude this course by course analysis with Sutton Bay. Sutton Bay holds the 42nd spot on the Golfweek
Modern list and, like The Pete Dye Club, it has been on their list for years. Golf Magazine put Sutton Bay at 85 on
its most recent US list and it is a “new” course for their 2009 list. Golf Digest doesn’t currently rank Sutton Bay.
My point to all this is that golfers rely on these ratings for advice and guidance. Maybe they need it to plan a golf
trip or maybe they need it to assist them in their search regarding becoming a member of a golf club. Either way if
the data is flawed it will cost the reader money and might lead to a less than ideal golf experience and, in turn, will
hurt the game. Therefore, these raters need to get it right. Now, I fully understand that everyone has different
tastes regarding golf courses and, therefore, I understand the need for multiple rating entities. In fact, I talk about
this on my website as well in my “Analysis of Golf Course Rankings” piece. But regardless of your taste, the
information disseminated needs to be correct and transparent. These incorrect, or late, conclusions could be a
result of many things. The most nefarious could be the argument that states the raters are “in bed” with the
resorts, designers, and clubs and they are giving out ratings to drive hype and, therefore, traffic to the courses in
question and, therefore, profits. I will discount this as conspiracy theory, but will re-iterate that Wall Street did this
more than a decade ago and alienated many investors and, in turn, sacrificed long-term prosperity for short-term
profits. I trust the “powers that be” in the golfing world aren’t doing this…but it is odd that right after Chambers Bay
was award two prestigious USGA tournaments they skyrocketed up the Golf Magazine lists. But like I said, I will
give them the benefit of the doubt. It is more likely that the information disseminated by these golf course rating
entities is late and appears wrong from time to time due to the fact that their process might be flawed.
Regarding their process, Golf Magazine tells its readers that “we don’t tell our panelists what constitutes greatness
in a golf course. They tell us.” Huh? They invite a variety of different people to rate courses and give them no
formal process to follow. These panelists include journalists, professional golfers, and photographers and they
have no process to follow. No wonder The Pete Dye Golf Club went unnoticed for so long. No wonder the
international contingent over-looked Oitavos Dunes for 8 years. Not to mention the fact that golf course designers
and architects are among the panelists who are given free reign to rank as they please; with the exception they
can’t rate their own courses. Per Golf Magazine’s website, here are some of their raters…imagine these guys
having free reign to do as they please…Herb Kohler, Tom Doak, Rees Jones, and Gary Player!!! (FYI…I am being
a little funny here, but still making a point).
Golf Digest is another golf rating entity that I am miffed by. It is my understanding that they take a variety of
people to use as raters, similar to Golf Magazine, but they require no formal background in golf or golf course
architecture and they provide only informal training regarding these topics. Once again, there is not a
standardized process in place and, therefore, there can not be consistent and reliable results from this type of
analysis. Consider the following tid-bit as support to my claim… Augusta National overtook Pine Valley as the #1
course in last year’s Golf Digest rankings and per Golf Digest’s own words when asked why this happened they
responded with this beauty, “The nature of our course-ranking survey doesn't provide easy explanations.” What?
Are you kidding me? You don’t have an answer to the question regarding how a course became regarded by YOU
as the best course in the entire United States! Furthermore, the Golf Digest scoring system promotes “herding”.
That is everyone coming up with, essentially, the same answer. Once again per their own words, they remove all
scores that lie two standard deviations away from the mean score for a given course. So anyone with an opinion
that doesn’t coincide with the group’s view is eliminated from the vote. Ugh! I rest my case…their system is
FLAWED!!!!!
Now for Golfweek which appears to get it right time and time again years ahead of the competition. In my opinion it
all starts with Dr. Bradley Klein, the man in charge of Golfweek Golf Course Architecture Division. Yes, you heard
that correctly…Doctor Bradley Klein. He is not a medical doctor, but rather he earned a doctorate degree through
post graduate study. Inherent in the process for earning this type of degree is understanding the scientific
process and developing ways to gather data, analyze this data, and put it together in a coherent form that yields
useful information. Furthermore, rather than stating that we don’t tell our panelists what constitutes greatness,
they formally train their panelists regarding golf course architecture. In fact, Golfweek has a Golf Rater’s
Handbook that can be downloaded from their website. In this book they detail their process behind their rankings.
This provides transparency at an unprecedented level and combined with their scientific process yields consistent
and reliable results. And, per my work and analysis, Golfweek’s ratings and ratings process stands head and
shoulders above their competition.
But here is my issue and why I lost sleep last night...it is my understanding that Golfweek has the smallest
circulation among “The Big 3.” In fact, if I go to the bookstores in my suburban Atlanta neighborhood Golfweek is
nowhere to be found. Given this fact, it is no wonder the other members of “The Big 3” get more recognition and
acclaim. And, therefore, the golfing community is being misinformed and misled due to the fact they aren’t getting
the most robust and timely information. In turn, those golfers who set out to play the Top 100 courses in the US
and/or the World are not playing the best 100 courses. Rather they are simply playing 100 courses put on a list
by the most widely disseminated golf magazines. Furthermore, those people and families looking to join a club or
go on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation are not getting what they think they are getting and they might be over-paying
in relation to the quality of the experience they are receiving. As a golf enthusiast who is concerned about the well-
being of the game, this concerns me greatly.
In closing, I understand that we all value different things and we all desire different experiences on the golf course.
So I recognize there is a big need for multiple sources of golf course information. However, it appears to be very
clear to me that the golf rating entity that gets it right most often, and in the most timely fashion, is Golfweek.
Given the fact that they are the least widely known of “The Big 3” raters is damaging to the credibility of the golfing
industry. The issues inherent in this statement need to be corrected…that is Golfweek needs to be more widely
distributed and/or discussed or the other rating entities need to improve their process. If this is accomplished, the
golfing community will be better served and golfer will be more satisfied with the game and, in turn, the game
should continue to prosper over the long-term.
9/11/2009
As an interesting follow-on to this article, I reached out to a number of golfers and asked them a simple question,
“What golf course rating entity do you prefer?”
55% of them responded with Golf Digest;
30% of them responded with Golf Magazine;
14% said Golfweek;
And one person gave the best response I have ever heard in my life. Here are some excerpts of that gem of an
email. He’s essentially saying that he doesn’t refer to any rating entity and that he prefers to find his own gems
using his own process…but the prose it too good not to share:
“To be honest, I don’t follow nor do I really read other rating methods. I just like to read the write-ups, not how they
got to their conclusions.
For me, I remove everything else except the actual golf course. The clubhouse, staff, history etc. has no bearing
on the course. Like Hackett, and because of Hackett, I like a course that is suited to the natural terrain. There
are a lot of courses where they clear and flatten the land and then build a course. That is Wal-Mart golf.
Personal preferences, every course should have a reachable par 4, like the 12th at St Andrews, which I reached
and eagled (sorry, but I have told that story to every golfer I have met since 07, one day you might hear one of
your fellow Americans tell the story of how some brash Canadian let out a Tiger like fist pump scream as they were
putting on the 6th green, and I apologize for that but it was a double breaker from 25 ft and it was St Andrews).
I am not one to look at a layout and judge if a bunker was properly placed or if the green has too many ledges. I
rate the course basically on feel and that doesn't mean how I played that day. I take into account the view, the
layout and mostly, just if it feels natural. Kinda like if a golf course was meant to be placed there.
(A course I like)is Hamilton, designed by Harry Colt(Royal Portrush) and the parcel of land is great…I read
somewhere where the pros ranked it one of the best courses they had played that year outside the majors. The
reviews were quite outstanding actually. Now you take Glen Abbey(Nicklaus), where we typically have our Open
and it is a dog track, basically tournament golf. No real feel to the course.”
See what I’m saying…awesome!!!
Another unique response to my question was, Tom Doak’s Confidential Guide. Similar to the response above, I
like it as it is unique and original. Not as unique and original as my buddy above, but really what is!
So to put this thing under wraps, I made the statement in my article that Golf Digest and Golf Magazine were the
two of “The Big 3” that were not timely in their Top 100 ratings and, in light of this, their list are wrong. However, I
state that their circulation is higher than the one that gets it right and, therefore, they are pumping the golfing
community with untimely and potentially erroneous information. In my very informal survey, 85% of my participants
say they prefer Golf Digest or Golf Magazine’s golf course ratings.
One last note…one of my survey participants is a panelist for one of these magazines. And, although, he said that
his magazine is his “go to” rater, he acknowledged, without solicitation, that he thought Golfweek’s process was
more robust and, therefore, more accurate.
In closing, I feel strongly I am correct in my assertions. And, therefore, I feel the golfing community would be better
served if Golfweek would get more circulation or, at least, more buzz in the golf course architecture world. If this is
not realized, I urge Golf Digest and Golf Magazine to improve their processes!
MacArther "Mac" Plumart, CFA
www.mrpgolf.com