Analysis of Golf Course Rankings 7/19/2009 updated 6/7/2010
As I’ve mentioned throughout this site, I am seeking to find my favorite 100 courses. To help derive my list, I have
reviewed the golf course ratings of others. Although I have reviewed many different raters’ data, I believe “The
Big 3” are Golfweek, Golf Digest, and Golf Magazine.
In breaking down their work, I discovered some wild discrepancies. For starters, these Top 100 lists encompass
218 courses. Additionally, many of the courses that make all the lists experience a big divergence in where they
are ranked. Finally, many of the courses are not recognized by all of the rating agencies. In fact, some are only
ranked by one of these gurus.
Upon discovering these facts, I began digging into what was going on. Many things became apparent to me
during this process, but one was blatantly obvious. Tom Fazio and Seth Raynor designed courses are highly
regarded by some and overlooked by others. In fact, this observation was so robust I decided to write an entire
report on it. You can read it in its entirety in the paper entitled “Controversial Designers”. However, many other
discoveries were made during the process of my analytical work.
Perhaps the most important piece of information that I took away from this process is that there is no right or
wrong answer concerning golf course rating. It boils down to personal preference. That is why there are 218
courses in the Top 100. People like different things, plain and simple.
It is my opinion that if you have a firm grasp on what you are looking for in a golf course you can use these ratings
in a very beneficial way. For instance, if you like the over-the-top beauty and extravagance there is a particular
publication that also seems to value those characteristics. Therefore, I would recommend that you consult their
rankings when planning a trip or when considering becoming a member of a golf club. The same can be said if
you enjoy the “Golden Era” courses, classical courses, etc. In the following paragraphs I will give you the
information I gathered and how I interpret that information.
Golf Digest
Ron Whitten seems to the man behind the madness at Golf Digest. And when I was breaking down the rankings
of Golf Digest relative to the others in the “Big 3”, I noticed a bunch of Fazio courses. My research leads me to
believe that Fazio is known for his beautiful and playable courses. This is in contrast to other designers who take
to others “schools” of golf course design such as: The “Penal School” which believes that a poor shot should
represent a lost stroke. They generally have hazards that are so severe that even the most skilled players will not
be able to save a par if they hit these hazards. There is also the “Heroic School”, which likes to litter their courses
forced carries over water and dramatic elevation changes. These designers believe that players will relish
overcoming these visually stimulating challenges and they will feel like “heroes” when they successfully navigate
these challenges.
A particularly interesting observation regarding the Golf Digest rating process leads me to believe that the
rankings are geared towards the “average man”. It is my understanding that the Golf Digest raters go through an
informal training program and are not required to have any background in golf course design or architectural
history. Given this, it appears to me that this rating program seems to favor beautiful and playable courses as
well as the big names and big resorts.
With this in mind, it is my opinion that players who enjoy playing golf on a fantastically beautiful course and don’t
get too much into the nuances of golf course architecture should reference the Golf Digest rankings when making
decisions regarding which courses to play.
Further analysis of the rating criteria of Golf Digest in comparison to the other "Big 3" shows a bent towards golf
courses that are difficult. The ties in perfectly with the legacy of the original Golf Digest Top 100, which were
aimed at ranking the golf courses based on degree of difficulty.
Golf Magazine
Joe Passov, or Travelin’ Joe, is the guru at Golf Magazine. It is my understanding that Joe’s process of selecting
and training his raters follows a much more formal process in relation to Golf Digest. He selects raters specifically
to cover a range of disciplines within the industry and he looks for those people who have a trained eye and a fair
degree of training. All of which leads to a rater who can appreciate some of the finer aspects of golf course
design and architecture.
The above analysis seems to sync up with the courses that appear on the Golf Magazine Top 100 lists. Relative
to Golf Digest you will notice many more Seth Raynor courses and an almost completely different list of Fazio
courses. Given that Raynor is known for his amazing architecture and timeless hole designs, I would recommend
that a golfer who can appreciate the finer points of golf course design consult Golf Magazine when examining
courses.
Golfweek For full disclosure in February of 2010, I became a golf course rater for Golfweek.
Golfweek’s guru is Dr. Brad Klein. Dr. Klein has vast experience regarding golf and research. He is a PhD in
political science and was a professor for 14 years. So, he’s got the research and the academic background
necessary to perform detailed and in-depth analysis. Furthermore, he was a former PGA caddie and is an author
of many books on golf. This gives him the education in regards to the golf side of the equation.
Golfweek’s process concerning their rating regime seems to be most well thought out. They look for golf
enthusiasts and formally train them in golf course design. This is accomplished through face-to-face meetings
and seminars. In fact, they have a handbook that is available on-line that details their entire process. This
transparency is something that I respect and think more raters should do.
Finally, when looking at their rankings you will notice a lot of different courses listed. Additionally, among the
courses mutually listed on all of the “Big 3” lists, you will notice vastly different placements on the Golfweek list. All
of this leads me to believe that Golfweek doesn’t just go along with the norms the golfing community has
established. They seem to not mind doing the grunt work which is necessary to get in there and actually perform
quality analysis regarding golf course rating. This grunt work seems to lead itself to the discovery of “Hidden
Gems” throughout the golf world.
If someone really values golf course design and can appreciate quality architecture, I would highly recommend
using the Golfweek ratings to help guide your decisions.
Further analysis of the Golfweek criteria shows that natural courses that blend in well with the lay of the land seem
to be rewarded with a premium in the Golfweek system.
In summary, I think the “Big 3” golf course raters do an excellent job. However if you want to get the most value
out of these lists, you must know what you like and/or are looking for in a golf course. If you like the glamour, glitz,
and a challenge, I suggest looking at Golf Digest’s lists. If you like the glitz a little but also enjoy some of the finer
points of golf course design, take a peak at Golf Magazine. And if you really get into golf course architecture and
really value the traditional aspects of the game, check out Golfweek. Finally, you could opt to go the route I am
going…check out all three and seek out to play the ones that intrigue you the most.
Best of luck…hit’em straight!