Calf Injury Helps Vault Westwood To No. 2 In World

Doug Ferguson on the latest OWGR oddity, this time Lee Westwood moving to No. 2 next week despite two months off.

"does #1 really mean anything in golf?"

Because I'm under doctor's orders to only watch 15 minutes from every hour of televised golf at courses with bunkers surrounded by rough and/or back-and-forth tree-lined routings featuring indecipherable holes, my exposure to this weekend's No. 1 world ranking talk was limited. However, I noticed quite a bit of tweeting about Phil Mickelson "choking" at the chance to pass Tiger Woods in the world rankings.

I'd sum up my feelings on this vital chase for No. 1 in the world, but reader Mr. BoJangles did the heavy typing for me:

a little off topic, but does #1 really mean anything in golf? Seriously. Why is it even discussed? It doesn't help you win majors. The only thing I can think of is the Match Play pairings, you get a one-seed. Being Ranked #1 is meaningless in every sport except college football. What was Shrek ranked? Or Graham?

Someone told me Greg Norman was ranked No. 1 for a lot weeks back in his prime. And I was like, who cares? He won 2 majors.

If Phil takes No. 1 over Tiger, what does that mean, really? Tiger's won 14 majors, Phil's won [four]. Who's going to have the better golf career when they're both retired? Anyway, that's just my rant on the golf rankings and every other ranking for that matter. I think rankings are retarded and while I'm at it, college football needs a playoff system. That will never happen.

New Top 100 You Can Play And Self Promotion Warning

Jill Painter reports (and quotes yours truly extensively) on Rustic Canyon's inclusion on both the latest Golf Magazine Top 100 You Can Play List, as well as editor Joe Passov naming it the number one course he'd pay double to play.

Passov sums up the latest entries to the list, including the miraculous addition of Old Macdonald even though it opened in June (those panelists get around!) and the inclusion of two once-private courses. There's also the state by state list.

But enough about that, let's get back to Rustic Canyon.

"A lot of things strike me about Rustic Canyon," Passov said. "For starters, from an aesthetic standpoint, it doesn't dazzle you, but it fits so beautifully into its natural landscape. A lot of courses are built completely at odds with their surroundings. It doesn't have an ocean view or it's not hanging off clifftops. Rustic Canyon melts into the natural terrain. It's very old-world golf. That's what Scots intended for the game. It wasn't supposed to be expensive."

Golfweek's Best Makes Its Annual Arrival

Brad Klein explains 2010's changes and there are few surprises, other than Larry Lambrecht's photo of Pine Valley looking like World Woods, all cleaned up and so horribly overgrown. Is that really how it looks these days? Holy George Crump!

I knew O. Gordon Brewer likes his bunker sand primped and his architecture heavy on the Fazio, but that's just appalling for a place that used to pride itself on unkept sandy barrens and in Crump's day was devoid of trees.

Anyway now that my PVGC membership invite is out, here are the lists, starting with the Modern, the Classic and the best public courses state-by-state.

Gil Hanse, Architect Of The Year

Nice write-up by Joe Passov of on Golf Magazine naming Gil Hanse its Architect of the Year after the opening of Castle Stuart. The piece accompanies Golf's best new public courses of 2009.

Golf Digest Best New...Last For A Couple Of Years?

Cal Club's 9th (click to enlarge)I finally got around to Golf Digest's Best New Courses feature and soaked it all in since it's hard to see this appearing in its current form the next couple of December's thanks to the complete stoppage of new course construction.

In the Best Remodel category, the only course I had seen was 3rd place finisher Cal Club, which lost out to Charlotte Country Club and Olympia Fields. While I'm sure those are both fine efforts from Ron Pritchard and Steve Smyers, I would have been disappointed if Cal Club won. Since it's the most remarkable transformation of a golf course I've seen, I would have had a tough time surviving knowing the Digest panel had seen the same thing. Had they, I might have started resorting to Ambien and we know how well that can work out.

Cal Club's 16th (click to enlarge)Pick a category--design, maintenance, environmental sensibility, aesthetics, maintenance meld--and Kyle Phillips' restoration with Mark Thawley, George Waters and Josh Smith is as fine a piece of work as you could want to see. Throw in the fact that it's artfully managed by fast-and-firm guru Thomas Bastis and team, and well, we just can't have the Golf Digest panel rewarding that!

"Did Tony Romo Forget How To Count To Four?"

That's what Dallas fans are asking after the QB apparently lost track of the downs on Sunday. What they don't know is that Tony Romo was actually just flashing his handicap in celebration of his place atop the latest Golf Digest ranking of athlete-golfers.

Golf Magazine's Rankings Now Posted

The world list is here, the U.S. list is here.

Good to see the courses dropping off the world list this time: Wentworth, East Lake, Congressional and Shadow Creek.

I think the US and A's world standing just improved a whole bunch! Good going Golf Magazine Panel!

Update on Monday, August 31, 2009 at 08:36 AM by Geoff

Thanks to reader Tuco for pointing out the exciting revelation that Gil Hanse's Boston Golf Club cracked the top 100 list. The late John Minneck would have been proud.

"It's like looking at a painting. Do you prefer impressionism or do you like abstract painting better?"

John Paul Newport files an excellent history of rankings, meaning Joshua Crane and the National Golf Review get mentions, as well as today's lists.

In my view, unless you own a hugely expensive new resort course or belong to an elite club that just spent $15 million redoing its masterpiece, there's no reason to treat these lists as anything other than good fun. "It's totally subjective, isn't it?" said Ben Crenshaw last week at the Masters, even though several of the courses he designed with partner Bill Coore, including Sand Hills, have been treated "very, very kindly" by the raters.

"There are certain places and certain types of courses that elicit some people's emotions but don't necessarily affect other people the same way," Mr. Crenshaw said. "It's like looking at a painting. Do you prefer impressionism or do you like abstract painting better?"

Robert Lohrer scores an informative Q&A with Golf Digest's Jerry Tarde about the process and panel, and gets Tarde to explain how the balloting works (Augusta's score includes 8 years worth of evaluations, but thankfully, little has changed there architecturally in that time!). Tarde also concedes that perhaps in the future we'll get to see how many votes are being counted for top 100 courses.

"A great course is designed primarily to challenge low-handicap amateur golfers, not tour professionals."

I've been questioning Golf Digest's Resistance To Scoring definition since at least 1999. (BTW, checked with mom and I did not have issues with RTS at birth, so go easy on the bias accusations). But I have moaned about the evaluation process many times, including how clubs feel the need to pander to panelists.

And while I understand that the RTS concept dates to the magazine's founder and the initial list focusing on difficulty, I thought it would an interesting exercise to look at the magazine's definition of the category which Ron Whitten says vaulted Augusta National to the #1 spot in the latest ranking.

Here's what panelists are given to determine Resistance to Scoring:

RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees?

What it means: A great course is designed primarily to challenge low-handicap
amateur golfers, not tour professionals.

Now, this is odd since Golf Digest has added people to its panel who are not low-handicap golfers. So how would they be able to evaluate a course from a scratch player's perspective?

Of course I think there should be people of all skill levels on the panel, with the RTS category dropped.

Anyhow, the magazine fleshes out the meaning of RTS this way:

How to determine Resistance to Scoring

The question is not whether a course is tough for the tour pro. On a calm day, no course is too tough for the tour pro. At last look, the course record is 62 at Pebble Beach, Pinehurst No. 2 and Prairie Dunes. And will soon go lower, no doubt.

And those 62s just came so easily to the player.

At any time, given the skill level of the average tour player, and the incredible equipment they use, even top courses set up in championship condition can be easy.

Ah yes, easy. Because anyone who has played the game will tell you it becomes easy more often than not.

Davis Love III’s 269 at Winged Foot West in the 1997 PGA did not mean that the course was toothless. Only five players broke par in that event and no one broke par in the 2006 U.S. Open. The 2006 winner, Geoff Ogilvey finished at four over par.

Is that Ogilvey guy a hybrid of Geoff Ogilvy and Joe Ogilvie?

We prefer to consider how testing the course is for a scratch golfer, a player who may be several shots worse than the average tour pro from the back tees. That’s because most courses, even those on our list of America’s 100 Greatest won’t be played by tour professionals. But they will be challenged by scratch players many, many times.

To deserve a high score in Resistance to Scoring, the course must be difficult but still fair.

A course that demands 260-yard carries over hazards from every tee is indeed difficult, but is not fair. Particularly if half of those tee shots are into prevailing winds.

So do you have to keep a checklist on tee shots into prevailing winds? And if less than half are under 260 does that mean the course is difficult but fair?

A course with every green guarded by water is difficult, but again it’s not a fair test.

If the course is tough but unfair, give it a lower score.

If it’s eminently fair but not particularly tough, give it a lower score.

What if it's just fair, not eminently fair? Who wrote this, Richard Tufts?

Only if it achieves that balance of being both testing but fair in its challenges, does a course deserve a high score in Resistance to Scoring.

Fair. People, it's your mantra.

The ideal in Resistance to Scoring

The ideal course must take into account various weather conditions. It cannot be brutally tough on calm days, because on windy days it then becomes impossible.

There's a newsflash from the city.

It can’t be tough only when tee markers are placed to the very back because on wet days it then becomes unreachable. It can’t rely only on pin positions tucked behind bunkers because pin placements must be rotated to spread out wear and tear.

Example: A model for Resistance to Scoring might be Harbour Town on Hilton Head Island. At 6,973 yards long, with smallish greens and all sorts of hazards, it can be a difficult course for a scratch player. Yet it is hard to find an unfair hole on the course.

Glad we're not seeding the panelists with any potential biases!

Even in windy conditions. Its routing is such that consecutive holes don’t face identical wind conditions. The greens provide approach options for windy conditions. Some of its greens accept low running shots. Others have hazards in front but no trouble to the rear. Only a couple are heavily guarded targets. Note: The highest average Resistance to Scoring in the 100 Greatest is Shinnecock Hills G.C. with an average of 9.08.

That's good to know.

Why we use evaluations for Resistance to Scoring rather than Slope Rating or Course Rating

The combination of USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating can be a good indicator of a course’s resistance to scoring, though not a perfect one. In general, a course with a Course Rating above 73 and the Slope Rating is above 130 can be rated above 7.5. A course would need to have a Course Rating above 74 and have a Slope Rating above 140 to be rated in the 8.0 to 8.5 range. Keep in mind that Shinnecock Hills has the highest Resistance to Scoring average in America at 9.08.

Yeah we got that about Shinnecock the first time.

So I don't quite understand how a Course Rating can't be automatically used when they are able to quantify what a Resistance To Scoring score should be based on that rating.

Of course, I still just can't fathom why the difficulty has anything to do with the merits of a course. Seems like Fun would be a whole bunch more important.

"TIES BROKEN IN FAVOR OF COURSES WITH MORE EVALUATIONS"

A reader spotted an interesting footnote in the latest Golf Digest ranking. Posted at the top is this note:

TIES BROKEN IN FAVOR OF COURSES WITH MORE EVALUATIONS

I seem to remember past rankings leaving ties in place, but I'm sure a ranking afficionado out there will clarify what has been the case on that.

In the discussions I've had with panelists and readers of the magazine this week, several have questioned just how many votes Augusta National received to earn the top spot considering that it is so difficult to access (and playing the course is a requirement to "rate" it). Two panelists have already told me their requests have always been denied.

Perhaps questions need to be asked about the makeup of the panel and the importance of access in the rating process. Check out this tiebreaker:

28. (36) CASTLE PINES G.C.
Castle Rock, Colo. / Jack Nicklaus (1981) 7,696 72 64.65

29. (26) BETHPAGE STATE PARK (Black)
Farmingdale, N.Y. / Joseph H. Burbeck & A.W. Tillinghast (1936)

Yes, Castle Pines--an ultra-exclusive club--received more rater evaluations than arguably the most famous public course on the planet which, incidentally, hosts the U.S. Open this year.

There are several more tiebreakers on the list and most make more sense, including Peachtree (Peachtree!) getting more evaluations than Scioto.

Padraig Harrington Must Really Want To Sit On The Golf Digest Panel

Golf Digest has posted their top 100 list earlier than planned so that you can stare at Augusta National in the #1 spot. I've been around well traveled golfers the last two days and the ranking is nearly always talked about. That would normally be great, except that nearly every conversation spirals into the dreaded "what were they thinking" or "that ranking has lost all credibility."

But it's not all bad. Padraig Harrington, using the dreaded "fair" word, loves the changes. Of course, fair rarely is a word associated with the fun, interesting, volatile, edgy or ingenious design elements, all attributes you think of when considering Augusta National before Hootie Johnson and Tom Fazio scrubbed it clean.

Q. Speaking of it not being the same course, can you just address a little bit on Augusta and how it has changed over the years?

PADRAIG HARRINGTON: I think since I played it, I started playing in 2000, and I think the changes they've made are fantastic since then. I think when I first went there, I hit sand wedge into 1, I hit pitching wedge into 5, 9-iron into 11, lob wedge into 18. These are not the clubs were being hit into the holes when I watch it -- these are not the clubs I saw being hit into those holes when I watched it on TV.

What they did was they tended to put the pins very close to the slopes and the course was tricky. Since they've lengthened the golf course, it made a bigger, solider challenge and they use fairer pin positions. So to me the golf course got stronger but fairer since then.

So instead of -- you know, four would be a good example. They use that pin in the back left. The flag would be a foot from the slope in 2000 or 2001. You would be hitting 7-iron in there. Now you're hitting in a 3-iron, 5-wood type shot but the flag is cut two, three paces from it.

I think that's better. I prefer to be asked to hit a bigger, solider shot but to a fairer target. I think they've improved the golf course no end. It is a long course, but no longer than what we saw on TV in the '80s.

I don't know about you, but I'm going to stick with observations from players who actually played it in the 80s instead of watching on TV.

And not to be a total stickler since I'm not Strunk, but solider?