Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on January 02, 2003, 01:00:08 PM
-
Mike Vegis Kiawah was good enough to post the "Golf Digest"
top 100 rankings with and without "tradition" included in the ranking criteria.
Why would tradition, an intangible, or subjective at least,
be considered in evaluating the architecture of a golf course ?
What is tradition in the "Golf Digest" context ?
What is the incubation period before a club can qualify for tradition ?
What is the incubation period before a club can be on equal footing with others with respect to traditon ?
Is "tradition" nothing more than a hidden fudge factor ?
How valid is "tradition" as an evaluative tool ? ;D
Looking at Mike's chart, I see clubs awarded tradition points, but have no idea how they came to garner them. Could someone explain how each club earned points for tradition ?
Should "tradition" be removed from the process of evaluation ?
-
A lot of the "tradition" factor has to do with members. If Pat Mucci belongs it's an additional 100 bonus points on the "tradition" factor.
You want to see the all time tradition member list though. Pick up George Bahto's book and turn to the section when The Creek club was pulling itself out of debt (and shedding the Women's National). That group of guys was the ultimate heavy duty tradition list I ever saw in my life! You can't get any heavier than that!
-
Golf Digest comes up with points for "tradition" as follows:
Tournament History (20%)
Architectural Significance (40%)
Ambiance (40%).
The editors do the first two, course rating panelists evaluate and give ratings only for ambiance, which is defined very thoroughly, but in short is "how well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?"
Much speculation has been given to whether this all is just a fudge factor... hell, I don't know. I do know this: all of these things matter and you're kidding yourself if you think they don't.
TH
-
TH--
There's a caveat to the "Ambiance" rating. Courses 0-10 years old don't get any ambiance rating. Courses 11-20 years old get 10% of the rating giving by panelist. Courses 21-30 years old get 20% of the rating given by panelists, and so on. A course has to be 100 years old before it gets 100% of the ambiance points awarded by panelist. Or, at least that was the way it was calculated in 2001. Since rating criteria constantly evolves, Ron Whitten will probably try to fine-tune it again this year. I've spoken extensively to him on the matter and he does his best to make it as fair as he can... (although I wish he’d devise a system where The Ocean Course would inch up back closer to it's original 41st place of '97 rather than the 65th in '99 and 67th in '01.).
-
Mike: I'd have to guess they do tweak this every time the ratings are done. What I quoted above was from our manual, that's all.
What sucks to me is how much this matters... and how small the numbers are between the ranked courses... oh well, such is golf these days.
It's never going to be completely "fair", but I too believe the GD editors do they best they can.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby,
Thanks for the response,
What does "architectural significance" mean ?
What constitutes "Tournament" ?
PGA Tournaments ? USGA Tournaments, State or Regional association tournaments, Club Sponsored Tournaments ?
How does Pine Valley, Maidstone, Crystal Downs, Seminole, NGLA, LA CC or Somerset Hills qualify for Tournament points ?
Now we're informed that ambiance is an age related factor ?
That if one club's ambiance is clearly superior to another's that its age relative to the other will override the actual finding ?
Shouldn't all of these be removed ?
-
Patrick:
I'm just a lowly panelist and have no answers for you here as I am VERY far from privy to how this all works.
I will say that I don't think any of what GD does should be removed, because to me these things all do matter. But that's just my opinion. This is all quite difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, but tell me NGLA has a certain "something" that a great new course just won't... I know this is "unfair" to the new courses, but they have ways to make up for this.. to deny NGLA some credit for this "something" is worse, in my opinion.
TH
-
A friend pointed out that Sand Hills, which does not register on the "Tradition" front, is actually about as "traditional" a layout as you can find.
I think you were most accurate when you called it a "fudge factor".
As I've said 100 times, most of the disagreement with the Golf Digest list comes from people who don't agree with the criteria.
-
Looking at the definitions, Sand Hills would score off the charts high on Architectural Significance and even more so on Ambiance... any disagreement there?
So it loses on the 20%, tournament history.... no sweat, that does matter and such is life.
It can still be the greatest course in the world without that!
I hesitate to call it a fudge factor as these things do "matter."
I'd say the complaints come more from those who aren't happy with how "their" course comes out. The criteria and methodology seem just fine to me....
TH
-
Y'all should keep in mind that the overall purpose of top 100 rating lists are to SELL MAGAZINES. It's an arbritrary list, based on the opinion of about 800 raters and the editors of Golf Digest. Same holds true for Golf Magazine and their 100ish panelist and Golfweek and their 125ish raters. It's not a pure science. There are no hard fast set of rules on golf course architecture. What's one man's heaven is another's hell... The editors of Golf Digest, the only ones who matter since it is their list, believe "Tradition" is a legitimate criteria. So be it (just as long as they think The Ocean Course has tons of tradition ;))...
-
Well said, Mike - and this is especially good-natured and telling coming from you given you are one of the few on this earth with a very legitimate right to complain!
The purpose of the ratings is to sell magazines indeed and the creators of them obviously don't have to answer to anyone. It just really sucks how seriously they are taken... as if I have to tell you that! ;)
TH
-
Patrick,
I'm one of the people who has called this a "fudge factor," and I can answer some of your questions.
A lot of things have been factored into the "tradition points" the magazine has typically awarded. Ron Whitten told me years ago that Stonewall got a fraction of a tradition point because it was an all-walking course. I'm pretty sure (from the # of points it gets) that Crystal Downs gets some bonus points because it is a MacKenzie design. But the mother lode of less obvious tradition points goes to courses which have been on the GOLF DIGEST Top 100 (or Best New) in years past: Greenville Country Club got 3 or 4 points, and that's the only tradition it has!
Tradition points exist to stabilize their list. Without them, there would be a lot more change and a lot more modern courses, because there are so many courses so close together and there's so much hype about new courses and their definition of a great course is weighted toward long and expensive. And if there was so much change, their rankings wouldn't look so definitive.
The ridiculous part is that panelists have already factored in "tradition" in their ratings of everything else. I'd bet everything I own that Seminole gets better votes for "shot values" because Ben Hogan loved it, than an exact replica of Seminole in Iowa would get. The same goes for Merion, National Golf Links and the rest. They already get the benefit of the doubt because of their ambience, but then GOLF DIGEST gives them bonus points as well.
I don't think tradition has anything to do with the ultimate quality of a golf course, though there is something to be said for golf courses which have stood the test of time. And there should be some factor to counteract all the new courses which are spending marketing dollars to promote themselves as fantastic. I just think "tradition points" have gone far beyond that in GOLF DIGEST's scheme.
-
"I don't think tradition has anything to do with the ultimate quality of a golf course, though there is something to be said for golf courses which have stood the test of time."
Tom Doak
Here, here! Or is it Hear, hear?!
-
I don't think tradition has anything to do with the ultimate quality of a golf course, though there is something to be said for golf courses which have stood the test of time. And there should be some factor to counteract all the new courses which are spending marketing dollars to promote themselves as fantastic. I just think "tradition points" have gone far beyond that in GOLF DIGEST's scheme.
None of these ranking systems are perfect, that's for sure. We all have our opinions, I am certainly WAY WAY WAY less qualified than Tom Doak on this subject, but I'd say tradition DOES have at least a little something to do with the quality of a golf course...only as a positive, something that adds to the quality, but cannot be denied... it matters to me to walk in the footsteps of Hogan or Jones or Ouimet... to sample the work of MacDonald or MacKenzie or Ross or Raynor...
Just as it is very likely to mean such to future players to play an original Doak...
You just have to be patient, Tom.
New courses can't have it both ways... the laws of physics just won't allow the creation of instant tradition, though places like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes bend these laws to the point of breaking....
And tradition does matter. People can deny it, but they're fooling themselves.
Thus for me, GD does a pretty damn good job of trying to quantify the unquantifiable....
TH
-
;D
There, there!
I just disagreed with the exact quote you're trumpeting, TEP.
I just want to point this out for those who give me crap for always agreeing and never saying anything negative!
TH
-
Mr. Paul -
"Hear, hear" originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of "hear him, hear him".
Twenty inches of snow last week. Hard to stay focused on architecture. Hoping to come down to Alpine CC.
P.S. That was quite a fusillade from Mr. Mucci to open this thread.
-
Michael Moore;
Thanks, I understand now, but in the British Parliament it sounds more like "Hair, hair", correctimundo?
-
If you want to spell the word tradition in the context of today's ratings for GD you can start with one simple word -- PROP! As in propping up the ole standby-'s to make sure they stay in the position(s) they presently occupy.
Tom Doak said it plainly, simply and accurately.
The sudden rise of Shadow Creek when it jumped into the GD top ten a few years back caused a great deal of fanfare and controversy. The bottom line is that when you add categories to support the "old guard" you get other legitimate candidates scrambling for what's left.
-
Mr. Paul -
When the number of cable television channels began to grow exponentially, many Americans were transfixed by the broadcasts of the English Parliament on C-SPAN.
The sight of a wig-wearing dandy being shouted down in the middle of a speech was quite compelling. It almost seemed like it was taking place in a pub. This in comparison to a generic United States politician droning on in front of an embarrasingly empty House of Representatives.
-
Tom Huckaby,
Nothing says that you can't sell magazines by having a more candid methodology for establishing ratings. Or, that you can't sell magazines by removing the fudge factors.
If you feel that there should be a "tradition" category for raters, then the criteria for determining same has to be such that it can be communicated to the raters and consistent in its application.
You can't say, as Tom Doak pointed out, that Seminole gets points because Hogan loved it, and other courses get tradition points for reasons other than having Hogan love it.
There has to be some universal, some standard that requires consistency.
Atlantic has hosted a USGA championship and an MGA championship in its brief existance, shouldn't that give it the maximum points available under tournament, especially when compared to courses that have been around 50-100 years that have hosted nothing in the last 30-40 years.
I find the ambiance factor disengenuous as it's really an age related factor.
Let's discuss the ambiance factor.
The Medalist in Florida has ambiance and more importantly, members and staff make you feel as though you are a member. I've been to other clubs, that make you feel about as uncomfortable as you can get, yet, they get ambiance points. That's not just a joke, it strikes to the core of the rating PROCESS/CRITERIA. It is a material flaw irrespective if it works out for Sand Hills or any other golf course.
Based on the information provided by you and others, it also indicates that two clubs can NEVER be on equal footing if one is from the turn of the century and the other a recent creation.
To just cite a few clubs as examples,
What tradition does Somerset Hills have ?
What ambiance does Somerset Hills have ?
How does Somerset Hills compare/differ from The Medalist in these two categories ?
Insert Maidstone, NGLA and any other courses you want in this exercise, and I think you'll see the inconsistency, and the need to remove "tradition".
But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is still wrong.
-
Ideally, outside influences, such as “tradition” and “ambience” should not manipulate raters. Although many raters fully understand that the substance of the design outweighs the form of its surrounding parts, (golf tournaments, years of existance, shoe shines, locker rooms, lunch etc.) raters, nevertheless, are human and therefore cannot totally segregate peripheral influences.
Just as juries have difficulty disregarding incriminating, inadmissible evidence, raters too are inherently prejudiced by the subjectivities which bookend a round.
Since extrinsic matters, such as “tradition” and “ambience”, naturally influence many panelists anyway, then why do golf publications find it necessary to list them specifically as criteria? Tom Doak is right!
By doing so, they are sending a deleterious message to architects, developers, and golf clubs across the world. In an attempt to bolster their recognition and ranking, many golf clubs sadly struggle to create “ambience” when it is much better being natural and unforced.
-
"If you want to spell the word tradition in the context of today's ratings for GD you can start with one simple word -- PROP! As in propping up the ole standby-'s to make sure they stay in the position(s) they presently occupy"
I just love it! These rating people really do take themselves sooo seriously, don't they?
PROP, is it? You guys really think you're keeping the old architecture afloat?! In my opinion, the best possible thing that could happen to the great old architecture is to have those magazines and their rankings take the great old pre WW2 architecture off those magazine lists altogether! They don't need the magazines--they never did.
-
Mr. Mucci:
It's all very simple to me.
Tell me the "feel" is the same at The Medalist as it is at NGLA.
Then tell me NGLA doesn't deserve some positive "points" for this "feel".
That's all that tradition, ambiance, whatever you want to call it is. You have ambiance all wrong by the way - it has NOTHING to do with service or being made to feel like a member or anything like that - go read the definition again. Rustic Canyon has ambianbce out the wazoo and it is brand new and there is literally zero service there (intentionally) and no members. Ambiance as defined has NOTHING to do with service, or age for that matter, though the latter can help.
In any case, using the correct definitions, it does all matter - all three criteria add to the greatness of the golf course. And yes, there are some things that only a course of age can have. I see no problem with that.
No, this isn't "fair" to the Tom Doaks and Gil Hanses of the world.
But at some point in the future, Tom Doak and Gil Hanse will be on the other side of this, as Pete Dye is rapidly becoming... patience.
And in any case, none of this was meant to be fair. Golf Digest or any of the magazines don't have to answer to you or me or anyone - they do what they do, for their own reasons, and it's just unfortunate how seriously this whole silly exercise is taken.
TH
ps - I've never been to Somerset Hills.
-
Tom Huckaby,
"Feel" is subjective at best.
Are you talking about the "feel" of the golf course, or the "feel"
of the clubhouse, pro-shop, staff, etc., etc..
Ambiance is the pervading atmosphere, and if one "feels" that the club is "cold" to them, why on earth would you award it points for mistreating you ?
It would seem prudent to stick to the architecture and leave the intangibles out of it.
-
Patrick, Patrick, Patrick.
I am sensing why Tom Paul battles with you so.
Ambiance is absolutely NOT the pervading atmosphere, as it pertains to anything but the golf course itself...To use an example close to my heart, I was treated like absolute dog shit at Chicago GC, but I'd give it very high ratings for ambiance, given that the definition of such is:
"how well does the overall feel and atmosphere OF THE COURSE reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?" (caps added by me)
The "service" sucked and I was made to feel very third-class and made to know absolutely that I didn't belong. Nevertheless, the place oozed "traditional values of the game of golf"... the CBMac design was enough for that to come through no matter what the people there did to me.
Maybe this helps, maybe not.
And yes, this is very subjective. What part of evaluation of golf course architecture isn't? You really think you can scientifically, objectively quantify all the rest?
TH
-
Ron Whitten described it to me this way:
Ambiance is still misunderstood by most clubs and even a few panelists. It's defined as "how well does the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game. We don't spell out those traditional values, but leave it up to panelists to decide what values of the game they deem important. (Personally, walking is a traditional value. I'd abolish the separate walking category and include it here, but I don't run the show.) It's the one area where panelists are allowed to consider ancillary things, such as clubhouses and caddie programs, in our survey. I could care less about the size of shower heads in the locker room (but some of our editors love that stuff.) On the other hand, I think barber shop poles in the middle of the fairway at 150 out don't reflect traditional values, nor do GPS systems or even red/blue/white markers in the fairway. Yardages determined by caddies reflects the grand old game, but that's a game of the past at most places.
"Right now, I'm guessing most panelists deem residential development courses to be "non-traditional" and thus lower in Ambiance than core courses. (Ironicly, of course, is that one of America's oldest residential courses -- Pebble Beach -- is now No. 1.) If that's the case, The Ocean Course should do pretty well in Ambiance. But that's just my guess. Without seeing written comments or talking with panelists (which I haven't done with this latest survey), I don't know what most were thinking.
Of course, The Ocean Course doing well in the panelist's ambiance rating did us no good since we weren't old enough to reap the benefits...
-
Thank you once again, Mike.
I am happy to see that I've been doing ambiance ratings "correctly", as my take on it is damn near exactly the same as Whitten's.
TH
-
Re: Mike Vegis' post and the numbers,
Mike,
How did you arrive at the list of rankings without tradition ?
The ranking lists, even assuming the top 100 (w/tradition) was used to generate a ranking of only these top 100 without tradition, still look odd.
The 'real' list of top 100 without tradition would be interesting. If someone has the real ranking for courses without tradition, please post that list.
What looked odd to me is that there were no courses on the 'list with tradition' that slipped out of the top 100 without tradition. Some courses in the 90-100 range stayed in that range without tradition or with (Aronimink, Wilmington,Greenville, Atlantic, NCR, Shoreacres, etc.). Some modern courses in the mid range (w/o tradition) stayed inside 100 with tradition (Sanctuary, Crosswater, World Woods, Quarry, Double Eagle, etc).
The moderns are crowding the 50-100 range and taking hugh hits for tradition by comparison. GD has long delayed the Golfweek split of Modern and Classics. Considering the new courses coming 'online' and that 'ambiance' will soon count for courses reaching 10 years of age and increasing for these modern courses, there will be more pressure on the 'classics'. (ex: of extremes....The Quarry goes from 40 to 91 and while falling, is passed by Canterbury going from 98 to 56.)
Is it that the shot value points (which are doubled) are much greater for moderns given the more modern penal style with the forced carries and more lateral and cross water hazards of this era ? Maybe shot values shouldn't be doubled since you have a value for scoring resistance.
Anyway, making another assumption that the rankings are very tight, say in the 50 to 100 range, there are courses making comparatively large leaps up and down the list ....
Hugh jump to a 'better' ranking with tradition..... Canterbury, Cascades, etc. and the weird bird that gets a much better ranking with tradition is Harbour Town (pullease) .......a great course, significant in its day, a good routing but with almost no ambiance. It must the tradition of going over to Harbour Town after the Masters. The Honors drops because of tradition (?) but then it could go up the list when it soon reaches 20 years of age ? Goofy.
Within the top 100, the movement by 'tradition' is really amazing. 'Tradition' sure seems like a prop...or.....a short term solution to the issues of modern vs classic.
I agree with others that maybe it is good that the classics are dropping off for the sake of the classics. This might save a classic or two. Also, I would say that the classics would be much better off, in terms of GCA, if the USGA would hold the men's top events on the newer courses whenever possible ....or....they should start that USGA Open trail with the $$$ in the coffers.....since they will not work on the little white ball and technology issues. USGA events on the moderns would 'raise' their tradition rating and hurry the classics off the GD rankings.
John
-
I find it interesting that the only justification mentioned so far is to sell magazines. When I heard the Emperor and our Armenian scribe discuss GW role they viwed it as an opportunity to effectuate a change in GCA. I extrapolated their goal to mean "NO MORE CRAP, PLEASE"
For GD I suppose that isn't in their make-up and are more sensitive to the needs of advertisers. I would've thought the newbies would spend more in their marketing blitz's than some stuffed shirt that rests on Laurels or more appropriatly, posteriors.
-
All I could do was put the raw numbers from the actual magazine's ranking issue into Excel and manipulate them (by subtracting the "tradition" category). Obviously, I didn't have the numbers for the courses who came in 101 and above so I would have no way of knowing which courses fell out of the top 100 and which snuck in... My interest was in where The Ocean Course fell since that's my own special interest... 8)
-
Adam: GW's role in the creation of rankings is to effect a change in GCA like my role in life is to dunk on Shaquille.
All of these rankings in the end sell magazines. GW, Golf, GD, whatever. They each come at it from different angles but to say GW is somehow rising to a higher purpose that GD is well... not how I see it.
This does not lessen my respect and admiration for the many GW rating panelists I know, nor for Mr. Klein. Of all the national magazines GW does do the best job of evaluation and analysis, no doubt. But come on, without selling the magazine none of this exists.
TH
-
TOM, TOM, TOM,
Using TEPaul's name is similar to Harry Potter and the mention of the name Valdemort, it's not safe to do so, he may be lurking.
You referenced the term "Ambiance" as a rating category.
Webster's dictionary defines "Ambiance" as:
"the pervading atmosphere"
If someone is going to use a word, a term, I can only go by its accepted definition, not someone else's interpretation.
Mike's explanation refined what Ron Whitten meant by the term, "ambiance".
Perhaps, "the absence of artificial aids and devices" would better define what raters are to look for, as opposed to ambiance.
Is there a difference in a club with marked sprinkler heads and another club where the sprinkler heads aren't marked, but the pro shop sells a book showing the yardages from every sprinkler head, tee, bunker etc., etc. ?
I would be curious to know how Pebble Beach, Winged Foot and Quaker Ridge were viewed in the adjacent housing context, especially in comparison with some residential community courses.
-
Patrick:
Sorry for the triple name use - my parents used to do that all the time - still do - shaking their heads as they say it. I've started to do it myself with my kids. Odd habit.
You continue to strangely miss the boat on this, which prompted the triple name. Maybe Mr. Paul would not find this strange... and hush! Whisper when you mention he who's name cannot be said. ;)
In any case, if we are going to discuss and critique the Golf Digest ranking system, how can we do anything else than use THEIR definitions? Yes, "ambiance" has a far different meaning in Webster's. But we're not discussing if the Webster's "ambiance" counts for golf course evaulation - your post pondered the value of the GOLF DIGEST use of "tradition". They give percentage value to a term they call "ambiance." Thus it makes no sense to evaluate anything but their term... That is, unless you want to completely change the question.
Do you?
Sticking to the first question, I continue to believe GD does a fine job of attempting to quantify what really is unquantifiable.
"How well does the overall feel and atmosphere OF THE COURSE reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?" (caps added by me)
You'd disagree that this concept matters for golf courses?
If so, then fair enough. I believe you do disagree, and that's fundamental to all of this, so we shall never come to any common ground here. That's certainly ok also... But let's get straight where our differences are as well!
TH
-
Boys, Boys, Boys (oops, now you've got me doing it), let's not bicker. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Golf Digest and Ron Whitten. Had they not come up with the top 100 list so many years ago, I'm quite sure the brotherhood of GCA junkies would be much, much smaller. I doubt there would even be a GCA website. The appreciation for the nuances of architecture would be totally lost except for a very few truly hard-core. Such lists opened the subtlety of design to the masses, including many of us who post here...
-
Tom Huckaby,
Until Mike Vegis provided the intended definition and use of the word for Golf Digest, neither of us knew precisely what they meant by it. And, I would suspect that other raters weren't clear on the context in which it should be applied.
I'm not critical of Golf Digest's rankings, or any other rankings.
I do have questions about the process or methodology used.
And, I would agree with the subtracting of points for barber poles or big plastic dishes in the fairway, as well as other artificial devices/markers.
The other area that I question is the adjacent housing issue, and it's universal, consistent application. For example, you can't take points off of Applebrook for the housing on # 18 and not do the same for # 18 at Pebble Beach.
Anyone who thinks that Rankings only sell magazines, isn't giving them enough credit. They do far more, and can be valueable to a golf club if viewed properly.
-
Mike - this isn't bickering! I find all this to be pretty darn civil... Oh, I can bicker if you want... ;)
Patrick: we're not as far apart on this as it would seem. I suppose I got fooled by your sequential questions:
"Why would tradition, an intangible, or subjective at least,
be considered in evaluating the architecture of a golf course ?
What is tradition in the "Golf Digest" context ?"
and the fact that you referenced Mike's re-compilation of the Golf Digest list... I thought this was far more about Golf Digest specifically than the concept in general.
[SNOTTY ASIDE: I for one have always been quite clear on what Golf Digest means, and I provided the definition. I do however understand that Mike's quote from Whitten clarified things. Of course I never had any question... but that's just me!]
In any event, I personally would prefer that the entire concept be just "bonus points" which can be added for those deserving - ie those Doak says have stood the test of time - and this can't be far from what Golf Digest does, can it? I wouldn't subtract points for artificial devices - I'd ADD points for those who avoid such, or come up with creative, traditional means to convey the information. I'd also certainly not make that the bellweather for all of this, by any means. Everything that effects whether a course reflects and upholds the traditional values of the game of golf would matter. As you can see, I like the GD definition.
As for adjacent housing, that's certainly not a defined criterion, not by Golf Digest anyway...
But if it is to count, universal application would be wise, certainly. I can't see it always being a negative anyway... the houses adjacent to Pebble are certainly not the same as the slummish condos adjacent to SFGC, for example....
TH
-
No Dave, this isn't Russia. At least I didn't think it was. ;)
Interesting... your methodology seems to be pretty much how Golf Week does things, at least how I understand it from talking to all the GW raters we know. That's a fine way also. But this "I know what I like when I see it" methodology without any particulars is the most subjective of all. I don't have any problem with that whatsoever... it just has to be made clear from the start that's all the list is: a list of what a fairly small group of people like and don't like.
Golf Digest just takes a different tack, and does try to quantify all of this, with data from a much larger group.
Golf Magazine has an even smaller group, and it's even more subjective - no numerical values at all, just a straight ranking of what's better than others.
Each way is valuable. There's no right or wrong way to do this. And there are many other ways it could be done also, I'm sure! Rich wants the Michelin star system, you want what you state - that's all great.
One way or the other, we're never gonna agree... and that's the fun of it.
TH
-
The issue boils down what is the core emphasis on any course assessment?
The addition of "tradition" is a clever outside attempt to skew the final outcome so that certain "classic" courses remain viable (defined by their continuing status within GD's top 100). Think of the points that go to courses that have hosted major championships but have little heft architecturally? There are plenty of people who sadly still provide support for courses that garner high marks for visibility on television.
When a course is rated the central and all important aspect is the analysis of the type of shots and holes you encounter, in my opinion. The additional critteria have been added to thrwart many of the newer courses from edging further up in the standings.
When the word "tradition" is added it's clear the attempt is preserve the past even when the chief merits (see my top priority mentioned above) don't justify it. I've said it before many times there are a number of outstanding courses that have opened within the last 25 years, however, because the space above them is occupied by other courses that are "propped" up by periphery categories you get a very static listing. That's why it's good to have a different take on ratings that you see with GolfWeek because "modern" designs are indeed mentioned. However, I'd still like to see a ratings that highlights the areas of primary emphasis I previously outlined.
When people start adding into the equation the merits of the clubhouse or the size of the shower heads, to name just two, these are the same type of people who measure the quality of the restaurant by the types of curtains that hang in the facility. ::) Tom Doak said it best regarding the "double whammy" effect that already takes place because there are way too many panelists who are awed by the name of course "x" simply because Hogan / Nicklaus, et al played there. These courses receive a small, but significant, "boost" prior to the creation of such categories like "tradition" and "walking." When you add these other categories you get the margin necessary for them to remain rated within the top 100.
Look, ratings is subjective, we all know that, but it's the "core" areas that should drive the process. Weighing down the selection process with esoteric and inane categories only serves to confuse rather than clarify what is really superb architecture / golf courses.
-
Tom Huckaby,
The quality (?) of the adjacent housing can be the luck of the draw or neighborhood, and the value of the home shouldn't be a consideration in evaluating the quality of the architecture.
On the first tee at Pebble, a three story hotel wing parallels the right side, the big homes come later in the round.
Dave Schmidt,
No, this isn't Russia, but then again, what is these days ?
-
Golf Digest's rating system is like the all exempt tour. Everyone knows that there are better players/courses out there but they can't get into the big time because of the system.
I haven't paid any attention to GD's ratings for a long time because of the biased system. When I've sent questions to the editor, pointing out that the magazine's publication of their ratings as "The Best Golf Courses", they are not being truthful because of the biases built into the sytem. Tradition, walking (when 90% of the golfers including the majority of their course raters ride), ambiance, and history have nothing to do with a player hitting quality shots. The best course should be the best playing course-nothing more-nothing less.
I've suggested that GD publish alternate ratings based on the quality of the golf course alone. Haven't seen it happen yet but maybe it eventually will.
I agree that the purpose of the ratings is to sell magazines but I also think that selling advertizing to want-a-be courses is part of the equation.
I repeat, I never even look at their ratings any more.
Texsport
-
I love these arguments: Our useless, meaningless numbers are much more meaningful than your useless, meaningless numbers.
Mike Vegis @ Kiawah writes:
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Golf Digest and Ron Whitten.
Why? What have these rankings done to advance golf course architecture? They've done plenty of harm, but what is the good they have done that deserves gratitude?
I've been trying to rank the various days of my life. There was my wedding day, then again there was also when we got divorced. There were the days my children were born, but then there was that day with two young hookers in Reno named Good and Plenty. Sure as a day that affected my life, the birth of my children was huge, but I can't see a pack of Good 'n Plenty and not think found thoughts.
It sure is tough to rank totally unrelated things.
Dan King
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
-
Well, you know how you and I fundamentally disagree on this, Matt. I'd say with conviction that in an analyis of The Country Club, for example, the clubhouse, shower heads, etc. obviously shouldn't matter for squat, but the fact that Ouimet defeated Vardon and Ray in a playoff there, and the fact this course remains as great today as it was then DOES matter. I've never played there but I'd guarantee you I'd feel the ghosts of those greats if I did. To somehow not have that "count" is silly. To me, trying to make the same putt Ouimet did... on the same green Leonard performed his feats so many years later... that is all part of The Country Club and denying this to somehow make things "fair" for modern courses is silly.
But hey, it's a big beautiful golf world, and to each his own.
One final point: in any ranking system we've discussed, the "core areas" DO drive the process. "Tradition" is just one of the criteria for GD, as you well know.
You say it shouldn't count, I say it should. That's just fine. But remember it is just a small part of the whole... One could just as easily argue the "fudge factor" comes in any of the other criteria.
TH
-
Interesting, Dan... and strange that I too have tried to rank the days of my life. Strange how I have no problem with the worst... it's the best that's tough. But I haven't experienced Good and Plenty!
The whole thing is silly beyond a doubt. Unfortunately, the rankings are taken so seriously and mean so much money, it's tough to wish them away.. as much good as this would do, for golf, and for golf architecture... Thus to me, this discussion of silliness is worthwhile... at least as much as Haiku Tuesday, anyway. ;)
TH
-
Dave,
In tennis, it is the number of sets won that counts. You can win more games and lose, but not sets. And this is not Russia where you can win more battles and still lose the war.
Others,
In this volley of words, Tom seems to be winning the war by simply stating that THIS is how the GD ratings work. If you want to start your own ratings system, feel free. But GD is what it is. It is NOT set up to ONLY value golf architecture. If you want that ranking setup, then great. But what is the point of trying to tell the rabbit it should fly? If you want a ranking setup that flys, find one that flys and leave the rabbit alone. And let us all know when you have perfected your ranking system that deals with course architecture only. That will probably make for a thread that goes on longer than the Bridge thread. Hold on to your hats.
-
Dan K:
You're right -- after Good and Plenty -- who needs to rank golf courses! What a silly waste of time when other pursuits are available. ;D
Tom H:
When you speak about fudge let me remind you that GD is the one doing the fudging with the insertion of non-course related criteria. Don't you think many of the ole-guard were "upset" that Shadow Creek pushed into the top ten not too long ago?
Tom, help me understand what the "fudge" is when you look simply and plainly at the holes and the shots that are required. That is golf -- right? The showerheads represent what -- you've got to help me out with that one! Ditto, all the BS that's calculated into the mix to do what -- prop up the older courses that could not continue if such categories were eliminated. I know a "fix" when I see one -- it's no different than giving one team four downs to make a first down and another "older" team five downs.
Look, it's great that Francis O whipped Ray and Vardon's butt at TCC. It's a historical fact no doubt and one that elevated golf in America greatly, however, it's the quality of the course TODAY that counts. When ratings do in fact come out it's the merits of the holes TODAY -- not from nearly 100 years ago that needs to be assessed. I'm not downplaying the significance of the event in 1913, but course ratings are not past oriented they are based on existing situations. If events have happened there (i.e. major championships) that's great but it should not be some sort of all-important consideration or factor.
When one starts handing out points for an additional boost you penalize modern courses, and even other older courses, that have significant "core" strengths.
You're right Tom -- we do disagree. But texsport said it best in his post. Ratings can only be taken seriously, if at all, when they are credible. When esoteric criteria are thrown into the mix and reasonable people can see what is being so cleverly done you have a skewed representaton on what is deemed the "best."
-
Matt:
First, I never said that shower heads mattered. Read my post again, if you care to.
So ok, potato, potahto, and yes, we can call this whole thing off. We came to no common ground before, and I have no hopes we can now. I seem to be an emotional golfer, you seem to deal more with the here and now. That's ok, there are more of you than there are of me. But if you can play The Country Club and not feel the magic, well.... that says it all, to me. This all comes back to the Shinnecock/NGLA distiniction once again!
I'm also just not nearly as cynical as you and prefer to believe, however naively, that Golf Digest does what it says it is going to do, and doesn't use "tradition" as a manipulation of the results, as you and so many others claim. Mr. Whitten's words speak loudly to me, and I prefer to take them at face value.
In any case, the most important point of all is that there are many ways to do this, many ways this IS done, and they are all rather silly.
To me, the GD ratings are credible. They also take into account something which to me, and dare I say the vast majority of golfers, does matter: what GD defines as "tradition."
But then, I'm new to this, and I like to look at the good rather than seek out the bad.
And I'm not going to change in that respect.
TH
-
I think these "rankings" discussions are amusing. They've been going on as long as I can remember and nothing changes. Face it guys, it's NOT the criteria, it's the panelists that impact the rankings. Yes there is a "fudge factor" if you want to call it that but all panelists know this and take that into consideration in their reviews! At the end of the day, it's the knowledge and experience of the panelists that primarily determine where courses fall on the list. I keep my own personal list which happens to be quite different from GD's and I place the courses accordingly and this is reflected in my reviews. Also, if you notice, the "tradition" numbers don't change much from year to year. If course XXX got a 4.3 one year it probably will get something similar the following review period.
By the way, unlike Ron and a few others, I happen to love those huge shower heads like you find at Merion, Garden City, Seminole, etc. But guess what, they don't impact what numbers I put down on my review ;)
Mark
-
Tom H:
Guest is quite right -- there are other ways to get to Rome. The GD ratings are just one opinion -- nothing more and nothing less. We clearly don't need another Bridge thread do me now. ;D
Tom, please do not believe I'm cynical -- I'm just speaking plainly from my experiences. Again -- nothing more and nothing less.
Mark F:
Glad to know you apply "core" elements, but please don't dismiss the fact that just the simple inclusion of these "added" points has a very large impact on which courses stay and which courses are eliminated from consideration.
Would love to see your personal listing though! Bring it to Alpine on January 11 partner if you dare ... ;)
-
Guest,
If we accepted everything, just the way it is, with no constructive criticism, progress would be impossible.
-
Re: this funny topic
If I am reading GD rating system correctly, and if the course is 'old' enough, ambiance maybe counts 1.4 times (once for ambiance and then again as 40% of tradition) ....... huh ?
As others said........maybe the rankings can sell magazines but that is small potatoes to resort trips, resort pricing, property, memberships, advertisement in magazines, etc.
Although there is a limit for tradition, it sure matters as you can see course rankings, even within the top 100, bounce way up or down by Mike Vegis' posting.
Maybe a wine type rating with a doak qualifier ....so that a course might be a 50 +9. The +9 doak qualifier would be for GCA. You don't add the two but you consider both when making golf arrangements....maybe like a tyre, you say it is a 50 GCA 9. Split the rankings into modern and classic and then add the doak qualifier. Those 'other' golfers have their number and GCA golfers have theirs.
So like an Old Town might be, on the classic, ...say 80 GCA 8
John
ps >> excerpt from GD Whitten article...... "Ambience: How well does the overall feel and atmosphere reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game ? "
" Bonus Tradition Points consist of three parts: 20 percent Tournament History, 40 percent Architectural History and 40 percent Ambiance. A course can earn Tournament History points for conducting national events--a bigger number for majors, a smaller one for tour events. Some courses, such as Pebble Beach and Augusta National, have long since reached the maximum allowable points in this portion of Tradition.
Architectural History points are earned for each appearance on America's 100 Greatest or other Golf Digest rankings. Courses deemed significant in the history of design also earn points.
The Ambiance portion is an average of all panelists' scores in that category. To earn any part of the Ambiance score, a course must be at least 10 years old. The older a course gets, the greater the Ambiance score it receives.
The maximum for Bonus Tradition Points is 10. Since Ambiance fluctuates with each new panelist ballot, Bonus Tradition Points will go up and down from survey to survey."
-
where can Mike's post of the GD list ex tradition be found?
-
Nobody has addressed the tournament history question I posed.
Is it:
PGA events
USGA events
Regional golf association events
State Golf association events
Club invitationals or special tournaments
or a combination of the above.
What is the SPECIFIC CRITERIA for determining "tournament history" ?
How did Maidstone, Seminole, Somerset Hills, Kittansett and others score in this category ?
If a club held a Walker Cup 50 years ago, and nothing since, is there a shelf life to "tournament history" points ?
How did Atlantic's tournament history compare to Maidstone's, Seminole's, Somerset Hills's and Kittansett's ?
Is there a clear definition for determining "tournament History" and is it applied equitably, consistently and universally ?
-
Pat, Pat, Pat!
Go easy on the twenty question posts, will ya? Those questions don't matter.
There's only one legitimate question here.
How many more magazines get sold with the ranking issue?
-
Tom Paul:
Pat's questions are all valid. How can you not see that?
As I've read through this, he has mostly asked questions in hopes of getting an answer he understands. Saying, "We rank 'tradition'" doesn't really clarify it well enough if someone wants to know how it works.
I'm reminded of a discussion with the old pro of White Bear. He asked for and received a breakdown of the Golf Digest numbers on his course. He was appalled - I think justly - at the "Tradition" score his course received.
Donald Ross designed the course and one of the most prolific champions in the USGA's history was an early member. (Johnson or Johnston?) "Well, we didn't mean THAT KIND of tradition," was the only response a defender of the GD list could have possibly come up with.
Tradition of what? Good question, Pat. My guess is that USGA events matter. Ditto TOUR. I'm guessing hosting a State Am every 5 or 10 years doesn't register.
In some ways, Tom Huckaby is right. But I don't want him to be. Take an average golfer, put him on a course in excellent condition, tell him it is a great course, and show him the photos in the clubhouse of prominent tournaments the course has posted... a course has to be pretty bad NOT to make a good impression. In Orlando, this explains people's love for Lake Nona, Bay Hill, and Disney's Magnolia. People don't form their own opinion so much as their opinion is formed by others. If most of their readers think playing a course with a pedigree is part of the intrigue, isn't GD just pandering to them?
The GD list is accurate. As accurate as one can be when you use a category that can't be defined. (I'd like it better if it were "10 pts. for each U.S. Open, 8 for the Am, 3 for hosting an annual TOUR stop for 5+ years, etc..." I'd still disagree that it was a relevant criteria, but at least it'd make sense.) I don't pay much attention to it because it has become self-fulfilling to some degree. Once a Classic makes the list, it is nearly impossible to fall off. The composition has remained fairly stable as far as representation from Modern/Classic.
Since none of us seem to love any of the lists, why not just make your own? ;)
-
:D
I believe that GD, GW, and other's need these annual ratings to sell paper, that provides income for writers, photographers, etc, down to developers, pros and greens keepers and to advertisers... It doesn't matter what their criteria are... so as several have suggested, why not have a CGA.com criteria set?
I believe there's already criteria on the GCA.com homepage within Ran's descriptive prose.. throw up to a hundred points at each, mix and meld them against each other as you see fit, compile and sort, voila' .. It would be nice if GCA.com could provide a means of capturing such for every course where folks have played and to average their determinations.
1) Enjoyment is the primary theme
2) place in history and improvements/setbacks in golf course architecture.
3) architectural periods divide the courses for comparison
4) minimalism and natural challenge
5) modification needed to adjust to equipment changes.
6) architecturally imposed movement and shaping of land
7) hazards and features of strategic interest
8) continuity of style
9) brute length and strength required
10) variety within and between holes of shot making options
11) rennaisance value, the king is dead, long live the king!
12) manufacturing quality & visual impact
13) playing strategy risk & reward
14) charm & subtleties in design for play
15) subjective art form versus function
16) the tests of time, as play begets maintenance, maintenance begets continuity, continuity begets understanding and understanding begets a return game.
-
Steve,
If GCA tried to come up with a more acceptable rating criteria, I'm 100% convinced they could not do it. They would never reach agreement. If GCA just tried to list the top 5 or 10 courses they could not do that either! So how could they ever possibly agree on the top 100??
Let me throw out what should be a "simple" question for such an architecturally astute group - What are the five best designs "from an architecture standpoint" in the U.S.? I'm sure there is no way GCA could ever agree on even this!
Mark
-
Mark Fine,
Your five best designs question is exactly what I was getting at above. I agree. And anyone who tries to lay out criteria that will always be addressed evenly across different raters will be run through the ringer just like Tom in this thread. And now that I mention that, that might just prove to be very useful.
-
I think Tom Paul is right about the number of issues being sold. Does the ratings issue sell more? What's the economic reality as it pertains to any list? Certainly more to the courses than to the magazine.
Tom H- Why are you a rater? If there is no larger purpose why the heck would anyone want to do it?
-
Personally I don't think the semi annual edition of the top 100 sells more and if so I bets it less than 1 or 2 percent. Its not like people go to buy the SI swimsuit edition.
Does ANGC or Pine Valley care, no, its only the resorts and especially the golf courses with developments who advertise themselves as being a top 100 course and probably they don't even buy more magazines.
Pat: No one at GD has ever told us (at least me) what specific tournaments qualify for this catagory but I'll ask Ron.
-
Joel Stewart,
Thanks,
If you're going to have a rating category, it would seem logical to have guidelines and/or parameters by which raters can evaluate in that context.
While the "club" may not care about ratings, it has been my limited experience that members and potential members do.
-
John Conley:
You're right--I shouldn't tell Pat not to ask all these questions about the nitty gritty and nuances of the magazine rating criteria, like 'tradition'.
It's certainly no secret that as time goes on I think the whole magazine ranking issue is a ridiculous joke, but that certainly doesn't mean I should expect or assume that others think the way I do about it.
People really do believe in the magazine rankings and take them extremely seriously. I just think that's unfortunate. But I wouldn't feel that way at all if they'd bother to try to explain and educate people about architecture. Sometimes it appears that some of these magazines can't be bothered to explain it to their own panelists or maybe they don't even know how!
-
Mark Fine said:
"Let me throw out what should be a "simple" question for such an architecturally astute group - What are the five best designs "from an architecture standpoint" in the U.S.? I'm sure there is no way GCA could ever agree on even this!"
Mark:
You're exactly right! And that's just another really good reason why these magazines, ranking the way they do is basically the height of ridiculousness! Golfers don't really even need to know what the 5-10 or 110 best are, unless there's some consistent architectural reason why they should be the top 5-10 best that's explained by the magazines and probably in detail!
What they need to do is start to write about what's good or bad or mediocre about any particular course and its architecture!
But they don't do that. Frankly, I don't think they're even capable of doing that without just simply turning the project over to a few Ron Whittens and such.
But they can't do that and the reasons why are pretty apparent and more evidence of why the whole thing is not really worth it except to the magazine's own sales!
I mean, come on, I know a little bit about golf architecture and I've yet to see most of these magazines with their rankings tell me one damn thing I'd like to know about why they think some of these courses are so good!
-
Tom Paul,
No long debate on the lists as I know you hate them. But I am surprised you can't understand at least some benefit. First of all, a top 100 list itself isn't going to "educate" you about golf course architecture. That is not what they are for. However, if you do want to get educated, simply go play some or all of those courses on the list and I guarantee you will learn at least a little something about it.
I've never been hung up about whether these lists are right or wrong because there are no right or wrong answers. But for golfers who get around, the top 100 lists, the state lists, the best new lists, etc. provide a decent guide as to where they might want to try to play. Sure some of the courses are not easy to access but for many of them, where there is a will there is a way. I should note that I have a buddy who is putting together a worldwide network that will actually make it much easier for many of us to make some of these connections.
Anyway, all of us on this site should stop looking at the negatives when it comes to these lists and embrace (or at least try to find) the positives. The lists are not going away and we should think about how we can use them to our advantage. They influence a lot of people including developers and architects. I'd venture to say 99% of us ;)
Mark
-
Mark_Fine,
;) Are you wanting it multiple ways?.. Criticizing criteria, wanting only a small group of reference designs to hold up as the gold standard and copy?, then accepting and wanting to embrace the ratings lists, for the lowest common denominator to find where to direct the hordes to play?
Anyway, all of us on this site should stop looking at the negatives when it comes to these lists and embrace (or at least try to find) the positives. The lists are not going away and we should think about how we can use them to our advantage. They influence a lot of people including developers and architects. I'd venture to say 99% of us ;)
I simply think GCA.COM folks could create a better set of criteria and then exercise them to death. look what PatM has done with one...
A scribe is needed to carry this out, could there be an electronic one?
I'm not looking for comparisons between courses as much as opinions of those within the larger group or population that has played the specific courses.. If there's consensus on a feature, fine, dissension, fine.. We don't need a popularity contest which the listings seem to be.. with ballot stuffing etc.. but some do irregardless.
There will never be any agreement on gca.com until we've all played the same courses, under similar conditions.. not likely.
-
Steve Lang,
You understand, why don't others ? ;D
When the raters don't have an understanding of the criteria for "Tournament History" how can they effectively rate any golf course ?
Shouldn't they know what it is that they are looking for so that they can factor it into their evaluation ?
Not one rater has defined this sub-set category.
I don't have a problem with anyone creating a list, but the methodology employed to determine the relative values resulting in the rating should be defined, understood, and applied equitably, consistently and universally.
Tell those guys, "it's the process, stupid" ;D
-
Mark Fine:
I don't want to debate you either but your post is no answer as far as I'm concerned. If you're really looking for some positives in those lists then make some positive recommendations instead of always simply saying there must be some positives in there somewhere because the lists aren't going away.
I've no doubt that clients and architects probably do put a lot of stock in those lists for marketing their products--that's certainly undeniable.
But if that's happening wouldn't you think the magazines might then accept some responsibility of trying to do some educating of golfers within their magazines about architecture and what exactly is good about it and what isn't?
You don't have to answer that because obviously you don't think that--since you're on record on here many times about that 99% who don't know, don't care and probably never want to know or are even capable of learning. And I suppose in your opinion that 99% might also be the magazine's readership!
And you have a buddy whose trying to put together a worldwide network so "MANY of us" can make better connections?
Man, that's really ridiculous to me. People who have even half an idea about this whole panelist rating thing that doesn't seem to educate anyone very well on architecture anyway have always suspected most of the panelists as blatant "access seekers" anyway. That really solidifies that impression, in my book!
Personally, I'd take one Matt Ward who may write in detail about his architectural impressions of a course, even if in his own magazine, over 100 magazine panelists! I'd also take 5 Ron Whittens over all 800 panelists.
But it seems like Matt Ward may have been too honest about something to do with architecture or his feeling about the way the magazines might go about it. So what do they do instead of considering what he's saying to them? They get rid of him--that's what I heard.
And the dumb beat goes on just to sell magazines! If they thought about it a bit more clearly they'd probably sell a helluva lot more magazines if they tried to educate golfers on architecture.
Oh, that's right, that niggling old 99% again. I momentarily must have forgotten about that.
-
I am pretty new to even ever seeing a ranking list but I'd bet there is some positive that could emerge. That would be the trend of what's considered good/great. It seems only natural that as time goes on we learn more and perhaps there is a trend in GCA, and therefore the entire industry, that can't really be seen any otherway than to use lists. I predict that if enough of the lower budgeted firm and fast projects all make splashes on the list circut, one would have to have too much money to continue to waste it on what has become the norm, or better known as.. the previous trend.
-
Steve,
You must be confusing me with Mark_F. I am NOT posting as Mark_F, that is someone else!
Tom Paul,
Please tell me the names of all the courses these clueless panelists have voted for on GD's current top 100 list that would be a complete waste of time and effort to go play?
Also, regarding access, I have heard many times about people complaining they can't get on private courses. Even you might admit that it's hard to study a golf course if you can't get on it. It's no different than an architect designing a new course without ever seeing or walking the site. There may be panelists who are panelists because they want access. I was not one of them as when I joined, I had already played nearly 500 courses around the world and most of the so called top 100. I didn't need access but some people do. So be it! If there is a way to help with that, what is the downside?? I don't see any and I'm sure many people here would agree!
Matt Ward was taken off the panel for other reasons than you suggest. Ask him in private if you want to know why.
I'm tried to explain many of the positives of the lists many times but some people are closed minded and don't listen. Just the fact that developers and most every architect out there is influenced by these lists should be enough for you!!!!! Until you grasp reality and buyin at least to some degree on what I mean by my 99% rule you will be living in a pipe dream.
Let me put it one other way - There is an old saying, before you can fix a problem, you better make sure you fulling understand what it is! If you want to really influence the direction of golf architecture, you better understand the golfers you are catering to and all the influences out there and figure out ways to use them to your advantage. Think about that ;)
Mark
-
I am positive that this group (or many others) could come up with a better list of criteria to define a "great golf course" than the GOLF DIGEST system.
However, where this group would fall down (as GOLF DIGEST does) is in weighting the relative importance of those criteria.
GOLF DIGEST makes "Shot Values" worth 20 points, and then all its other categories (condition, tradition, memorability, etc.) worth ten points each. Other than for simplicity's sake, does that make any sense? Of course not ... but no two panelists would agree on which criteria were worth more.
At any rate, many of the best courses are the ones which break the rules successfully and stretch the envelope of golf course design. That right there is difficult to quantify.
-
One of the obvious flaws in any rating that implies "Top" something, is that every panelist hasn't played every venue.
Even in beauty pagents, the judges get a feel for :o every contestant.
-
;D
If anyone is really serious about creating a new "quantitative rating" they need to move beyond Math 101.. and take some more cues from nature, the arts AND science.
Diversity of opinions may be captured by various metrics and used to form "distributions". Many physical things in nature are log-normally distributed, like the particle sizes of dust blowin in the wind.. We're not talking nice and neat bell curves (arithmetic probability distributions) here, but if that's what you can relate to, use it.. average, mean, standard deviation, kurtosis anyone?
The processes of trying to figure out what criteria should be used or what metric values should be given or what weighting should be provided create unique distributions which may be merged mathematically.
So it doesn't matter whether "everyone" agrees on a unique metric value or not. It does matter that the rules for defining these relative metrics be established.. perhaps by the benevolent dictator?
-
Tom Doak,
You know very well that it's the weighting that is most important and the experience of the panelist. Look at the "criteria" that Golf Magazine has? They don't have criteria! However, I guarantee you that every one of their panelists do and it's surely all unique! Golfweek is no different. Heck their numbers don't even add up. You can give a course all 5's and then give it an overall rating of 7. At the end of the day, you can make the numbers come out to what ever you want them to be. And there is nothing wrong with any of this. The bottomline is that if a panelist happens to play what he thinks is one the ten best courses he's played or a course that deserves top 100 consideration, he rates it accordingly.
The criteria does not "force" anything. Take the controversial resistance to scoring category. There may be times I play a very difficult course and give it a low resistance to scoring number. I might do that because the difficulty is one dimensional. Firestone South comes to mind! This is not paint by numbers as some people think.
Adam,
Your point about seeing all the courses is a good one and one that I have raised in the past. If you haven't seen all the best, its quite hard to rate all the best! Like Doak says in his book, if you haven't played all the 10's, you don't know how good golf can get!
Steve,
Afraid you won't get too far here. Again the subject of rating is very subjective and regardless of the criteria, everyone will view things differently and give their own weightings. No one has the right answers because there are none. There might be more knowledgable opinions but they are still just personal opinions.
Mark
-
Regardless of how you rate a course, the outcome expresses a bias. There is no way around that. So, to determine the real value of a rating, you need to fully understand the biases at work in the raters and in those rating the raters. Good luck to anyone trying to do this.
Wouldn't it just be more productive to go out and play golf--even a bad round of golf on a "bad" golf course?
-
Guest,
If 100 raters play and evaluate a golf course, don't the biases cancel each other out, leaving you with a reasonable, balanced evaluation ?
But, this thread isn't about "the ratings" it's about the internal criteria for evaluation purposes.
Noone has yet to address, let alone answer the
"tournament history" question.
So I say to all raters out there, what's your basis for establishing points under the "tradition" sub-category of
"tournament history" ?
The lack of a response would seem to indicate that the raters themselves have not been given specific guidelines by those responsible for the rating criteria.
-
Mark Fine:
Again, you're not answering the question of the magazine rankings failing to educate the golfing public on what constitutes good architecture.
Saying things like 'before you can fix the problem you have to know what the problem is', is something everybody's heard about any problem under the sun.
The problem to me with those magazine ranking lists is they just don't educate the golfing public about what constitutes good architecture, Mark!
That's the thing to concentrate on here! What in the world gives me one damn indication of the architectural reasons those courses are chosen for quality architecture. What is it about a single list from 1-100 that gives anyone an education on what stands out about one course over another even on those lists? Nothing I can see.
Why's it so hard for you to admit that those magazines should spend the time to explain in detail why the architecture of a golf course is so good, deserving of being ranked? Why can't they do individual articles on the courses ranked by them explaining why those courses deserve to be recognized and also why one would deserve to be ranked over another?
To me that's the meat of the problem--they aren't really explaining anything about the architecture, not comparatively or even individually.
Do you expect that the reading public is supposed to analyze in detail the "criteria" that makes up how these courses are ranked? Why would they bother to do that when even the panelists don't seem all that familiar with it or even how it all pans out into the rankings?
Just tell me that you don't think that well-written articles by a few really good golf analysts would be a far better way to go about ranking courses and educating the golfing public on what constitutes good golf architecture.
The problem is the magazine's don't or won't do that. The way to fix the problem is to get them to do that! Get them to hire a few good writers and send them on the road analyzing and writing about what makes this course good architecture and why it's ranked higher than that other one on the list.
If I ran a really good course and a magazine like Golf Digest asked me to let as many of their 800 panelists (probably all of whom I'd never even heard of) as possible on the course to rate it so the magazine could compile a list with no architectural explanation I'd tell them to go jump in the lake. But if they told me they wanted to send a good golf analyst writer or two my way to really look over the course's architecture and play it a few times that would be fine with me.
And as far as continually telling us you've played hundreds of courses, Mark, I'd say, so what? I've played hundreds of courses too. So what?
-
If 100 biased raters rate a course you end up with a subjective result based in some way on bias. If you have one, please seek a patent on the machine you would use to sort through, or as you say "cancel out" the inherent bias that accompanies each and every human thought. You would need omniscience just to "balance" out or factor in the bias at work when a rater makes a value judgement about rating courses to begin with. Not all raters value rating equally. Not all human beings value anything equally. By the way, when you make a case for a "balanced and reasonable evaluation", you show your own cultural or intelletual bias. In some cultures, balance and reason are not involved in making value judgements. They have their own, different biases. "Resonable" is not a bad way to go in my opinion, but that too is my bias.
If the raters do answer your question, and I hope for the sake of discussion they do (since the winter is upon many of us and what the heck, it might as well be outlined), it is likely that you will insert your subjectivity and bias into the mix and, like Tom H., they will find that they have to defend something, any alternative to which would be equally indefensible beyond simply saying, "This is our critieria." And if we end up at "This is our criteria and anything else will be equally biased" then where have we gone?
Maybe we need ten or twelve rating methods to satisfy the majority of those seeking a worthwhile evaluative system. Maybe we need ten or twelve thousand.
-
Pat,
Panelists DON'T rate tournament history. Someone at GD does all the research on the courses with regard to this.
Tom Paul,
You are still missing the point, golfers don't want to read about golf architecture!!!!! Get that through your head! Why would GD or any golf magazine focus on something golfers could care less about! Didn't you comprehend what Brad Klein said a year or so back about golf architecture books - you don't write them for the money because you'll only sell a thousand or so and probably only to the guys on this site who are already converted. You've heard Ron Whitten say the same thing! I guarantee you GD would write about golf architecture constantly if they felt a decent portion of golfers cared about it but they don't. That is a fact!
So where does that leave the rankings. Well golfers like playing those noteworthy courses whether it be top 100, best in state, best new, best resort,... Well why not get the guys who vote for these courses to vote for the ones with the best architecture (as you call it)? Well you are not going to get them educated if you piss them all off! Few participate on a site like this (where they could learn) because they can't deal with the BS and constant downplaying of how clueless they are.
GCA has enough panelists that participate that if they wanted to they could dramatically expand that audience by networking with other panelists to chime in but they will not pass on the word about this site with so much negativity going on. They don't have time for it! We, GCA is missing an opportunity to do this "educating" that you talk about.
You downplay about actually "playing golf" and seeing lots of courses but that is the one thing panelists do (at least some of them) so their reviews might be questioned but at least they've seen what others are just talking about.
We always talk about "designing courses in the field". Seeing lots of courses, studing different routings, ... etc. is no different.
Mark
-
When publications add "criteria" as GD has done with tradition it's clear to me what's happening -- if you don't like the results you're getting from your panelists then add other specific criteria that will add "bonus" points to maintain the status quo -- particularly at the very top of the pyramid of key rated courses.
I've never understood the whole tradition criteria and I personally believe a course rating should be laser-like in its assessment of the most important characteristic -- the quality / comprehensive nature of the shots needed and the integration of am 18-hole package that brings to bear the maximum skill for any player at nearly all levels.
Tom Paul is quite correct -- ratings without some sort of detailed accounting of "why" and "how" is pointless. It just becomes a yellow pages of information that few really understand.
At Jersey Golfer we enlist the help of 50 learned observers of the Garden State golf scene. We also do follow-ups with our internal editorial team (that means all the courses eligible for consideration are personally visited). We also try to specify why certain courses have risen in stature and why others have gone down. We also start with zero-based ratings and no past rating is maintained.
Clearly, the subject of ratings is subjective. The more important question is the scope of the review and what is pertinent in the overall analysis. I believe the element I mentioned at the end of paragraph #2 is where the focus should lie. But, I also concur with Tom Paul that it's no less important for any serious magazine to highlight the reasons why. The answering of "why" helps inform and elevate the understanding of many who clearly want that kind of detailed information.
Pat Mucci is quite correct -- the GD listing does have impact because it does "influence" how people perceive what is good and it does drive interest from the standpoint of readership for the publication. GD is still the perception leader as the magazine of record within the golf industry -- even though I'm sure others see it differently. Heck, we run ratings biennially in Jersey Golfer because we believe it is something readers do want --however, we also try to inform readers on how choices are made and what is happening within the field. We don't throw in additional categories to obfuscate what is truly the most important aspects in a rating and when other magazines do I believe any fair minded person can see the effect by the outcomes it produces.
There are plenty of superior new courses in the USA today that I have visited in the last number of years that are shortchanged because criteria like "tradition" is clearly an exercise in exclusion. That's just my opinion and to borrow a phrase from my Jersey native and friend Pat Mucci -- I could be wrong. ;)
-
Guest,
We're not talking about other cultures, we're talking about this culture, so let's confine ourselves to this culture and not drift to irrelevant tangents.
Let's also not discuss generalities, let's focus on specifics, exactly what biases are you referencing ?
I'm not asking anyone to defend anything, I'm just asking them to DEFINE something.
What is the criteria for "tournament history", what exactly qualifies a course for points in that category ?
Mark Fine,
If the Magazine provides that component,
1. I'd like to know how it is determined
2. How does a rater blend it in with the other two (2) sub-
components previoulsy listed as composing the general
category of, "TRADITION" ?
The more people try to explain the category of "Tradition" and its applications, the more it seems that no one has a solid explanation of what the criteria are, how they're arrived at, and how the raters utilize and blend them, in forming their final evaluation.
-
"Tom Paul,
You are still missing the point, golfers don't want to read about golf architecture!!!!! Get that through your head! Why would GD or any golf magazine focus on something golfers could care less about! Didn't you comprehend what Brad Klein said a year or so back about golf architecture books - you don't write them for the money because you'll only sell a thousand or so and probably only to the guys on this site who are already converted. You've heard Ron Whitten say the same thing! I guarantee you GD would write about golf architecture constantly if they felt a decent portion of golfers cared about it but they don't. That is a fact!"
I don't care what you say about that! Brad Klein or Ron Whitten either. Why are they writing about golf architecture then? For the people on this site only?
The problem with you, in my opinion, Mark, is you tend to make these huge generalizations and assumptions (99%) and they're then gospel in your mind. And you don't even say that golfers DON'T read about architecture, you say they DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT IT.
How the hell do you know that? Because Ron Whitten told you? He probably says that because Golf Digest has never been interested in really letting him do it the way I'm talking about him doing it anyway.
Brad Klein is probably right about the likely sales of architectural books or his book but Brad Klein is not Golf Digest either. He doesn't have that kind of market.
I think a lot more golfers than any of you realize are interested in reading well written and informative information on golf architecture. Even if 5-10 percent of GD's readership actually read it that would seem to be enough of a start to me.
I think people tend to get into architecture if a modicum of information and understanding is given to them and they begin to establish a foothold of understanding about it but the problem is no one today is used to reading about it because no magazine with the impact of Golf Digest has given it to them in decades.
Even at my own golf club the interest in architectural information has gone from zero to a pretty interesting slice of the membership in very little time.
You sound a little like Fazio to me when he said he knows EXACTLY what all golfers want and don't want. He doesn't know anything of the kind despite who he is.
He says things like that, in my opinion, because it sounds knowledgeable but all it is is the easy way out--the super safe route to take to have a leader in architecture like he is follow the crowd instead of leading it! And the irony is it's probably largely a crowd whose thinking he once influenced! Go with the safe product ad infinitum because one doesn't feel like taking a chance and leading the golfing public, trying to educate them.
Golf Digest could do this and it at least could SUPPORT their ranking lists and it would be more understandable to lots of golfers. Why is it exactly that you think the lists are popular anyway, Mark, what do you think is the necessity of them if all these golfers--this 99% of yours doesn't give a damn anyway?
Frankly, I find your generalization of this 99% who seem to be mindless sheep-like golfers in your mind, arrogant as hell--even elitist on your part!
Almost any architect I've ever met who seems worthy of his profession has always said education in architecture is the name of the game and here you're saying no one cares an iota about it anyway!
I'm not necessarily talking about starting this effort directed at the so-called CCFAD crowd--they probably don't care right now. Start it at the innovative clients and their constituencies because historically they've always been on the cutting edge of innovation and leadership in golf and architecture anyway.
Otherwise why would some of these great new courses we've seen in recent years have happened? Are all those people completely disinterested in architecture? Do you think it's possible there may be a lot more of them out there if given a nudge--an education? And why is there all this new interest in restoration? Are all those people oblivious to architecture and completely disinterested in it as you say?
I don't think so!
-
Ah grasshopper (Pat), any butterfly will tell you that the best way to get from point a to point b is not always in a straight line. And any scientist will tell you that the fluttering of a butterfly's wings will influence the whole universe. Your counting machines are no match for the butterfly's wings, grasshopper.
It is okay to accept your hopping bias grasshopper. It is who you are.
-
Mark Fine:
This makes no real sense to me;
",... Well why not get the guys who vote for these courses to vote for the ones with the best architecture (as you call it)? Well you are not going to get them educated if you piss them all off! Few participate on a site like this (where they could learn) because they can't deal with the BS and constant downplaying of how clueless they are."
And this coming from the guy who came up with the clueless 99% in the first place? Or are you now talking about Golf Digest's panelists (as clueless) and not pissing them off?
I'm not talking about any group of clueless golfers or pissing anyone off, Mark--you are. All I'm talking about is education. Are you now talking about a better way to EDUCATE Golf Digest's panelists by finding ways to increase their access to great golf courses?
If that's so that really is unbelievable! And if that's so I really can't believe then that you defend this GD ranking thing and the process they use to do it!
-
Guest,
Any scientist will tell you that the best way to get from Point A to point B is a straight line, especially if you know how to hit a one iron that bores into the wind, but not if you're low on the food chain.
Any scientist will tell you that the reason for the butterfly's erratic flight has to do with natural selection, the survival of the fittest.
Those butterfly's whose flight is smooth, straight lined, get picked off by predators (birds). Those butterfly's that fly in erratic, jerky patterns, up and down, side to side, present a more difficult target for their predators, hence they survive, and produce offspring with the same traits.
Forget about golf course architecture, you need to spend more time and bone up on entomology, and one iron flight characteristics.
-
Survival? Ah yes. Maybe you should not hop in such a straight line grasshopper.
-
guest:
Would you care to speak with Dr. Katz? If so, I'd be more than happy to try to arrange it.
-
TEPaul,
Thank you for the offer. But it is often the case that the doctor is more ill than the patient. Unless Dr. Katz understands that there is no objective way for human beings to rank anything, then he too will go the way of the grasshopper: stubbornly trying to fly like the butterfly only to crash to the ground under the force of gravity. It is better for the grasshopper if he does not confuse his wings for those of the butterfly.
-
TEPaul,
Guest forgets that, while the grasshopper was hopping and flying, the butterfly, in his earlier life was crawling, and thus is a rookie at aerobatics.
But, make sure that Dr. Katz is on call.
-
Tom Paul,
The problem here must be written communication as you are missing my point and I am missing yours. First of all the access I am talking about is not for panelists as they don't need it but let's stay off that subject.
On the 99%, that is not at all elitist. This has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence or being clueless. It has to do with interest level! I believe there are few golfers who are out there looking at or interested in the architecture. It doesn't mean they are "clueless" or stupid or anything at all like that. It means they just are not interested. They are like you were five years ago Tom! Get that picture through your head! You yourself said you could not properly evaluate courses you played years ago because you were not concerned about the architecture but were worried about your golf game!!!!!!! Like you, most guys are out there to better their best score, forget about life, or enjoy a few hours away from it all. They want to spend time with their buddies, make a few bets, make a few birdies, putt on smooth greens, ...
If I am wrong and 5 or 10% of golfers (as you point out) are interested (not clueless) about golf course architecture (that would be about 1 or 2 million golfers in the U.S.), then why are there only a thousand copies of any golf architecture book sold? Why don't golfers want to read about this stuff ??? Explain that one? Why does this website only have 40 or 50 regular posters and not 40 or 50 thousand!
By the way you should know from spending time with Brad Klein and listening to his talk that restoration is mostly being done as a marketing ploy for golf clubs. There is a financial purpose for most of it. Most clubs are not "restoring" their courses because they love golf architecture (though some of us might be pushing them to do it for that reason). It is generally an image thing that helps them differentiate themselves.
Remember Tom, 99% are NOT clueless, they are just not interested, just like you used to be ;) If that sounds arrogant than you are still missing my point!
Mark
-
;D
Hey y'all, let's not get too mad about things eh?
Winter got you down?
After all, it was near 70°F today in the Woodlands, and while I went 38-47 for a rollicking 85 on the Player Course, losing 1 & 0 to ms. sheila, whether you call it understanding architecture or a what a slope of 134 from the blues really mean, I think most players want to know how to do it better. I think getting inside the archi's mindset helps a little.
Could I have broke 80 today and won? Definitely maybe, because I've studied the course for the last 6 months and experienced it enough and done it. Did I care to? No, it was so great out there, it didn't matter. I went for every career shot possible on the back, because I was basically hitting it well, had a lead, and wanted to challenge my execution skills for fun in a relaxed match play setting.. Just can't control my opponent shooting a 42 on the back and parring the 18th, a stroke hole.. I knew better, but challenged the architecture. Not agin, fer a while..
I for one gave up on GD long ago, after all, how many times can you read that cure your slice article??? It seems only reasonable that such publications could offer more architecture related stuff, beyond the fluff, just like they offer and keep repeating other technique tips etc..
I know some don't want to see this kind of stuff, but here's a look an example of a nature based log-normal distribution ( i.e., by using logarithms for values (on left chart) versus the values themselves, the transformation looks like a normal bell curve (right chart).
(http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/gut/lognormal/logfig2.jpg)
Now where is that 99% cut off in distributions? Depending on your hypothesis, out on the tails folks.. My premise is that l-n distributions are the reality out there and evaluations could be portrayed as such no matter what the criteria or metrics.
;D
-
Mark:
I'm not missing your point at all and I basically never have. But I sure am growing weary of you saying that. That's seems to be what some on here tend to say if someone disagrees with something they say.
I don't really care whether you call 99% clueless about architecture or just not interested. I really don't think 99% of American golfers are either, as clearly you do.
Why use me five years ago as an example of golfers being everlastingly disinterested in architecture or disinterested in an informed education on golf architecture? What happened to me then? Am I one in a 100,000 for some odd reason and how would you know that? I would suggest that you have no idea the number of golfers who might get interested in architecture as I did. No more idea than when you state that 99% of golfers are never going to be interested in architecture. Basically, Mark, you don't know that, although you think you do! There's no way you could know something like that--no one does!
The sales of Brad klein's book, I've been trying to tell you, doesn't have much comparison to Golf Digest and their marketing and circulation reach if they wrote architectural articles. I'm sure you can understand that. Is Sleeping Bear Press comparable to Golf Digest in their circulation ability? Of course not! Is Golfclubatlas?
What you're saying is if Golf Digest with their circulation did run some really well written and informative articles on golf architecture no one would read those articles because so few are interested in them and I'm disagreeing with that and very much so. I think a good number of golfers would read them and frankly I think it would probably inspire a number of them to get more involved and the extrapolation would begin. The primary reason so few people seem to be interested in reading those kinds of articles in magazines like GD is because they've never been given those articles by GD--certainly not the way I'm suggesting.
You, obviously don't see it that way and that's where we disagree. There's no missing of points here just very different opinions.
You, like a number of others, seem to be quite pessimistic about the potential interest in golf architecture and I suppose I just don't feel that way.
-
Steve,
Sounds like you are having fun. Don't worry about Tom and I. We are both stubborn and strong in our opinions (maybe too strong).
I'll get him to come around sooner or later ;) I just have to keep reminding him what his opinion of this architecture stuff was five years ago when a center fairway bunker complex was nothing more to him than a pain in the ass and some idiot's idea to keep him from making an easier birdie! ;)
Mark
-
Tom P
The old magazines and journals were chock full of architecture, and really fine articles at that. So it did appeal at some point. Sadly you can see the emphasis shift to instruction through the years.
I believe the new magazines could at least try and shift some focus back towards intelligent discussion on architecture. Perhaps not quite in the Max Behr style!
-
Tom,
Ron Whitten has tried for years to do more architecture stuff for GD. Where did he go wrong? If I recall correctly, Geoff Shackelford used to do a section for Golf Magazine but got tired of it (they were always editing what he wrote) and stopped. I'm not sure, do they even have that architecture section any more?
Remember I never said I liked that 99% concept, I just happen to believe it's not far off. I was in that group for a long time and was just fine with it. I don't think I was any dumber than than I am now, I just had different interests and priorities. I didn't really care where I played golf just as long as I got to play. The biggest difference to me frankly between courses back than was the price of the green fee. I remember I was a member of The Golf Card. The courses that participate are not exactly the best golf architecture has to offer. But who cared, we could play for cart fees!
Honestly, despite where I get to play now, I still enjoy some of those courses like Mt. Airy Lodge for example. As I'm sure you know, it's a marginal design at best "architecture-wise", but it brings back some great memories of the rounds we used to play there. Fifteen years ago, that course to me was a 10! I didn't know any better and I didn't really care!
Mark
-
Paul:
Of course the magazines could try to do that again. I find Mark Fine's rationale as nothing more than a weak defense of a magazine rating system that's basically indefensible--except for strictly commercial reasons of various entities.
-
Mark;
Come on now--you're asking me where Ron Whitten went wrong?
He didn't go wrong. Either did Shackelford. This is a question, if you rate for Golf Digest, I think you should ask the publisher! He'll probably tell you some tale like 99% of golfers are either clueless or completely uninterested in reading about architecture. Just give them a list of 1-100--that's all they need and that's all they deserve!
It costs the magazine's less to enlist 800 panelists who have very little of the architectural understanding that Whitten and Shackelford do and get them to try to filter through a bunch of criteria most of them neither understand nor agree with and once that's in the magazine editors probably put their own spin on the lists that fewer understand or agree with. And of course through all this no one really knows much at all about the architecture of these courses which is supposed to be the point of it all.
I don't think Whitten's done anything wrong. They should let him write more about the details of architecture--that's what I've been saying all along here. Of course that would put you and your other 799 panelists out of panelist business. Oh my God, how horrible!
-
TEPaul,
If Golf Digest is not doing enough golf architecture analysis for your liking, maybe you should stop reading it and spend more time here at GCA where it's all architecture all the time. Hey, rabbits believe in "Tradition", flyers don't. Let rabbits rabbit and flyers fly. And have fun out there!
-
guest:
At the risk of driving Dr. Katz crazy, I really think you need to see him anyway.
Heh, I guess I'm just a rabbit rabbitting! I have no problem with flyers flying but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their rationale too.
Me read Golf Digest? Are you serious?
-
Can Dr. Katz help someone who is addicted to a certain golf architecture website?? I need help! The number of times I check in here daily to follow threads such as this one is becoming obscene! Repeat, I need help!
:) ;)
-
Gary:
He might. Personally I think Katz is an outrageous quack but the fact is he's the only head doctor Golfclubatlas has.
-
Since Steve Lang has raised the question of a more statistically valid tabulation of "Bests", I'd like to inject the thought that the qualifications of the people doing the rating must be examined. Votes by unqualified raters must be thrown out as stray, unexplainably variant data.
I like what Matt Ward said about a highly qualified group of evaluators. To be really valid, golf professionals and architects should do the rating. Otherwise, you end up with something like the baseball or NBA All Star games with "fan favorites" picked by the fans.(a clearly unqualified group to make such selections). Neither All Star game rosters or "Best Course" lists are anything more than fuel for media hype.
To be able to truthfully claim their list of The Best Courses as valid, GD must have a qualified rating staff, not a bunch of 20 handicappers playing from the foreward tees who have the time and money to play a lot of courses. If their rating group is qualified, GD should present the qualifications to prove the validity of their claimed "Best" list. Additionally, GD should state whether or not their raters are paid. Obviously, if they're not paid , or only given a token stipend for expenses, they are amateurs, further bringing their qualifications into question.
GD should also drop everything not directly related to shotmaking, though the raters may be more qualified to judge these frills than the architectural merits or shot making requirements of a golf course.
In any statistically valid examination of facts, bad data is worse than no data at all because it misleads you into making false conclusions-in this case about which courses are best. Evaluation points for tradition, atmosphere, whether or not they allow walking and,how many times they've been on "The Best List" further invalidate the data base. The way GD does it may be their way but it's scientifically worthless.
Texsport
-
texsport,
It is all scientifically worthless. "truthfully" "valid"? You are joking right?
Statistically evaluating your version of the "truth", unless done by an all-knowing God, will result in an imperfect analysis the only worth of which is that it sort of satisfies YOUR biased preference for certain aspects of the game of golf. While I share your high regard for shotmaking as an important part of golf, I do not share either your leap of faith into statistical analysis of purely subjective "data" or your apparent certainty that golf's version of the Dead Sea Scrolls would speak only of architecture.
-
Tom H- Why are you a rater? If there is no larger purpose why the heck would anyone want to do it?
Adam: because it's fun, because it allows me to see a lot of golf courses I otherwise wouldn't be able to, because I was invited to do it, and because I felt I could give a different perspective than most other "raters", coming from the muni background that I do.
I do NCGA "course rating" for a higher purpose...
Did you expect a different answer?
TH
-
It seems wierd to argue about who is willing to read about golf architecture. I think Brad Klein's articles are subtle about hitting the reader over the head with the architecture talk. But He does seem to have the "values" down. I remebmber his descriptions of Prarie Dunes, and how while reading it I felt the windswept grasslands along with the roll on the greens. It was subtle. I would think that the subtle could use a point counter-point and Gib would be perfect. His bash you over the head approach to writting is a perfect compliment and will step-up the educational process for the few, the proud, the GCA junkies. ;D
Tom H- I did expect excatly what you wrote :-* but the higher purpose with the ncga escapes me. Is that political posturing or is there some inequity you want to correct as it relates to the rating of some of your haunts?
-
Adam: I'm only a bit removed from politics as it pertains to golf. Peon here, remember? ;) And no, I like the handicapping system as it is... so I see nothing I want to correct, really, even if I could.
No, my only thinking re that type of rating as a higher purpose is that that actually involves a bit of study and WORK, and thus isn't 100% "fun" for me, as the other type is. John V. and the others here who do this can attest that course rating in this sense is damn complex, and if you do it RIGHT, takes a lot of concentration and effort. So for me, while it still is a lot of fun, it at least in some sense is "giving back to the game", to use a stupid trite phrase...
TH
-
texsport,
It is all scientifically worthless. "truthfully" "valid"? You are joking right?
Statistically evaluating your version of the "truth", unless done by an all-knowing God, will result in an imperfect analysis the only worth of which is that it sort of satisfies YOUR biased preference for certain aspects of the game of golf. While I share your high regard for shotmaking as an important part of golf, I do not share either your leap of faith into statistical analysis of purely subjective "data" or your apparent certainty that golf's version of the Dead Sea Scrolls would speak only of architecture.
Don't know what you mean by my biased version of some aspects of the game. The game is, and will always be, getting the ball into 18 holes in as few strokes as possible. If that's biased then I plead guilty.
Seems to me it's Golf Digest that is trying to act as the "all-knowing God" . Splashing The Best 100 Golf Courses across the front of the magazine, including a tear out insert, plus publishing a whole annual book declaring their adjudged list is pretty good evidence. In other words,we're talking about GD's biased opinion, the worth of which is the issue here.
In my admittedly biased opinion, and please excuse my ignorance,"Best Courses" should mean just that-not who has the most asthetically appealing clubhouse collection of photos from some 1930's U.S.Open played on their course. This is especially true when the course is no longer a good enough test to hold any modern professional tournament.
Golf is a changing game and courses that don't change to keep up are antiques. This is the best reason for rating classic and modern courses. I've got nothing against the preservation of historical sites.
Obviously many old courses have updated their layouts to stay competitive, but those that haven't should not be rated as highly primarily on the basis of past glory.
To each his own and I'll take courses that are true tests of my version of the game with modern equipment in play without regard to frills that have no effect on my score.
Texsport
-
To each his own and I'll take courses that are true tests of my version of the game with modern equipment in play without regard to frills that have no effect on my score.
Texsport
To each his own most definitely - it is a big beautiful golf world. But the essence here is that if I play The Country Club, when I get to 17 green I'm gonna be so much looking for ghosts of Ouimet and trying to find the spot Leonard hit his putt from, hell yes it will have an effect on my score - way more so than if they somehow lengthened the hole 50 yards or put in additional hazards... Just two very different ways to look at things. History does effect me... and I am certainly not alone in this. Beyond that, the fact TCC remains such a great test for players today, as much if not more so that it was for Ouiment, well, it ought to get credit for standing the test of time.
THAT is why TCC gets "points" for "tradition." Many think this is wrong, and more power to those who do. I can absolutely understand the logic. Hopefully you can understand the other way of thinking, in any case....
TH
ps - GD course rating panelists are not paid a cent - all that is allowed to be accepted is gratis green fees, and only when such are offered (it's not to be expected). A handicap of 3 or less is also required. "Frills" such as you seem to think are also not a part of the equation. Go re-read this thread if you care to know what is. I say this not to be confrontational at all - I like the way you think, actually - but this should hopefully just clear up some misconceptions you seem to have.
-
Tom Huckaby,
TCC may be a bad example.
The golf course that Leonard holed his putt during the Ryder Cup is a course that few, if any, ever play.
It is a hybrid and a composite.
The second hole changes from a par 4 to a par 3, the 9th and 10th holes are eliminated, as is # 12, then the first two holes of another nine, a par 4 and a par 3 are combined to make a par 4, the third hole from the other nine is converted from a par 5 to a par 4, and then the last hole from the other nine is put into play as # 13.
It is the most contrived of arrangements.
How can anyone seriously rate a hybrid course that is rarely if ever played by anyone.
It would be akin to rating the Ridgewood golf course based upon its hybrid configuration for the Senior PGA Tour Championship. Day in and day out, for the last 70 years, noone has ever played that course, and going forward, if it's played that way one day a year it would be a lot.
So, now I go back to Tradition.
How can you award tradition points for a golf course that exists for one day a year, maybe ?
Shouldn't the golf course, that exists day in and day out, for the members, be the course that's evaluated, or should we start combining hybrid courses from Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Montclair, Upper Montclair, Ridgewood, Pinehurst, Doral, and other 27 and 36 hole layouts ?
What course did Ouimet play ?
-
Patrick:
TCC was just a convenient example, given I just read a great book about it! This wasn't meant to stand up in court. Let's just assume I can play the "composite course" for purposes of this illustration, ok?
There are many, many, many other examples - TCC was just obvious and close at hand. As I said, I've never been there. If I do play there, damn right I'll find the right green where the Ouimet and Leonard heorics took place... and whatever course that happens to be on, that one gets points for tradition. How's that?
But is is a bad example, mea culpa.
How about Pebble Beach? Each time I've come to 17, the thought of Jack hitting the pin and Watson striking the chip that made me throw things at the TV dominates my play far more than any sand, distance, or ocean.... is that better?
TH
-
Texsport,
You wrote, "To each his own". Well said. That should be the sentiment of everyone after reading this thread. Of course, that is just my bias. Not everyone will graciously let others, including GD, go their own way.
-
Tom Huckaby,
Pebble Beach has a strong history by any criteria,
Amateur, PGA tour and USGA.
In an earlier example I cited Kitanssett, which hosted a Walker Cup 50 or so years ago. By what criteria are they judged if that's their sole contribution to tournament golf at a State, Regional or National basis.
How would they compare to Atlantic, which, in it's 11 year existance has hosted USGA and MGA tournaments, with others possibly on the horizon ??
So you don't get the wrong impression, I like TCC a great deal.
It has a special significance to me since I played one of my best rounds ever, the first time I played it, in a member-guest with a host and a fellow partner that I had never met, along with a client of mine that I was meeting with for the second time. I made a point of playing the third nine after the tournament, and have returned, but never so successfully.
History and tradition exude from the grounds and clubhouse.
I just find the rating of a hybrid, composite course, a little disengenuous. But, try to get there, you'll love it.
-
;D
Guest,
Come on now, after that psuedo scientific counter blather directed at Texsport, you're now saying GD should be allowed to go their own way?? Can't imagine them not, with their history at rating courses..
It appears the original premise of this thread is still valid, there is no consistent rhyme or reason guiding the overall input data's generation by raters, honest and as forthright as they may be in trying to fulfill their lofty objectives. Thus, like computer GIGO.. Garbage In Garbage Out. Just because the ratings have 8 decimal places (or subcategorizations) doesn't mean any are really significant.
Graciously we go.. Naaaahhhhhh!!
-
Guys,
Look at all these dog tracks nominated by those Golf Digest guys! What on earth are they thinking ???
PEBBLE BEACH, PINE VALLEY, AUGUSTA NATIONAL, CYPRESS POINT, OAKMONT, SHINNECOCK HILLS, MERION, WINGED FOOT West, PINEHURST #2,OAKLAND HILLS South, OLYMPIC Lake, SEMINOLE , BROOKLINE, MEDINAH C.C. #3, SOUTHERN HILLS, NATIONAL GOLF LINKS, MUIRFIELD VILLAGE, SAN FRANCISCO, CRYSTAL DOWNS, QUAKER RIDGE, RIVIERA, LOS ANGELES North, OAK HILL East, INVERNESS, CHERRY HILLS, PRAIRIE DUNES, GARDEN CITY, BALTUSROL Lower, SCIOTO, OLYMPIA FIELDS North, SHADOW CREEK, WINGED FOOT East, PEACHTREE, SPYGLASS HILL, WANNAMOISETT, SAND HILLS, WADE HAMPTON, INTERLACHEN, THE GOLF CLUB, COLONIAL, BANDON DUNES, MAIDSTONE CLUB, CHICAGO, FISHERS ISLAND, SOMERSET HILLS, BETHPAGE BLACK, PLAINFIELD, CASCADES, KITTANSETT, MILWAUKEE
I know some of you are hung on the "correct" order! Personally, I'm not. But I'd appreciate if those of you who know the correct order would arrange them for me. It would also help if you explained why! Oh and feel free to toss out any courses that are a complete waste of time!
Mark
-
Patrick: very well, this all makes great sense to me. And I never doubted you would like TCC - from all accounts, it's hard not to like the place! It was indeed a bad example though and my mea culpa is sincere. I was just trying to explain how little thought I gave to the choice of that... ;)
Now re your questions, well... I'd say in this case, tradition is in the eye of the beholder. So if the MGA has meaning to you, then it gains "points" in your eyes. Course such as that, therefore, will get few "points" for tradition, as it is meaningful only to a minority. Courses such as Pebble where we all saw it on TV would get far greater weight here. Again, this is patently unfair, but to me none of this was ever supposed to be fair, so who cares?
The biggest point to me remains that denying the influence of "history" or "tradition" or "staying power" is silly. It exists, and at least a certain category of golfers feels it at courses that have it.
TH
-
:D
Agreed. A great set of courses, a nice distribution of a bunch of features that make course great. How about all those par 4's at Inverness??
Why not bunch them by age to help educate folks and by dates of last restoration etc, the only real facts about them?
Why do they have to be given a ranking number on an arbitrary fudged scale, over and over and over again? Because it sells paper!
I vote with my wallet GD, this stuff won't bring me back, but you don't seem to care.. a pity.
-
TH--
One of the points made earlier is that raters factor in tradition already (like you were saying you would do on the 17th at The Country Club). Adding additional points for "tradition" is a bit of overkill. Believe me, I'd much prefer that The Ocean Course sat at 38th (without the added "tradition" category) rather than 67th which it is with "tradition..."
-
Rankings are subjective and based on the criteria used. By incorporating a tradition criteria into its rankings, Golf Digest is by definition not ranking golf courses solely on the basis of their ARCHITECTURE.
But if you eliminate the tradition element from GD's rankings, as Mike Vegis@Kiawah did, the revised list will most likely not reflect a ranking based solely on ARCHITECTURE to many people because the other non-tradition criteria used most probably don't reflect their views on architecture either. For example, if you believe that great architecture is reflected by an ability to challenge and provide options to many different classes of players, and not just scratch golfers, then GD's reliance on the resistance to scoring by scratch golfers makes no sense either.
-
Gotcha, Mike. And I understand this... But I for one would not "double dip" in this way. The only criteria in which Ouimet and Vardon would matter in the evaluation is "ambiance". It would not matter in any others... I was just trying to explain how it DOES effect shot-making, for those who think that's all that should count. But specific criteria get specific ratings, at least how I do it. I can see it as a danger, though... one ought to be quite careful with this.
Interesting... to me Kiawah Ocean would get damn good points for ambiance and it surely has a great tournament history... Yours is a fine example for those who see fudge facftor, that's for sure!
TH
-
Mr. Kiss,
The problem is the category, "tradition"
We're told that this is composed of three (3) sub-set categories, however, no one has defined the evaluative process within those sub-sets, and someone indicated that one particular sub-set, "tournament history" is provided by the magazine.
I just want to know how "tournament history" is determined.
What are the criteria in terms of time frames, and the organization hosting the tournament.
Surely there must be an established, published guideline.
If not, how could one gain a sense of relativity, and a sense of understanding on the evaluative process ?
Tom Huckaby,
If everyone used their own interpretation of tournament history, you'd have no consistency and no reliable standard for comparison/evaluation, hence the results would be seriously flawed.
Does three invitationals equal one regional, and five regionals equal one USGA ? There has to be a consistent criteria on which to base one's evaluation of the category.
-
Pat,
I guess I'm not sure why that matters if the panelists don't rate it? They only contribute on the ambience aspect of tradition (the 40% portion) and that I believe was defined above.
Mark
-
Mark Fine,
If the magazine is going to make a list, ranking clubs, creating relativity, then they have an obligation to their readers to disclose the formula or criteria that generated the rating.
They have an obligation to provide the basis for comparison.
-
Mark:
That long list of capitalized golf courses in your post! What's that supposed to indicate--how clever and necessary Golf Digest is to list them?
Only trouble is almost ever course you listed has been well received and quite famous in America long before Golf Digest was in diapers and receiving toilet training!
But now you think Golf Digest is all important, with or without its "traditions" points and criteria to keep them where they've always been?
No way.
-
:D
Here's de plan.. we sneak into GD's warehouse, heist the remaining issues of the rankings issue, or any other issue there and SUV them over to the Constitution's dock.. expensive ride but real comfortable and showy too, cause its a nice backdrop against the old boat.. lots of tradition and contrast there, we call the local and national press and film the modern Boston tee party to free us from the rankings anarchy we find self evident.
-
God I love Boston! They've always had the best revolutionaries in America!
-
Pat,
GD in my opinion gives too much detail on their criteria and that is why sites like this jump on them.
What is Golf Magazines criteria for their list! What is Golfweek's? Do either of these explain how they weight things? Golf Magazine doesn't even have criteria!
I said before, it's not so much the criteria as it is the panelists!
If you think the panelists are questionable, so be it. Maybe many of us are. But at least a good number of them get out there and are studying the golf courses "in the field" and you at least have to give them credit for that.
Mark
-
Mark
I've heard it said that 99% of GD raters are clueless?
-
Mark
Or was that 99% of all GD readers - I forget. :)
-
Pat
I understand your desire to better understand GD's criteria, but GD doesn't have an "obligation" to do anything. You are looking for science where it doesn't exist. Their rankings are subjective and this is just an additional fudge factor category. Just read what mark fine wrote. The raters only rate ambiance. That means that the magazine figures out the balance. What more do you need to know.
As I previously wrote, GD does not rate just ARCHITECTURE as I'm sure you would agree. The architecture most certainly serves as an important criteria, but it's unquestionably not the only thing they consider. So rather than thinking of GD's rankings as "Best Golf Courses" as they call it, just think of them as "Best Golf Course Experiences" as determined subjectively by 800 raters, 99% of which are clueless according to TEPaul! :)
You continue to question Atlantic's tradition ranking, but do you really think that hosting a Met Open and a USGA Sr Amateur is going to add a lot to its appeal from a "tradition" perspective. Who can even remember who won those tournaments. Is a rater (or reader of GD) playing Atantic going to get goosebumps for walking down the same fairways as the local Met area pros and Sr. Amateurs as he or she might when playing Augusta or Winged Foot or Merion, etc? I think not and I'm sure you would agree as well. Just think of sitting in the men's grills at Augusta or Winged Foot and compare that to sitting in the Atlantic dining room (remember we are talking about "experience" here not architecture). You get the picture. I'm not denigrating Atlantic in any way because it's a very nice place to play golf, but no matter how you define "tradition" most golfers "know it when they see it" and as of right now I don't believe that many people "see it" at Atlantic. Of course, the passage of time could change that!
-
Excuse me TEPaul.
It was Tom MacWood that characterized 99% of the GD raters as clueless. Sorry for using your name in that context!
-
Dave - riddle me this: if a course pleases the vast majority of golfers, why does it NEED to "survive the scrutiny that comes from thorough examination of its architecture"?
Do golf courses exist to please golfers, or architecture aficionados?
THAT is the fundamental issue behind everything we discuss on this site.
TH
-
Dave: Large sigh. If you care to, go read my by-play with Mr. Mucci as to what GD means by "ambiance". None of what you imply goes into this at all. To save you the trouble, ambiance is:
"how well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?"
And we are given much more instruction as to what this means. Nothing off the golf course counts whatsoever....
I hear what you're saying, but we are truly not judging art. At least we shouldn't be... This isn't a picture to be looked at, it's a site on which to play a game. So yes, the Mona Lisa can be appreciated by all, but those who truly appreciate painted art find better instances of it. They don't use the canvas to roll a ball across....
Golfers most certainly can and should judge golf courses... Quality of design is the art you describe, and that is a completely separate issue, best left to the aficionados and those in the business. And if you are going to judge that, then what they did with the land, the cost-effectiveness of their efforts, obstacles they overcame - all things having nothing to do with the playing of the course - all necessarily should be part of the judgment. You're judging their skill... Obviously what the course "evokes" would be the most important thing (just as in painted art) but all this would have to matter....
So "best golf course" can have these two different meanings... I don't find one any more valid than the other - they are totally different things.
TH
TH
-
Hang in there Tom.
Let rabbits rabbit and flyers fly.
-
Whilst perusing this bemusing and endless thread I noticed that nobody seems as yet to have pointed out that the proper word is "criterion." Has Dan Kelly's near-death experience taken away the joy of editing from his life, or was he just afraid of duelling with the duellingest of the Duelling Doyens?
In any case, in my impartial judgement, the improper use of a plural noun downgrades the "ambience" of this thread by 1.72 points, and the repetitiveness of the arguments another 3.05 points ("lower resistance to scoring" points). As a result, this thread is no longer in the GCA Top 100, and can only hope to get back in if it lasts long enough to gain points in the "tradition" category, just as did the "Bridge" thread.
-
Rich: I used the singular "criterion" and the plural "criteria" properly throughout - please re-read. Dave just used the plural correctly as well. I didn't re-read the whole thing to check for misuses, but at least these are correct! Does that save this wonderful thread?
Dave: I have no answers for you. I kinda like what Guest said. No rating is meant to be anything but what it is - a subjective rating of what a specific group decides to rate, using specific CRITERIA and defining each CRITERION how they wish.
TH
-
Does anyone know how long they have been doing rankings? My perception is that it was mid-eighties? How many new courses have been built since the mid-eighties? Why hasn't the list grown to be the top 200 or 1000? Or even more equitable would be those course which made the next 100. I'd bet that list would still be a desirable playlist.
-
They started ranking courses in the mid 1880's and they haven't stopped.
I think they should rank each and every course in the world from top to bottom with emphasis on resistance to scoring--with the cart girl.
-
Well said, friend Dave. Great minds were thinking alike on the use of the wonderful word criterion. All those years of Latin would not let me miss a plural like that... Kinda like alumnus/alumni, another great one with which to freak out your friends, each of whom insists he is an "alumni" of their school... ;)
TH
-
Dave
The DD's are, of course, Paul and Mucci. You and the awShuckster are just pale Gen X wannabies from the Provinces. Christ, you live west of the Main Line and haven't even learned how to properly insult each other, yet................
-
AHA! So the bumbling dueling Doyens younger (Dave and I) know Latin-based plurals, and the real Duelling Doyens elder (Paul and Mucci) don't... you know what that is, Dave - it's ODD.... ;)
And yes, I too get a kick out of those "alumni" stickers. I just figure they're all representing their association... but I like your thinking better!
TH
-
Guest said above:
Hang in there Tom (that would be Huckaby).
Let rabbits rabbit and flyers fly.
I don't know what Dave Schmidt is a rabbit or a flyer but as far as I'm concerned if he's a rabbit he can fly if he wants to and if he's a flyer he can rabbit if he wants to. Call him whatever you want to but on this thread he's on the mark, in my opinion.
Tom (the titmouse) Paul
-
Who said the older doyens (Paul and Mucci) don't know the meaning of criterion, criteria, whatever?
Ridiculous, I say! Pat practically invented the modern usage of criteria--although I still had to tell him what the meaning was he was looking for and today he probably still doesn't understand! I love the guy but it's a tremendous burden on my time to always have to educate him.
I grew up speaking Latin for Chrisssakes, but it's been a while now as the guy I spoke it with died some time ago and there's no one around now to speak Latin with.
-
Mr. Titmouse:
Omnia gallia...
Aw hell, I don't remember the rest, nor do I care to relive Caesar's Gallic Wars! But I am comforted with your transference of the blame here to Mr. Mucci. I look forward to his defense.
As to the matters at hand, yes, rabbits shall rabbit and flyers shall fly. But since you seem to have given up playing the game in favor of walking and studying (which I find very admirable, if odd ;)), I would certainly expect you to find wisdom in Dave's wise, if misguided words.
For those of us who actually play the game, well...
Let's just say there are at least two ways to look at this. Like a great man once told me, it is a big beautiful golf world.
TH
-
How many of the 800 GD raters actually know a Cape from a Biarritz from a Redan from an Eden? How many would be able to spot a Road Hole unless the little sign on the tee named it for them.
Why should we care? In fact, why should we care if an architect can tell a Redan from an Eden, so long as the end result of his work is a great course? In any field, sometimes the greatest works are done by those who don't know the full history and thus don't suffer from preconceptions on what is required to be great. Equally true when evaluating greatness. It doesn't happen often, but when it does the results can be important enough that lack of knowledge can't result in someone being discounted out of hand. Someone who has no clue what an Eden is might independantly create a wonderful one that works perfectly with the land and the course in question, while someone who knows everything about it and all the variations that have been done through the years might produce an uninspiring clone that looks forced and out of place.
This is all irrelevant for GD ratings though, because I think you are worrying too much that people will mistake GD ratings for ratings of architectural greatness as you see them, since it isn't explicitly stated how their ratings are obtained. If they did define it exactly its still up to humans to make subjective ratings, and you can't be sure they are doing it the way you would like, or even how you tell them to.
You could equally fault say college football polls and computer "polls" for not explicitly stating what criteria each pollster is using or the exact formula the computer is using. Is the BCS ranking the best because its exact formula is known, even though the input is sometimes questionable?
-
TE:
Better call Alpine to change your nametag to "Titmouse" or Matt Ward won't let you into the meeting. It would be "Titmice" if you're bringing a peer with you.
-
TH
With all due respect, I feel confident Thomas Paul could take you behind the wood shed on the golf course. ;)
Have you always been a fan of the GD method? I recall you being critical in the past.....what gives? ::)
-
Mark Fine,
You're getting defensive with respect to GD and the results.
I'm not referencing the results, I only want a clear understanding of the process, the components, and the criteria utilized to arrive at the conclusion.
Rich Goodale,
I don't think I used criteria in the single context, do you ?
Mr Kiss,
Rather extreme examples, Augusta, Winged Foot and Merion.
But, let's take Kittansett. They held a Walker Cup 50 years ago, what are their "tournament history" points and how does that compare to Atlantic's "tournament history" points.
I just want to know how these points are determined.
If a magazine, any magazine is going to rate/rank golf courses they have an obligation to inform the reader with respect to the formula or methodology used to rate/rank these courses, and more importantly, if they are going to sub-contract the job out to 800 independent consultants, shouldn't they provide UNIFORM guidelines for each of those consultants, such that the ranking process is performed under the same standards ?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Pat
Again, I understand what you are asking for, but I think you may be missing the point that I'm trying to make.
If the criteria were perfectly clear with respect to every element, do you think that every panelist would come up with the same rankings for the same course? Of course not. And why not? Because it's all subjective. Just read what Mark Fine wrote:
"The bottomline is that if a panelist happens to play what he thinks is one the ten best courses he's played or a course that deserves top 100 consideration, he rates it accordingly."
And "Panelists DON'T rate tournament history. Someone at GD does all the research on the courses with regard to this."
You are asking for the truth, but there is no truth. There is no right answer and that's why I personally think these rankings aren't worth a hill of beans. But they do sell magazines. I'm not suggesting that the ratings issue sells a lot more copies, but it's part of their overall annual content and that's what they are selling.
Now I don't know what Kitansett's tournament history rating is relative to Atlantic, and frankly I don't really care. But if I had to rate tournament history based on 1 Walker Cup 50 years ago versus 1 Met Open & 1 US Sr. Amateur in the last 10 years, then I would certainly give more weight to the Walker Cup. How about you?
-
It has been a long read, on a snow covered ground, and I like both Pat and you're positions. Pat you are a great moderator, but the best courses I have played I can remember each and every hole, let alone, maybe, each and every shot. Some of these courses, and I admit they are few, I can still recall that round many years later. At age 74 this is fun to think back on if I'm having trouble getting to sleep.
My rating system!
-
In the current movie, "Two Weeks Notice", the female lead, Sandra Bullock, calls the playboy character played by the actor Hugh Grant..."the most irresponsible man in the world".
His response is, "That's rediculous, you don't know all the men in the world".
It reminds me of GD calling course X, Y, or Z one of the "Best 100 Courses In America".
I know that each GD rater has not rated every course in America either, so maybe it would be better if GD only rated courses by "Best In Each State". That way, every local rater could play every reasonable candidate, compare them all, let regional preferences enter their thinking, and then record their scores. GD could have a lot more raters, since they don't pay them anyway, and also create a lot more experts.
No national or world wide best list would be published and great regional rivalry, complete with shouting matches would result. Fifty states could each claim their local course as the best, creating road trips to play neighboring state's courses. There could be tailgating parties and loud talking concerning each person's favorite. Many more people would be happy and GD would sell a lot more magazines and advertizing because you could easily travel to play the local best course instead of making only 1 or 2 cross country trips a year to play the national "best".
I like it! It's better than the current system!
Texsport
-
Mr Kiss,
I know it's subjective, but I would like to know the system the magazine uses for determining "tournament history".
Unlike Coca Cola it shouldn't be a secret formula.
With respect to the relative value of one recent USGA SR Amateur versus a Walker Cup 50 years ago, I don't know the answer.
Has one's history ended, with the other's just begining ?
I'm merely looking for the magazines to disclose the methodology used in determining their ratings/rankings.
I would think that a formula, coupled with a weighted time frame would be a reasonable approach.
-
Pat,
I hear what you are saying but I don't know the answer? Again, it doesn't bother me too much one way or the other. Whether you like GD's system or not, you have to admit they provide a lot more detail about how they arrive at their numbers than the other magazines. Again, Golf Magazine doesn't even have criteria. Do you think Jack Nicklaus looks at a course the same way as Ran does or Bryant Gumble or some of the other GM raters? Frankly, I don't get too hung up on that. I find their lists interesting and if they list a new course in their Top 100 that I haven't played, I'll research it and probably go check it out. The same goes for Golfweek's lists.
Again, GD's Top 100 list is NOT correct! I repeat, it is NOT correct. But it is not wrong either! That is because there is no correct list. I've said many times, my personal Top 100 list is very different than GD's. But that doesn't make my list any better or worse, only different based on my perceptions of a great design! Ron Whitten would probably say the same thing if he cared to chime in but don't hold your breath ;)
Mark
-
Mark Fine,
I think the ratings/rankings can create positive changes at clubs. I've seen it first hand.
It is beneficial when a club is provided the rating criteria and their resultant scores in each category.
I've seen clubs institute a caddy program, perimeter planting program and other positive maintainance programs in an attempt to better themselves. All this was brought about by the rating/ranking system of golf magazines.
I'm just trying to understand one of the categories, and the process for how points are awarded in this category and sub-categories.
-
;D,
Definitely best sculpture would be of ol' Sylvanus P. Jermain, Mr. Inverness who brought the first US Amateur Public Links Championship in 1922 to Ottawa Park in Toledo, Ohio..for "the people". Talk about TRADITION, half of the 140 entrants didn't have golf shoes and there was one reported death of a filandering husband.. The winner couldn't defend in 1923 because he had joined a private club.. WOW! JUDGE THAT!
(http://www.sculpturecenter.org/img/norm/00410.jpg)
p.s. They take Sylvanus off his perch near the Ottawa Park putting green and let him stir the crowds at Inverness for the big tourneys there.
-
Pat,
I'm thrilled someone said something positive about the ratings/rankings. To bad it was you because Tom Paul still won't buy in ;)
If I can find an answer out for you on your question I will.
Mark
Note: If I had the actual numbers in front of me I'd state them but when Golf Digest started awarding "bonus" points for courses that allowed walking, guess what happened? Many more courses starting allowing walking ;D Then GD changed the points awarded again because courses that were unwalkable were stating if you want to walk you can (just so they could get the extra points). So then guess what happened, more new courses started pushing for designs that were truly walkable so they could again get those bonus points.
The nerve of GD, trying to encourage walking in golf. What are they thinking ;)
-
Pat
History can't end! It's etched in stone forever. And of course Atlantic's history is just beginning!!
So when you ask....."Has one's history ended, with the other's just begining?"......are you trying to compete with George Bush as the master of mis-statement? Or perhaps you are just doing your best Yogi Berra imitation? :-)
In any event, since "With respect to the relative value of one recent USGA SR Amateur versus a Walker Cup 50 years ago, [you] don't know the answer" I thought the info below might just help you decide. And remember, we are not talking about architectural merit, just tournament history for tradition purposes.
History of Walker Cup Venues:
UNITED STATES:
The National Golf Links of America 1922
The Garden City Golf Club 1924
Chicago Golf Club 1928
The Country Club 1932 & 1973
Pine Valley Golf Club 1936 & 1985
Winged Foot Golf Club 1949
The Kittansett Club 1953
The Minikahda Club 1957
Seattle Golf Club 1961
Baltimore Country Club, Five Farms 1965
Milwaukee Country Club 1969
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club 1977
The Cypress Point Club 1981
Peachtree Golf Club 1989
Interlachen Country Club 1993
Quaker Ridge Golf Club 1997
Ocean Forest Golf Club 2001
Great Britain & Ireland
The Old Course, St. Andrews 1923,1926,1934,1938,1947,1955,1971&1975
Royal St. George's Golf Club 1930&1967
Royal Birkdale Golf Club 1951
Muirfield 1959&1979
Turnberry Golf Club 1963
Royal Liverpool Golf Club 1983
Sunningdale Golf Club (Old Course) 1987
Portmarnock Golf Club 1991
Royal Porthcawl Golf Club 1995
The Nairn Golf Club 1999
Now are you going to make me list the US Sr. Amateur venues to get a truthful answer from you as to whether as a member of GCGC you would like to trade your hosting of the Walker Cup almost 80 years ago for a recent US Sr. Amateur? :-)
-
Mark Fine:
The thing about you is it seems you probably take what I say and have said about the magazine rating world as some great affront directed at the whole idea of rating and ranking golf courses and probably some attempt at a personal insult towards you as a panelist.
Nothing of the kind, I guarantee it. All I'm talking about is trying to get the magazines to explain to anyone (and hopefully regarding architecture) why one course is better than another and to do it in detail. Is that really too much to ask? That's positive information that courses, golfers, members can benefit from to improve themselves properly.
I have no doubt what Pat says may have happened (some positive results). But explain to me how a list of 1-100 with nothing more than a list explains anything to anyone if there's no architectural explanation or detail included!
If they only included that I would be all for the magazine rating and ranking lists.
But until that happens you're definitlely not getting me to "buy into" it!
-
TH
With all due respect, I feel confident Thomas Paul could take you behind the wood shed on the golf course. ;)
Have you always been a fan of the GD method? I recall you being critical in the past.....what gives? ::)
You misunderstand me, GAP member. Hell yes Mr. Paul could wipe the floor with my sorry ass - IF HE DEEMED WORTHY TO PLAY THE GAME. He's said himself he's more into the study and prefers to walk great courses rather than play them, though. Perhaps recently he's gotten back into playing the game, which would be great... Hell I admire the study of it - my only point was that when one is that into the study, of course he's going to favor the "gca as art" viewpoint that Dave S. put forth.
As for me being a fan of the GD method, hell I never knew what it was until this year... now that I do know a bit about it, I find it does jive very well with how I feel about golf courses... and I understand fully that it puts me in the minority in this august discussion group.
TH
-
Tom Paul
Take a look at issues of Golfweek from this past year. In them you will find individual course reviews by Brad Klein. These are courses that he has played and the review includes EACH of the ten criteria used by GW panelists along with Brad's individual score and a summary of the reasons he used to arrive at that score. The reader can learn why Brad believes a course routing is good or bad; what Brad thinks of the par 3's 4's and 5's and WHY and so on with each of the ten criteria. In the end he gives a final score along with the reasons for it.
Look at his recent review of Aronomink, a course you are familiar with, and ask yourself if that review was educational to the reader regarding the architecture, restoration and general playing characteristics of the course. This is a regular feature that Brad has introduced and I think its a great example of educating the public/GW readership about golf course architecture and what the rating process is all about.
-
Tom,
The reviews Geoffrey points out that Brad does are great. I always find them informative. But I can't imagine him doing one for every course on their two Top 100 lists. GD is the same way. Ron Whitten does course reviews as well. Unfortunately he gets less press space than Brad :(
Look forward to seeing you on Saturday!
Mark
-
Mark
Brad's reviews are not always taken from the two GW top 100 lists. His review of PGA West (Stadium) was a really good one and in it I learned that PGA West was I think #132 modern. Why its not among our top 100 I don't know and Brad's score would have placed it within the top 100. Obviously, some raters don't feel as strongly as Brad does about the merits of the course. His evaluation of the architecture of that "Dye"abolical course was another education for the readers that took the time to look at it. I think its a great feature of the magazine and I certainly hope there is a wide variety of course reviews from Brad in the 2003 issues.
-
GeoffreyC;
That's great that Brad writes about architecture like that and about courses that GolfWeek rates and ranks or whatever. I've always thought GolfWeek was good and that's one of the primary reasons. GD, that's bigger, far wider reach, more money and the same amount of courses listed doesn't want to do that!
That's all I ask for in this rating/ranking list thing. I have nothing against rating and ranking and lists per se (as everyone thinks I do), just that they should be writing about the architecture with it.
This arguement that the architectural writings is not done because golfers just aren't interested in it (the 99%) is just not an arguement that works for me and it isn't going to.
Mark Fine is probably going to continue to tell me to get that fact (the 99% not interested) through my head but I'm not going to do that because I don't believe it.
-
Mr Kiss,
Clubs can cease to make history. Some clubs have hosted a single event 70-80 years ago to the exclusion of all other tournaments since that date, while other clubs continue to make history by demonstrating a pattern of their committment to golf through the ongoing hosting of tournaments.
Does one club live on its laurels forever, despite no ongoing contribution to golf in the last 80 years ?
USGA SR Amateur's, MID-amateurs and SENIOR Open competitions are recent additions to the tournament mix, and as such don't carry the same weight as the Walker Cup, an International USGA competition. Had they been, and had Bobby Jones won 6 straight Mid Amateurs, or Byron Nelson, Sam Snead or Ben Hogan won 3 or 4 Senior Opens, they may have been looked at in a different light, and perhaps the gap between those tournaments would be substantially narrowed.
With respect to your list, is it the venue or the competition that determines "tournament points" ?
If it is the competition, then the list of clubs is irrelevant.
Awarding "tournament history" points, deliberately biases the ratings, since a new course can't compete for a ranking on an equal footing. It is a built in cushion, or fudge factor favoring classic golf courses, especially those with a historical connection to the USGA. Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, I'm just telling you what I see.
"Tournament History" also presents a bias against southern courses, since it's difficult if not impossible to host a US Open in June, or other tournaments typically scheduled in the summertime, in the south, hence they can't compete on an equal footing for certain events = "tournament Points"
I am only advocating that the magazines that pubish these rankings/ratings disclose their methodology.
What do they have to hide ?
-
Whilst perusing this bemusing and endless thread I noticed that nobody seems as yet to have pointed out that the proper word is "criterion." Has Dan Kelly's near-death experience taken away the joy of editing from his life, or was he just afraid of duelling with the duellingest of the Duelling Doyens?
You will have to believe me, sir, when I tell you that tonight marks the first time I have entered this thread -- after reading the thread head several hundred times, and after shuddering at the misbegotten "criteria" each and every time.
Near-death experiences shall never rob me of the joy of editing! Nor shall they put me in fear of any doyen -- duelling, dueling or otherwise! Nor, for that matter, shall they persuade me to be interested in these interminable threads about the silly golf magazines and their silly rankings.
-
Pat Mucci,
The Senior Open is more prestigious than you seem to believe.
Many clubs would much rather host it than the Walker Cup.
IMNSHO.
-
:D
Guess that folks now have to argue about the ranking of all the "championships" for the tradition points to be properly awarded... that should be relatively easy???
I would put the US Amateur Public Links Championship above the Walker Cup,.. so should Ottawa Park, vintage 1899 track (expanded to 18 in 1916), who hosted the first US AM Publinx in 1922 be given more tradition points than NGLA who hosted the Walker Cup that year?? Was who was in the field affect the course rating as questioned earlier?
;D
-
Gary & Steve,
I don't know the answers with respect to "relative value" of tournaments when used to determine points in the "tournament history" category.
That's one of the questions I'm asking, what is the system or methodology employed to determine these points ?
The question doesn't seem that difficult, but apparently the answer is.
-
Patrick
"What do they have to hide?"
Exactly what you and I are both in agreement on. That this is a fudge factor in their rankings which is handled by the magazine itself and not the raters as Mark Fine informed.
Clubs can certainly cease making history with respect to its contributions to tournament golf, but that doesn't erase its history. And the fact is that the US Sr., Mid, etc. are recent additions as you rightly point out, so they don't yet garner the same respect as a Walker Cup or US Amateur, etc. And as I wrote previously, I don't think that tradition has any place in evaluating architecture, so take the GD ratings for whatever you think they are worth.
But in the meantime, I am still curious about your answer about Walker Cup 80 years ago versus US Sr. Am in last 10 years at GCGC. Assuming you were asked by GD to help them formulate the tournament hosting portion of the tradition criterion, regardless of whether or not you agree with the category, would you ascribe greater weight (think club history) to the long-ago Walker Cup or the recent US Sr. Amateur? And don't factor in any demerits for not hosting any other tournaments because GCGC, by way of example, continues to contribute to tournament golf each year by hosting a fairly major amateur tournament.
-
My speculative WAG, based on some of the quantum (30-50 places) leaps within the top 100, is that there are some issues relative to the newer courses and older courses. You want some classics on the list, relatively high, as they should be but then you have this rating system and all these modern courses. If this is your job and you sell magazines, this is a problem.
As a real GCA guy, how in the world, under any circimstance, could Wade Hampton (#13 w/o) be ranked ahead of Pinehurst No. 2 (#14 w/o). Honey, is the fudge done yet ? Pull-ease bring it in as no one will believe this.
Rankings are fun but somewhat silly within the top 100 or 200 or so.
Anyway, if GD went to a modern and classic (just suck it up and copy Golfweek) then they could sell the classic tradition and they could sell the ads for the modern developments, etc. They could sell more ads or charge more for the modern development courses. They could increase the rack sales on the 'ratings' issue.
In a few years, no one would really care who do it first. It wouldn't matter.
GD is really stuck re: the top 100 until they do a split. Another 100 with the split gives some breathing room to give their listing more interest and sell more magazines.
Anyway, the best thing about the GD listings are the state sublists, best new, etc., etc.
-
Mr. Kiss,
I thought I specifically answered your question in the third paragraph of my January 8, 2003, 10:09 pm post.
As I indicated earlier, taken in the proper context, the ratings/rankings can have a positive effect on golf courses and their architecture.
I just wanted to understand the process a little better.
-
Patrick:
I'm getting sick and tired of you asking the same old question seven pages into this thread of yours. Everybody knows all "tradition" is is a 75 year old recipe for snapper soup.
Do I have to teach you everything?