Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Carl Rogers on December 29, 2010, 09:44:34 AM
-
The more I read on this subject, the more I am getting very lost and confused.
Is there any real background needed? How many courses do you need to play within what time period over what geographical area?
If I had life to start over again and decided to become a course rater, I think I would have to play all over the world for at least 10 years before I could get my head around it all. How many people can do all that?
-
Everyone is qualified to rate golf courses.
Did you like it? What did you like about it? What didn't you like about it? How did it make you feel? Why did it make you feel that way?
There are people on this site that have played a gazillion golf courses, but their personal biases (preferences) always bleed over into their ratings. That is human nature...it won't change. So, the newer players need to simply observe, study, and chronicle their feelings, biases (preferences), and the courses. Do this with enough passion and over time you'll get your arms around it. Do this and include enough travel to go along with the passion and you will have the context and frame of reference to be a good rater/critic. But, aside from enjoying yourself and the travel, I am not sure what that really gets you. ???
-
Mr. Plumart,
I would be highly reluctant to voice a public opinion on the subject without doing a whole lot of work on it. (Stress the word "public")
When one persons opinion is as good as anothers then that kind of free for all gives us Bristol Palin pretending to be a good dancer. There should be more to it than that.
-
Carl,
I don't know which scares me more. That you called Mac "Mr." or that you watched Bristol Palin skipping around the stage... ;D
-
Carl,
You are! Do you love GCA? Do you study it? Can you reason well why course A is better than course B? Can you make a ranked list of the best courses in your region? Are you willing to travel? Finally (and most important from a statistics standpoint), are you part of a larger sample size?
If you are going to do a one man confidential guide, you'd better be well traveled, etc. But, most of the magazine groups have multiple hundreds involved. I think Golf is the exception as they have a smaller group, but well traveled. The key I think is having a responsible group that is large enough to see almost all the significant courses and proved a sample size at each of those courses to generate a valid number.
You'll see 4 of the best soon!
Cheers, Jeff
-
Carl,
I doubt there's a specific answer to your question, as Mr. Mac has illustrated.
Each panel is different and each rater is different.
I know in my case, I was fortunate enough to have lived in quite a few regions and played a lot of golf, at different courses, in all of them. That didn't give me the confidence to think I could be a rater, but, apparently it gave me the exposure to be one. One of the confusing things at first, was what was I suppose to do. Voice my own opinion or try to figure out what others would like. I was told to vote my opinion. So, my preferences play a major role in how I vote.
As has been proven on this site, there's no consensus when it comes to golf courses. That diversity of opinion is a good thing for the lists and a good thing for GCA's.
I hope that answered a few questions, if not, ask and I'll see what I came make up...uhhh ...I mean answer.
-
I think I am a bit more in Carl's camp on this. I have played most of the top 150 or so courses, am well travelled, am a low handicapper, read all the books, read this site, love the game and the design aspects and feel like though I am more qualified today to rate courses I am not yet qualified. Before I joined this site my ego would have said I was absolutely qualified but now that I am less ignorant than I was (after reading many of these excellent threads) I can say I am not there yet. I know what I like but I realize I have biases now. Do I (unfairly) prefer links over parkland? Ocean vs inland? Classic/historic vs new? Sure Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are in my personal top 15 becasue they are amazing but what about others? Do I overrate NGLA and Shinnecock over some inland courses? These are the things I am questioning and trying to learn and I realize that I have a ways to go. I will never be as sharp as Doak but I am learning from him as well as others. So though I feel I am more qualified than I was I feel I am not yet qualified but hope to be someday (in another 5-10 years maybe). I realize I have a lot to learn still but I also have an amazing university (GCAers) to learn from.
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
Exactly my point about all of this. You need to be single, immune from jet lag, able to process large amounts of input and be of independent means.
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
I just hope they activate the scorecard section of that link so we can see what these guys shot.
-
Whenever I hear this ratings talk, I see it simply as our rational minds getting in the way of our play (and I am using that word in it's larger, almost spiritual sense).
I am always reminded of Tom Watson's words, paraphrased as............'Courses are meant to be played, not rated.'
Not trying to be a curmudgeon here..........lookin for the truth, and the fun, of the matter.
BEST TO ALL THIS NEW YEARS!!!!
GO DUCKS!
Tom
-
I think I am a bit more in Carl's camp on this. I have played most of the top 150 or so courses, am well travelled, am a low handicapper, read all the books, read this site, love the game and the design aspects and feel like though I am more qualified today to rate courses I am not yet qualified. Before I joined this site my ego would have said I was absolutely qualified but now that I am less ignorant than I was (after reading many of these excellent threads) I can say I am not there yet. I know what I like but I realize I have biases now. Do I (unfairly) prefer links over parkland? Ocean vs inland? Classic/historic vs new? Sure Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are in my personal top 15 becasue they are amazing but what about others? Do I overrate NGLA and Shinnecock over some inland courses? These are the things I am questioning and trying to learn and I realize that I have a ways to go. I will never be as sharp as Doak but I am learning from him as well as others. So though I feel I am more qualified than I was I feel I am not yet qualified but hope to be someday (in another 5-10 years maybe). I realize I have a lot to learn still but I also have an amazing university (GCAers) to learn from.
A humble approach - be nice if everyone followed it, ratings or otherwise. Nice job, Jim.
-
Carl:
You are so right -- doing homework before posting comments is helpful.
Why?
Far too many people only skim the surface and then make broad generalizations. No doubt playing a variety of golf courses -- or at minimum actually seeing them makes a huge difference. One of the reasons Doak's CG book is still solid is that Tom took the time to play / visit the mentioned courses. Not every person can do that on a global or national level.
I enjoy the viewpoints of people who really know their neck of the woods. Why? They get to play such courses at all different times of the year and it allows me to understand the totality of what is present.
Carl, there are few people who can really compare / contrast when things move to a national level -- let alone the international front.
I do prefer reading the comments of individuals because group think results are nothing more than consensus driven forumulas and therefore have less of an impact for me. Just like any person who aspires to know a given topic -- shoe leather along with insightful comments gleaned from such exposure goes a long way.
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
John,
Are you saying that the time commitment associated with being a rater is too taxing? How much time/travel is involved would you say?
Personal Note - Like Jim, I used to think I was a rare golf course architecture expert . . . until I started following this discussion group. Now I know that that is certainly not the case. In fact, I am very hesitant to voice my opinion on this site given the collective insight and experience of, well, all of you. My point being that I can see the argument for having Ran rate courses instead of a guy like me. On the flip side, if the ratings are for the benefit of the masses then perhaps Golfweek's approach is more likely to identify the courses that the average golfer might prefer to experience.
-
I've always assumed that the ranking lists primary goal was the same as the swimsuit issue but this thread opens up an additional perspective.
Why is an aggregated list better than an individual list? Why shouldn't one of the magazines appoint regional raters and have them tell us their personal preferences in their area? I think then you can get specifics worth thinking about and discussing.
-
Jim:
Well said -- consensus driven formulas do next to nothing save for numbers crunching.
I'd much rather have a few people provide their own assessments -- you can then see what styles / flavors they favor. I know that was helpful for me when looking at Tom's 31 special layouts mentioned in CG.
-
And you could do it every month.
-
Jim:
Ratings of courses should be spaced out in my mind. This would allow for more careful reviews -- instead of the flavor of the month club approach to what too often happens now. A bit of reflection can do that. Especially when newer courses enter the scene.
GD used to have a waiting period for new courses and I thought that idea worked well. Gave a bit of time to let the dust settle.
-
I suspect Jim meant you could feature different people each month, with each listing his own favorites.
-
George:
I don't find the Gallup poll approach helpful -- it would be far better if a listing of key people could be put together. Those who have demonstrated a bit more heavy lifting -- especially if national or international considerations are assessed. More people could certainly do a state or regional area -- but again I appreciate if a discerning eye has been brought into the picture. Just random comments from random people serve little purpose for me. If that floats your boat so be it.
-
Mr. Plumart,
I would be highly reluctant to voice a public opinion on the subject without doing a whole lot of work on it. (Stress the word "public")
When one persons opinion is as good as anothers then that kind of free for all gives us Bristol Palin pretending to be a good dancer. There should be more to it than that.
Carl...
You are correct. When I said "everyone is qualifed" that was a mistake. But I feel that every reasonably qualifed golfer offering their insights into a course they've played has its value, if the person listening has his ears open.
Again, if he states why he liked it...listen to the reasons. And if he didn't like it. Listen to why.
I find this valuable.
I REALLY like it when people clearly outline their likes and dislikes to golf courses in general when they are offering their opinion of a course.
And, please call me Max. :D
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
The last part of this makes no sense to me. Why would it put my current friendships at risk? ;)
-
George:
I don't find the Gallup poll approach helpful -- it would be far better if a listing of key people could be put together. Those who have demonstrated a bit more heavy lifting -- especially if national or international considerations are assessed. More people could certainly do a state or regional area -- but again I appreciate if a discerning eye has been brought into the picture. Just random comments from random people serve little purpose for me. If that floats your boat so be it.
Can't say most any ratings/rankings float my boat, I was simply offering up an interpretation of what I think Jim meant.
I don't think he meant monthly revisions of a panel, I think he meant there could be a monthly feature with a few folks and their lists. If you like 'em, great, if not, ignore 'em. I wouldn't expect you to favor my list, nor should I be expected to favor yours. It would offer more transparency than amalgamated lists, however.
This is of course my read of Jim's posts, I could be totally wrong in that.
Happy New Year!
-
Nope, George, you've got it.
I think aggregated lists leave little to the imagination whereas if Matt were asked to provide his top 20 or 50 or whatever we could dig in and try to figure out why he prefers his #18 to #26. When the list just averages every ranking out you lose the strength of the opinion.
Then in February we could do somebody else's list. They could be regional or national, doesn't matter to me.
-
Jim / George:
Without some sort of constancy the nature in having a separate rater with each month is not worth much at all. I'd prefer frankly if Whitten did Digest alone -- or have a much smaller grouping of people who have really played the key contenders.
I did make an exception to those who are truly regional or state-wide reviewers. These areas would be easier for many to do and it's been a real plus to see such contributions on GCA when that has been done. The big problem for many is assessing across a much wider plane -- such as the USA.
When you have just one person listing their courses -- you don't know how many of the key contenders they have played -- they would just list those they have played. The incomplete nature of what is presented would be a big time hole and one that any reader should not have to guess.
Frankly, if someone were to be posted -- if they have not played at minimum 50 of the current GD listing or 50 of the GW listing then they really are lacking to provide something of meaning in my mind.
Jim, you are spot on -- aggregated lists to nothing save for number crunching of courses.
-
Matt,
I figured the lack of national coverage would be the first problem but I think a better value would be you listing your Metropolitan Section top 50 with ample commentary.
I'm sure there's a guy just like you in the Dallas / Fort Worth area who could do the same thing.
That would interest me.
-
Let's invent a new category of person and call them "Master Raters". Only these people get to vote.
Something useful to the "Master Raters" would be to designate other people as "Scouts" to help ferret out lesser known, the off the beaten track course that deserve greater attention by the real raters.
The "Master Raters" cannot be everywhere all the time.
I think the sub category of "Hidden Gem" is a very good idea.
-
I'm sure there's a guy just like you in the Dallas / Fort Worth area
God forbid ;D.
-
I forgot to type my follow up to that lead in...can you imagine the size font that guy would use to tell us all to get off our asses and do some heavy lifting?
-
I forgot to type my follow up to that lead in...can you imagine the size font that guy would use to tell us all to get off our asses and do some heavy lifting?
As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns.
-
Jim / George:
I'd prefer frankly if Whitten did Digest alone -- or have a much smaller grouping of people who have really played the key contenders.
Excellent point. This is what makes the Confidential Guide, the Wine Advocate and Roger Ebert's column so powerful. Each guy has his own personal biases, which happen to be somewhat in line with my own, and I can therefore trust their reviews a LOT more than the agregate magazine rankings....
-
"As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns."
Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?
-
Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?
No because I'd rather have 1 guy, whoever it is, warts an all rating courses. Then, whether you are 100% in agreement or 100% opposed, you know where you stand and it's a lot easier to know what to make of it as opposed to the current Golf Digest System which tells me, for instance, that Rich Harvest Farms is the 46th best course in the country, upon which like a schmuck (and to help out a friend's charity) I shell out a small fortune for a foursome, bring in a bunch of ringers, only for all of us, to a man, to walk off scratching our heads as to what all the fuss was about....
-
Sorry Jud, I was responding to Jeff up above and you snuck in with a comment between...I've edited mine to clarify. By the way, I agree with you on this subject.
-
"As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns."
Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?
Who's the one?
-
When my wife (then girlfriend) first landed a job at a big daily paper, one of her jobs was to visit some of the city's galleries each week and compile a column of the best exhibits with a bit of info about them, the work on show etc.
My mum was amazed when she found out.
"I didn't know you had a strong interest in art?" she said.
"I don't," my missus replied. "Well, I like it, but I have no particular knowledge about it."
"But I plan my gallery visits on the strength of what looks good in that column. I always thought it was written by an expert!"
"No, some of the other people who have done it said if they are really busy they just ring the gallery, they don't even go out to visit."
By this stage my mum's illusion was shattered! - some newcomer journo with no particular knowledge was advising a few hundred thousand readers every weekend which galleries they should see - pretty ridiculous, she thought.
I felt the same way when I found out the identities of a few people who are magazine raters. My already thin faith in the lists was eroded completely.
Who is qualified to rate golf courses? Far fewer people than are tasked with the duty, in my opinion.
-
"As a former Longhorn,all I know is that you've really pissed off everybody in the DFW Metroplex.Don't know if it matters but most of them carry guns."
Why? Cause only one of them is qualified to rate a golf course on a level with Matt?
Who's the one?
Who knows, but God help him...and the rest of us if he finds out...
-
The better question would be who isn't qualified.
-
I used to think I wasn't, then after a few months I thought I was, and now I know I'm not. Why? Because I've read on here the reviews and/insights of folks like Sean Arble and Scott Warren and Matt Ward and SL Solow and Adam Clayman and John Kavanaugh and George Freeman (and many many others) and I can see how their experience (in the playing of many many courses) and of their gca-related thought processes (from reading so much) infuse their reviews/insights with depth and nuance....and it is no modesty on my part to say "I ain't got what they got".
Peter
-
Jim:
A national perspective is possible -- it's the approach and methodology that is often the issue. GD went with the Gallup / Zagat style in doing things and as a result you get a hodge-podge of really nothing that is truly significant. Getting the first 25-50 top courses isn't usually an issue but you can see the breakdowns in "consensus ratings" when you start with the courses between say #50 and #100.
Jim, a national approach can be done. I have said previously here on GCA that I frequently dialogue with about 10-15 people, a number of them don't lurk or write on GCA but they travel quite frequently and understand the game very well from a design side of things. I generally gain much from them when assessing trends nationwide. The same could be done with a newer approach to how national ratings are done.
-
Matt,
Here's a list of the 100 raters for Golf Magazine, it looks like just vwhat you are asking for. Surely these folks get around. Are you saying that this Ran Morrisett guy doesn't see enough golf courses outside of NC to value his opinion?
The 100 members of the panel
George Bedard, Canada
Judy Bell, Colorado
Prakash Bhandari, India
Michael Bonallack, Scotland
Niall M. Cameron, Bahamas
Malcolm Campbell, Scotland
Steve Carr, England
Paul D. Caruso, Jr., Montana
Bob Charles, New Zealand
David M. Clarke, New York
Tom Clasby, California
Tom Crow, California
Robert E. Cupp, Georgia
Bob Currey, Massachusetts
Gordon Dalgleish, Georgia
Michael R. Davis, New Jersey
John R. Dempsey, North Carolina
Tom Doak, Michigan
Luke Donald, England
Joann Dost, California
James J. Dunne III, New York
Pete Dye, Florida
David B. Fay, New Jersey
Jim Finegan, Pennsylvania
Marvin A. French, Arizona
Dana Fry, Ohio
Jim Furyk, Florida
Gary A. Galyean, Florida
Sergio Garcia, Spain
Christopher Goodwin, Canada
Kendra Graham, New Jersey
John Harris, Minnesota
Gary Hart, Arizona
Philippe P. Hermann, Switzerland
Alan Heuer, New York
Arthur Hills, Ohio
Richard Hills, England
Bill Hogan, Texas
John Hopkins, Wales
Tony Jacklin, England
Peter Jacobsen, Oregon
Terry Jastrow, California
Rees Jones, New Jersey
Bill Jones III, Georgia
Sunil Kappagoda, Connecticut
Taizo Kawata, Japan
James Keegan, Colorado
Ortwin Klang, Germany
Norman Klaparda, California
Samm Klaparda, California
Mike Klemme, Oklahoma
Herbert V. Kohler, Jr., Wisconsin
Laurence C. Lambrecht, Rhode Island
Jeffrey Lewis, New York
David Mackintosh, Argentina
Joe Marengi, Texas
Peter G. Mathieson, England
Thomas McBroom, Canada
Peter McEvoy, England
Thomas J. Meeks, Indiana
Brian Morgan, Scotland
Ran Morrissett, North Carolina
Jay Mottola, New York
Jack Nicklaus, Florida
Frank Nobilo, New Zealand
David S. Nolan, New York
Michael O'Bryon, Florida
Kazuyuki Ohashi, Japan
Kazunori Ohtsuka, Japan
Peter Oosterhuis, Arizona
Arnold Palmer, Pennsylvania
John Paramor, England
Harrie P.W. Perkins, Texas
Hal Phillips, Maine
Gary Player, South Africa
Tom Ramsey, Australia
Luke Reese, Illinois
Ron Riemer, Illinois
Cabell Robinson, Spain
Justin Rose, England
Michael C. Roseto, New Jersey
Lorne Rubenstein, Canada
Pat Ruddy, Ireland
Mitsutaka Sado, Japan
Isao Sato, Japan
Bill Shean, Illinois
David V. Smith, California
Annika Sorenstam, Sweden
Donald Steel, England
George Sweda, Ohio
Charles H. Tadge, Ohio
Oliver A. Thompson, Ohio
Sho Tobari, Japan
Daniel C. Ulmer, Jr., Kentucky
Fred Vuich, Pennsylvania
Karrie Webb, Australia
Tom Weiskopf, Arizona
Christopher P. Wightman, New Jersey
Michael Wolveridge, Australia
Walter Woods, Scotland
I realize that you rated for both Golf Digest and Golf Week, but you make it seem like the Golf Magazine rating don't even exist! Isn't this the format you clamour for, that includes the all important heavy lifting?
-
One other thing to quickly mention -- I'd like to see the ratings really feature groups of courses -- say the top ten -- rather than the silly AP college football approach. Pine Valley is a great course -- but it's not really better than Shinnecock or CP. In my mind, they are all on the same level. GD used to do it that way and frankly it's smarter because it realizes that whatever differences there are between courses the spread of an Oakmont versus a Merion is usually tied to the tiniest of differences and personal preferences.
-
One other thing to quickly mention -- I'd like to see the ratings really feature groups of courses -- say the top ten -- rather than the silly AP college football approach. Pine Valley is a great course -- but it's not really better than Shinnecock or CP. In my mind, they are all on the same level. GD used to do it that way and frankly it's smarter because it realizes that whatever differences there are between courses the spread of an Oakmont versus a Merion is usually tied to the tiniest of differences and personal preferences.
I agree with this totally...
-
Pete:
On the surface one would think that such people do in fact travel frequently -- don't know if they are in the air as much as the Clooney character though. Keep in mind this -- many of these people have stature in the industry and can play many places but do they really get to them or is it merely a tiny fraction thereof? I can't say for certain. One other thing -- I really don't think that archies should be on panels because they might have bias against a competitor or simply promote their own work -- likely they can't because of clear conflict of interest issues but crashing the party against another archie is not way off base.
Pete, one of the things you have to understand -- a number of these folks have big time names but I don't know if they really go out of their way to play other courses somewhat off the beaten path. I can tell you this -- for a period of 15 years I routinely rated no less than 40-50 new courses for Digest each year -- some of them were far from the likes of a Sand Hills I can tell you that. I mean how much time does Luke Donald really provide beyond his tour experiences? I can tell you that Nicklaus himself admitted to really not searching out new courses just for the thrill of it. Ditto for Jim Furyk and Sergio Garcia ?
I never said anything bad about the Golf Mag listing -- I just believe too many panelists have a tendency to only seek out the usual suspects and therefore fail to really see so many other courses -- Doak opened the eyes of many with his CG book on the really fascinating courses that get so little attention. Pete, I don't know how many courses these folks play and if they really update their findings with return visits and the like. Sometimes people just believe that PV shall always be at the top no matter what happens. It's amazing the range of courses that are out there now -- sometimes those with the titles and the big time profiles only play the same kind of courses time after time. I can be wrong with that but that's my sense.
-
Pete, That must be an old list. There are several long time posters here that are now on the panel. Ben, Tuco, and Joe Andriole, that I know of.
Plus, Don't they have a separate panel for their places you can play list?
-
Adam,
I just pasted that from their website. Perhaps GMBF will make an appearance and straighten us out!
-
Pete,
Maybe I'm missing something, but what I was endorsing was a personal list from a single panelist. The notion that these lists are fact is silly, they are just aggregated opinions. Have Ran write a piece on his top 10 courses over the past year in order...something like that.
Getting a national top 100 list from a single panelist does seem like a pretty big stretch though...it would seem to take years to complete.
-
Jim:
It doesn't take years -- frankly the key players don't change that much so quickly. No doubt golf courses are living entities and as we have seen there are things done to them that can be a major disaster. A national listing from a single source is not impossible but it would likely only come from those who have rather extensive visits to all the key spots for golf in the USA.
Someone like Whitten could do one. No doubt Brad Klein could as well. There are a few others I believe that can do one as well.
Be curious to see what the differences would be and what areas are emphasized.
-
Frankly that list is a bit depressing...Way too many tour players IMHO. I only see one average hacker I know of on the list and his opinion may not be the most impartial either....I'm taking my bottle of scotch and Confidential Guide and going home....
-
Matt,
I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too! You complained of regional bias and lack of global coverage for GD and GW. The panel for Golf contains nothing but well traveled golfers; how will their ranking differ from a panel of just 10 of them vice 100? There is absolutely no need for them to beat the bushes in Utah because guess what: there are no US or World Top 100 courses there! If there were there would surely be a buzz and panelists would go check it out.
-
I used to think I wasn't, then after a few months I thought I was, and now I know I'm not. Why? Because I've read on here the reviews and/insights of folks like Sean Arble and Scott Warren and Matt Ward and SL Solow and Adam Clayman and John Kavanaugh and George Freeman (and many many others) and I can see how their experience (in the playing of many many courses) and of their gca-related thought processes (from reading so much) infuse their reviews/insights with depth and nuance....and it is no modesty on my part to say "I ain't got what they got".
Peter
Pietro
With no disrespect intended - cobblers. All I or anyone does is play/look at courses and offer an opinion. That opinion is worth only as much as anybody chooses to value it. However, on a very real level I know very few people (myself far from included) who are really qualified to offer opinions on pure architecture because very few people know what it takes to get stuff in the ground on a specific project, but at the end of the day what it takes get stuff in the ground isn't all that interesting me - not compared to the final product anyway. My nose follows a few guys on this site and they aren't archies. I don't know why that is, maybe archies have a different, more work oriented/practical approach to looking at courses which doesn't often appeal to me. I know as soon as I hear an archie go on about safety issues I generally switch off and think most of it is bollocks and none of it can certainly replace common sense.
Ciao
-
Pete:
On the surface one would think that such people do in fact travel frequently -- don't know if they are in the air as much as the Clooney character though. Keep in mind this -- many of these people have stature in the industry and can play many places but do they really get to them or is it merely a tiny fraction thereof? I can't say for certain. One other thing -- I really don't think that archies should be on panels because they might have bias against a competitor or simply promote their own work -- likely they can't because of clear conflict of interest issues but crashing the party against another archie is not way off base.
Pete, one of the things you have to understand -- a number of these folks have big time names but I don't know if they really go out of their way to play other courses somewhat off the beaten path. I can tell you this -- for a period of 15 years I routinely rated no less than 40-50 new courses for Digest each year -- some of them were far from the likes of a Sand Hills I can tell you that. I mean how much time does Luke Donald really provide beyond his tour experiences? I can tell you that Nicklaus himself admitted to really not searching out new courses just for the thrill of it. Ditto for Jim Furyk and Sergio Garcia ?
I never said anything bad about the Golf Mag listing -- I just believe too many panelists have a tendency to only seek out the usual suspects and therefore fail to really see so many other courses -- Doak opened the eyes of many with his CG book on the really fascinating courses that get so little attention. Pete, I don't know how many courses these folks play and if they really update their findings with return visits and the like. Sometimes people just believe that PV shall always be at the top no matter what happens. It's amazing the range of courses that are out there now -- sometimes those with the titles and the big time profiles only play the same kind of courses time after time. I can be wrong with that but that's my sense.
This may shock you but Luke Donald gets around to a good amount of non-tour courses and is pretty knowledgeable on quality GCA.
-
Pete:
I don't know how much travel the people you mention actually do and frankly if they even venture off the beaten paths to play the lesser-known courses. You automatically assume each of them does and is akin to the Clooney "Up in the Air" character. In regards to your ignorant statement (with all due respect) -- there is some really solid golf in Utah that can make the top 100 USA listing in my mind. TF's Glenwild is a gem -- ditto for what JN did at Red Ledges. Far too often people who make broad general comments stick to the highway of predictable returns. There's plenty in the mountain time zone in the USA now to be real contenders -- and I mean more than just Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Rock Creek, to name the usual three cited.
In regards to global coverage -- I concur with plenty of those who believe too many of the international layouts -- save for the UK and Ireland get more brownie points because of their remoteness. I have to qualify my last comment in not having been to Aussie and NZ land just yet. That will soon be rectified. I think on balance -- the USA has the best and most deepest roster of top tier courses with the UK and Ireland just behind.
Pete, if you enjoy aggregate ratings then knock yourself out and enjoy. I agree w Jim S that having individual lists would work even better. The NY Times does it with its top movie listing and what comes from theater. Not just one report but a few from people who might see certain things a bit differently. I do believe a Whitten and Klein list alone would make for some interesting analysis.
Pete, last comment -- much of the golf establishment hews to the usual suspects -- places like Black Mesa often are ignored because many people erroneously conclude that no superior golf could EVER be possible in NM. I have come to believe quite the opposite -- that far too many of the classic courses are held too high because of nothing more than past votes.
Jud:
Good idea -- but don't drink it too fast !!! ;D
Jud, have you thought about rating the top 25 or so courses in your neck of the woods ?
Be interesting to see it -- in groupings of five so you would not have to place each course in some sort of silly numercial order.
-
Pat:
My statement stands -- most tour pros don't go out of their way to play non-tourney related courses. If Donald is an exception -- so be it -- for him. Most that I have ever spoken to don't. A classic case is how few people ever played Bethpage Black prior to the '02 event -- ditto the same thing prior to the '86 US Open at Shinnecock.
You can only imagine how the "lesser" known courses get even less looks than those I just mentioned.
-
Matt:
I wish you would stop complaining about the "silly numerical order".
Most adults should understand that it is not the sort of thing you ought to take TOO seriously. But it does tell you that a course which ranks 22nd is closer to the top twenty than the "fourth ten" the silly way GOLF DIGEST used to do it, where it was artificially hyped "big news" when a course moved up from 21st to 20th.
-
Matt,
Since I'm sooooo ignorant please refresh my memory, how many top 100 lists, other than your own, have Glenwild and Red Ledges made so far! 8)
-
Pete:
OK -- smart guy -- who many panelists (Golf Mag specifically) have gone to the mountain time zone and actually played anything more than a select grouping of coursers in and around Denver and the likes of Sand Hills, Ballynell and Rock Creek -- I'm assuming they have been to Deer Lodge but I would not bet the ranch on that one.
How many top tier panelists have even been to NM ?
They might have confused it with Mexico instead. ;D
Pete, I'm not trying to break your balls but the lists generally follow the same formula. I have issue with the fact a number of NYC-area courses are rated highly -- simply because they always have been and often times glom on to what their more famous neighbors are about.
I've played no less than 75+ of TF and JN courses -- I really enjoyed both Glenwild and Red Ledges. But I stand by what I said - most of tjhe top tier panelists only cherry-pick off the usuals suspects and then reinforce their position time after time after time. Just my opinion for what it matters. Thanks ...
-
But Matt, you didn't answer my question; if I wanted pontification I'd have gone to confession or my Mom's house. :D
Are Glenwild or Red Ledges on any Top 100 lists? If not, there realy was no need to go to Utah, plain and simple.
-
Who is qualified to rate golf courses - easy those who have had a full frontal lobotomy - and hates golfers
Melvyn
-
Is there some unwritten rule of GCA.com that every thread has to be a nasty bitchfest. this place has gotten downright surly in the past couple of years.
to get to the topic at hand, i think the person that said "the better question is who isn't qualified to rate golf courses?" hit the nail on the head. aren't golf courses like art... the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. the trick is to have raters that have a passion for golf, a working knowledge of what things to look for in good construction, a sense of strategic quality, and the time to play a variety of different places.
i get that strong ratings can lead to prestige and added revenue so they have a lot of political power. i also get that they are good for discussion fodder. but... true passionate golfers generally know what separates a good golf course from a bad... and if someone disagrees they generally can at least back their opinion up with solid facts or at least worthwhile, respected opinion.
i just can't comprehend how some of you expect these "perfect" rankings based on some quantitative model. take them with a grain of salt. if nothing else, they narrow down an entire globe of golf into those that are worth a special trip to play. why not just leave it at that?
-
I felt the same way when I found out the identities of a few people who are magazine raters. My already thin faith in the lists was eroded completely.
Who is qualified to rate golf courses? Far fewer people than are tasked with the duty, in my opinion.
Scott:
Aren't there a whole helluva lot of panelists? Why is it that these few people being raters has eroded your faith in the lists?
-
Who is qualified to rate golf courses - easy those who have had a full frontal lobotomy - and hates golfers
Melvyn
Melvyn,
Certainly you have some favorite golf courses... and have your own ways of rating them in that frontal lobe of yours. Does that qualify you as one in need of lobotomy? Wait, don't answer that... ;D
-
Pete Lavallee,
Red Ledges is No. 57 on the Golfweek's Best Residential List for 2010 and No. 7 on the Golfweek's Best New List for 2009-2010.
I've had to deal with the question of "what makes for a good rater?" a lot over the last 15 years. Among the things I have found is that there's no correlation between playing ability and openness to judge golf courses; certainty and confidence of opinion is actually counter-productive, as well; an ability to travel and a curiosity about seeing as many different golf courses are indispensable; so, too, a commitment to studying the widely recognized classics; and anyone who does not read books on the subject is unnecessarily handicapping themselves.
-
I think Jay K. nailed this one pretty well especially in his second paragraph. Rating golf courses is a subjective exercise that's never going to be perfected. You could take 100 people from this site to 50 great courses and tell them to rank them and I'd be stunned if any two lists were the exactly the same (or even that close). Its hard enough to get people on this site to agree on the criteria for determining a great course, let alone which courses do the best job at fitting those criteria. It makes for fun discussion that wouldn't exist of there was a consensus.
The best thing about rating golf courses for me is the variety of what's out there. My number of courses played per year has declined this year for the 3rd consecutive year (from a high of 52 in 2007 to 31 this year), but I played in 11 states and got to see a lot of different styles and time periods. Maybe after graduate school I'll make it abroad to expand my horizons a bit more!
-
Andy:
No list will be exactly the same -- you created a straw man that no one disputes. Doak himself said that even in CG he doubts that agreement would be no better than 85-90% -- with the rest being "unavoidable." Preferences and styles will no doubt produce a varying result -- but on the whole -- just as people rate the top movies and restaurants -- the best will, for the most part, be recognized.
I believe a group rating of courses in settings of ten is much more workable. The issue is for people to do what you mentioned -- seizing the opportunity to travel (11 states in your case this year) and to have what Brad Klein mentioned as a desire to seeing as many different states and sampling what is there. I do agree with his assertion that "certainty" can be counterproductive -- far too often ironically it is that "certainty" that has allowed some of the fattest cows to remain on the prime grazing ground.
Pete:
You must have simply responded without reading what I posted -- many panelists need mapquest to find UT and a state called NM. They think golf rarely exists for the select predictable ones seen over and over again -- as i said the NYC-metro area has a great many top tier courses but the area also has a number of overrated peaches as well.. Pete, if you don't want a straight answer -- go to the same location and breathe in the same BS air because as I said before -- a number of the so-called bulletproof courses that are routinely rated -- get their mileage not from their own octane but from sucking the gas out of the muscle engine courses that are nearby to their address.
If you don't like my thoughts -- disagree with them. But I stand by what I said -- I've played no less than 75+ TF and JN courses respectively. Just my opinion that's all. Glenwild and Red Ledges would make my personal top 100 USA listing -- before throwing my comments under the bus how bout you venture there to play them and see firsthand.
Tom D:
"I wish you would stop complaining about the "silly numerical order".[/b"
"]Most adults should understand that it is not the sort of thing you ought to take TOO seriously."
Tom, Surely you jest.
Ratings by GD -- at least when they were the sole dominant voice -- were taken seriously. Very seriously throughout the golf industry. Because of the stature and voice GD once commanded -- and even to this day but with less monopoly and credibility -- the placement of courses through the considerable platform they have does influence a good many people.
Yes, you are so aboluetly right -- it makles perfect sense to rate a courser #1 like it was something akin to the AP collegiate football wire ::). Sure -- like PV is somehow better than Oakmont or Cypress Point. Having courses in groupings is a bit more intellectually honest than going through the numerical ratings which are self-induced publicity themes GD deliberately inserted to create "news."
-
Matt,
On one hand you belittle numerical lists and yet yesterday in the Dormie Club thread you asked Adam Messix for his C&C Top 10 in order...
As is often the case your arguments are all over the place.
-
About a dozen posts back, there was the list of Golf Magazine Course Raters.
Comments:
1. I can see why there is the problem of the average of the average. How could Arthur Hills, Arnie & Pete agree on anything when it comes to Golf Design?
2. Way too many high profile people. A Rater with a vote needs to be under the radar.
3. The human race's attempt to measure what cannot be measured is destined to fail.
-
I was actually playing golf with someone when they got the call they were accepted as a GolfWeek rater. You just never know when you go out in public who you are standing next to, could be a suicide bomber, a paroled rapist, a pedophile, or....a golfweek rater!
Is this the "new" Dale Carnegie method?
-
Ha, ha - good one, Adam.
Peter
-
Tom D:
"I wish you would stop complaining about the "silly numerical order".[/b"
"]Most adults should understand that it is not the sort of thing you ought to take TOO seriously."
Tom, Surely you jest.
Ratings by GD -- at least when they were the sole dominant voice -- were taken seriously. Very seriously throughout the golf industry. Because of the stature and voice GD once commanded -- and even to this day but with less monopoly and credibility -- the placement of courses through the considerable platform they have does influence a good many people.
Yes, you are so aboluetly right -- it makles perfect sense to rate a courser #1 like it was something akin to the AP collegiate football wire ::). Sure -- like PV is somehow better than Oakmont or Cypress Point. Having courses in groupings is a bit more intellectually honest than going through the numerical ratings which are self-induced publicity themes GD deliberately inserted to create "news."
Matt:
I will let you tell me your opinion of golf courses. But, you are in no position to lecture me (or anyone else I know) on INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, so I will just ignore you there.
Groups of ten are really no more relevant than the numbers 1-100. They are both artificial constructs which make the exercise sound more objective than it can possibly be. BUT, if you're going to go to all the trouble of making people vote on all this stuff, I think you might as well compile the numbers completely, instead of just making arbitrary cut-offs. In fact, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.
-
Kelly:
Great comment. ;D
Tom:
Let's be clear -- I don't see how rating courses like collegiate football teams makes any sense. I understand why GD led the parade -- it makes for good copy to say some course is #1 and then two years later have another #1. I can't for the life of me see what the real differences are between such heavyweights as places like Merion / East and Oakmont. A solid ten in both cases and for anyone to say one is better than the other is likely tied to a personal preference.
When you have groupings of ten you are better able to fit courses to particular areas of emphasis. Sure, one could do it just with a grouping of 100 and leave it at that. I don't think that provides a sufficient level of differentiation and that's something that can be broken down a bit more. No doubt any grouping will have a starting and end point. When GD had its ton ten listing it went through that for the first 50 courses -- the remainder weere simply lumped into a "second 50."
Tom, don't get a knot in your shorts -- my comment on "intellectuasl honesty" was not geared towards you but a system that GD eventually changed to include such collegiate football ratings. It was nothing more than attempt to create "news" with every ratings when in all reality places like Oakmont, Merion, CP, PV, et all of that type, are all within a whisker of one another.
Scott:
Fair question -- but far from your erroneous statement that my "arguments are all over the place."
Here's why ...
The difference in my asking Adam is that he is a lone individual -- I wanted to know how he might be able to diffentiate between the key courses he has played from the C&C portfolio of one's he has played. Getting him to analyze each and for him to see what he personally liked better than another is quite helpful for me in better understanding his overall feelings on a given course.
This is a bit different than when aggregate lists are provided by an assortment of people when pooled together. I believe the aggregate approach works best when divided into set groupings -- such as what GD did previously with its top ten ratings from a "first ten" to a "fifth ten" and then a "second fifty."
Hope this clariification helps with any misunderstanding you might have had.
-
Oh God, not another "what's wrong with ratings and raters" thread! It is not rocket science, though the theories and the process behind them probably have as much of a factual or "scientific" basis as a number of multi-billion dollar policies we're pursuing.
Take the rankings for what they are, subjective lists of wonderful golf courses derived from the considered opinions of imperfect golf enthusiasts. On the whole, if used to suggest where we might direct our limited resources for playing golf, most of us will be well-satisfied with the results. I've consulted the various rankings when travelling for as long as I can remember and have only been disappointed once; a far superior average than my experience with theatre, movie, food, wine, books, electronics, etc. recommendations by other critics.
-
Matt,
To me the problem with your thinking is that you're still creating an arbitrary cut-off, its just in groups of ten instead of one. If you really want to separate courses it would make sense to do it by quality groupings, regardless of the size of the group. If there are 12 courses that deserve a "10" and 15 courses that deserve a "9" then lump those courses together. Otherwise course #20 and #21 could receive almost identical numerical evaluations but be placed in different groupings because that's where the cut fell. Systems work better if you work with the data instead of competing with it to achieve round numbers.
Personally, I think ordering courses is fine as long as the magazines provide the actual ratings received (9.43 vs 8.75). That allows the reader to see whether there's really any difference between #1 and #2 or #43 and #44. Despite your argument about PV and Oakmont, there's often a much greater separation at the top then the middle of the list where you might have 20 courses separated by half a point. All of these courses at the top or even bottom of top 100 lists are generally excellent, its the details and also personal preference that often create the separation.
-
Andy:
Hello -- yes it's arbitrary - so is any number system one uses. I don't see how a collegiate football rating system works well. It was self-created by Digest and then all the other pubs followed the pied-piper approach so that every year or two you can create "news" that such and such course fell one position or another moved into the top spot -- see the fanfare that the ascension of ANGC to the top spot caused. In regards to the system you mentioned -- you can very well have them assigned a certain letter or number grade and go from there. But frankly the concept of "groupings" -- whether by an assigned number or a heading of say ten courses -- works better than having such a silly and preposterous notion that there is only one #1 course in the land.
I like the groupings because at some point there will be a cut-off -- the original Digest approach worked well in my mind.
Andy, let me state again aggregate ratings are meaningless -- they simply push numbers together and then ipso facto like some sort of cheap magician's trick we get the RESULT. There is no ryhme, reason or detailed analysis - it's just throw courses into the air -- have people vote without any meaningful wherewithal to cross compare from a similar pool of courses played. For example, if person A plays Oakmoint and person B plays Merion and neither has played both -- you have to assume that these respective people can apply the numbers in some sort of consistent fashion. That won't be an issue for the top top courses -- but it does becomes more of a problem the further from the top you slide down.
We do agree a well-researched listing will likely contain many fine courses but there are few raters who have the wherewithal to see the totality -- they often can only approach the process from a limited side of things. That's what made Doak's CG book so fascinating -- a clear and consistent analysis - albeit from his perspective -- but one that was well thought out and not polluted with the aggregate style that is nothing more than a hodge podge of this and that.
-
Kelly, He wrote the book "How to win friends and influence people".
-
Matt,
Next time I think about responding to one of your posts remind to beat my head into the wall instead--quicker, more efficient, and achieves the same result ;)
We'll agree to disagree that your arbitrary cut off provides any more benefit than mine...
-
How do you qualify "Qualified"?
Elimination of bias stands as the greatest challenge to the exercise, a spectrum of moron to genius confluent with scratch to duffer would be the best remedy.
Cheers,
Steve
-
Andy:
Hello -- yes it's arbitrary - so is any number system one uses. I don't see how a collegiate football rating system works well. It was self-created by Digest and then all the other pubs followed the pied-piper approach so that every year or two you can create "news" that such and such course fell one position or another moved into the top spot -- see the fanfare that the ascension of ANGC to the top spot caused. In regards to the system you mentioned -- you can very well have them assigned a certain letter or number grade and go from there. But frankly the concept of "groupings" -- whether by an assigned number or a heading of say ten courses -- works better than having such a silly and preposterous notion that there is only one #1 course in the land.
I like the groupings because at some point there will be a cut-off -- the original Digest approach worked well in my mind.
Andy, let me state again aggregate ratings are meaningless -- they simply push numbers together and then ipso facto like some sort of cheap magician's trick we get the RESULT. There is no ryhme, reason or detailed analysis - it's just throw courses into the air -- have people vote without any meaningful wherewithal to cross compare from a similar pool of courses played. For example, if person A plays Oakmoint and person B plays Merion and neither has played both -- you have to assume that these respective people can apply the numbers in some sort of consistent fashion. That won't be an issue for the top top courses -- but it does becomes more of a problem the further from the top you slide down.
We do agree a well-researched listing will likely contain many fine courses but there are few raters who have the wherewithal to see the totality -- they often can only approach the process from a limited side of things. That's what made Doak's CG book so fascinating -- a clear and consistent analysis - albeit from his perspective -- but one that was well thought out and not polluted with the aggregate style that is nothing more than a hodge podge of this and that.
Matt,
I think you are right that the "Tiered" approach is more meaningful and realistic, but I wonder if "Tens" is really just the same problem (as Tom Doak mentioned earlier). In reality, the tiers may need to be a little wider (such as Top 10, then 11-30, Then 40-80 and getting wider). Like you said, is there really a difference between a #81 and #115 course?
Really, isn't that what Doak's Guide did? The measure of quality is probably more of a "Bell Curve" rather than a linear, relative progression. As we moved down from 9,8,7 - the numbers is each class grew.
But what you (and I) also liked about Doak's Guide was that he was the constant factor, rather than relying on many individuals having the exact same relationship with a proscribed scale.
if we are going to have ratings systems that involve multiple raters, I like the "head-to-head" methodology that Anthony Fowler was using for his "Re-Rating the GCA Top 100." To some it extent, it shifts the "constant" factor back to the Individual Rater rather than a set "numerical scale" (but still provides some "guidance" as to what things to consider).
Ultimately, there is no perfect answer / solution in a purely quantitative exercise. Using Wider "Tiers" as I mentioned earlier could eliminate some of the obsession over "linear" rankings ("Woohoo - we moved from #52 to #41") and the "head-to-head" feature smooths out "inflationary grading."
At the end of the day, I'll take the rankings with a grain of salt, because I've walked of Highly Ranked courses going "really?" and played Unranked Courses that I would play 10 times out of 10 given the option. There's no replacement for qualitative discussion and comments which explain the rater's feelings, which is why I'd probably just turn to people here for suggestions / thoughts.
-
For my sake I'm far more interested in opinions of specific people that I know than I am in some sort of aggregate "opinion by committee."
It's the same way with movies. I may read Roger Ebert's opinion on a movie, take into account the degree to which his opinion and mine have agreed in the past, and then make my decision as to whether or not I want to go see it. I do not look at which movie did the most box office over the weekend and make my decision based on that.
An imperfect analogy, but you get the idea.
-
I was actually playing golf with someone when they got the call they were accepted as a GolfWeek rater. You just never know when you go out in public who you are standing next to, could be a suicide bomber, a paroled rapist, a pedophile, or....a golfweek rater!
Did he get his green fee refunded?
-
Andy:
So be it -- but just remember you're the guy who thinks that Paa-Ko Ridge has the edge over Black Mesa too. ;)
Kevin:
No doubt there is a cut-off figure -- in my case -- I'd have the first 50 rated courses broken down in sequences of ten. The 2nd 50 would just be listed alphabetically as GD previously did.
I undersand Andy's desire to break-off courses simply from a numerical rating -- a 10, 9, 8 and so forth. Even in his case there is a break point between a course getting a 9 and another getting an 8. In either case -- mine or his -- an arbitrary determination is made which filters courses to one side or the other.
Kevin, frankly many people would be hard-pressed to say what is significantly different from the 81st to the 115th course. If I remember certain rating numbers that Jonathan Cummings once posted the separation between such courses is very, very small indeed.
The larger issue is that aggregate ratings are nothing more than cumbersome and largely ineffective mechanism of group think. There is the assumption that all raters are equals. That is far from the case. Many raters are regional and often state-centered in their thoughts. Few really have played a very wide cross section of courses.
Kevin, the "constant factor" you highlighted with Doak's CG is his steady voice and analysis which is aplied from one course to the next from one country to the next. One is then able to get the kind of personalized cross-comparisons that are simply not a part of the gallp / zagat poll group think most magazines follow.
-
Matt,
After more rounds, I've come to the realization that Black Mesa is better than Paa-Ko.
How would your tiering system affect the state lists? Would you list ten courses without an order?
-
"Who is qualified to rate golf courses?"
I'll go with, if you have to ask it ain't you. (for 100, Alex)
-
Everyone who rates golf courses has a bias, even if they are unaware of it. How does it fit your game?
I remember playing in a 2 day member guest. The course was narrow and the trees on the right side of the fairway humg over the right side of the fairway. I alwayed started my ball out over the right rough and drew it back into the center of the fairway. Not here. It crashed into the trees 6 times that day. I never learnt how to hit a fade.
Not only did I tell my buddy to not invite me back the next year, I hated the course. I thought I was a good rater, but how could I not give this course low marks.
My buddy faded everything and never saw the overhanging limbs on the right side.
I loved courses with forced carries, eye candy, huge traps, and lots of quirk. In minimialists eyes, that made me a bad rater. I hated miminalist courses and guys who see all kinds of stuff that isn't really there, but when certain guys tell you what is in, alot line up like sheep to repeat the same words.
Funny how the best work of the miminalists isn't mininailism, but instead a great piece of land with great movement and a great routing to take advantage of it.
-
This was all so much more fun 5 years ago before the bottom fell out of the golf market. It saddens me to see even the raters themselves admitting that no standards are the best standard. I have seen far too many friends lose their jobs and or livelihoods to any longer see the humor in this farce. The ratings are fine and fun and harmless by themselves but allowing a large percentage of what is left of the golfing traveling public to play without fee or membership is hurting those brave enough to remain investors in the game. It's time for all magazines to mandate a pay to play policy for each and every panelist and their friends, families and guests. There is not a single club that needs a rater to survive yet every remaining club requires revenue to stay afloat. This does not need to be a permanent policy, just long enough to give golf a shot in the arm.
I will personally donate the postage it would take for Golfweek to mail out to their 1700 nominated courses in the U.S. a letter requiring each visiting rater be charged the published guest fee until election day of November 2012. This simple act would infuse a much needed $2,000,000 in a starving golf market.
-
John:
This is voodoo economics. I played 75 rounds this year. 38 new courses. Informed the course that I was a rater 3 times and was comped 2x. Your assumptions may be completely and totally false. I am happy to pay for my rounds; in fact, I already do, nearly all the time.
The raters are a large percentage of posters but a miniscule percentage of golfers. Sample error.
Bart
-
John...
I am with Bart in that I think you are way overstating this "raters play for free deal", but maybe I am ignorant and/or stupid.
Either way, I am with you that rater's should pay a guest fee to play.
-
Kelly, He wrote the book "How to win friends and influence people".
So an architect should try to find out who the raters are and then win them over and influence them? Does that really happen? I know an architect who bought a very nice camera for the head of all raters at GD. Is that the kind of thing architects should be doing?
Kelly, No! That's not anywhere near what I was saying.
My original comment was in jest, and the new was in quotes.
It's similar to John K's way of getting invited to the best courses. Say something completely degrading and some member will IM him and invite him to prove him wrong.
But, clearly, calling out raters and associating them with pedophiles and other of life's scum, is an interesting way to become recognized as an architect.
-
This was all so much more fun 5 years ago before the bottom fell out of the golf market. It saddens me to see even the raters themselves admitting that no standards are the best standard. I have seen far too many friends lose their jobs and or livelihoods to any longer see the humor in this farce. The ratings are fine and fun and harmless by themselves but allowing a large percentage of what is left of the golfing traveling public to play without fee or membership is hurting those brave enough to remain investors in the game. It's time for all magazines to mandate a pay to play policy for each and every panelist and their friends, families and guests. There is not a single club that needs a rater to survive yet every remaining club requires revenue to stay afloat. This does not need to be a permanent policy, just long enough to give golf a shot in the arm.
I will personally donate the postage it would take for Golfweek to mail out to their 1700 nominated courses in the U.S. a letter requiring each visiting rater be charged the published guest fee until election day of November 2012. This simple act would infuse a much needed $2,000,000 in a starving golf market.
Do you really think the rater that goes in his pocket for travel expenses to go far and wide to sample different courses is getting over on the golf course industry for a comped round of golf? Without the service of the raters there are no rankings.
-
I thought it was in jest and so was my original comment. As for your last comment above I don't take raters or the rating business seriously, in fact I think the rating business is a sham and a negative in the business and it has no impact on me as an architect because there is not a rater alive that cares what I do. There is a certain level below which they will not waste their time and I am far down the ladder!
Kelly,
It looks like from your website there is at least one living rater that cares what you do!! :)
http://kellyblakemoran.com/article.html (http://kellyblakemoran.com/article.html)
-
Tim,
Would you turn in your rater card if comps were not part of your compensation. If so you are the first rater I have ever met who shares your opinion. If you would choose not to travel to a course because of the green fee perhaps the owner would soon discover his fee is too high. In that case the golfer wins. What is wrong with that system?
-
Without the service of the raters there are no rankings.
Tim:
You should take back that last quote before anyone else sees it.
This is the problem with rating panels ... some eventually start to think that THEY ARE THE SHOW, rather than just the audience.
One of the nice things about the GOLF Magazine panel [in the old days] was that nearly everyone was in the golf business, so none of them identified themselves as "panelists" at all, or needed to look to be comped when they visited a new course. It was my idea (and my mistake) to suggest putting a handful of traveling amateurs on the panel, not thinking they would use the position for access ... but they certainly have done so over the years.
Everyone else:
Y'all are delusional if you don't think there is a lot of influencing going on behind the scenes. Much of it is innocent -- for example, I am friendly with many panelists from many publications, many of whom I've known long before they were panelists. [It wasn't such a large group of people 25-30 years ago when I started meeting people in golf.]
On the other hand, I've met lots of panelists who have introduced themselves to me AS panelists. I'm sure that some are just proud of the fact. Others probably assume I will think more of their knowledge of courses because they are panelists, even though that's not the case. Some clearly hope to arrange a game at one of the more private courses I've built [I've had 30-40 requests from panelists I don't know to play Sebonack, for example]. And, unfortunately, there have been at least a couple who gave the impression that I should be nice to them, because as panelists they have some control over how my work is judged. They're the exception, not the rule ... but the longer some people serve in this capacity, the more they tend to think they're Important.
There is no architect out there who doesn't know a fair number of panelists, whether we try to or not. And I hear panelists all the time telling me that architect A or B is "a really nice guy." You really don't think that influences how the panelist rates architect B's courses? And you don't think architects understand that?
-
Without the service of the raters there are no rankings.
There is no architect out there who doesn't know a fair number of panelists, whether we try to or not. And I hear panelists all the time telling me that architect A or B is "a really nice guy." You really don' think that influences how the panelist rates architect B's courses? And you don't think architects understand that?
Tom
Of course not! Raters are as pure as the driven snow and knowledgable as Einstein.
Its laughable to think panelists aren't influenced by freebies, being treated well and hob nobbing with whos who in the industry. Yes, of course its only the architecture that matters.
Ciao
-
Without the service of the raters there are no rankings.
Tim:
You should take back that last quote before anyone else sees it.
This is the problem with rating panels ... some eventually start to think that THEY ARE THE SHOW, rather than just the audience.
One of the nice things about the GOLF Magazine panel [in the old days] was that nearly everyone was in the golf business, so none of them identified themselves as "panelists" at all, or needed to look to be comped when they visited a new course. It was my idea (and my mistake) to suggest putting a handful of traveling amateurs on the panel, not thinking they would use the position for access ... but they certainly have done so over the years.
Everyone else:
Y'all are delusional if you don't think there is a lot of influencing going on behind the scenes. Much of it is innocent -- for example, I am friendly with many panelists from many publications, many of whom I've known long before they were panelists. [It wasn't such a large group of people 25-30 years ago when I started meeting people in golf.]
On the other hand, I've met lots of panelists who have introduced themselves to me AS panelists. I'm sure that some are just proud of the fact. Others probably assume I will think more of their knowledge of courses because they are panelists, even though that's not the case. Some clearly hope to arrange a game at one of the more private courses I've built [I've had 30-40 requests from panelists I don't know to play Sebonack, for example]. And, unfortunately, there have been at least a couple who gave the impression that I should be nice to them, because as panelists they have some control over how my work is judged. They're the exception, not the rule ... but the longer some people serve in this capacity, the more they tend to think they're Important.
There is no architect out there who doesn't know a fair number of panelists, whether we try to or not. And I hear panelists all the time telling me that architect A or B is "a really nice guy." You really don't think that influences how the panelist rates architect B's courses? And you don't think architects understand that?
Tom- Isn`t that a completely factual statement that "without raters there are no rankings"? If a certain rater`s sense of self importance is inflated by such a statement then the magazines hired the wrong guy. Maybe I am naive but I can`t imagine that every rater that learns he won`t ever get comped again is going to walk away as JK says in his previous post. See Bart Bradley`s reply #88 as an exception to this line of reasoning. Additionally it`s a shame if architect A or B is only perceived as a really nice guy not because he is but because he is subliminally trying to influence a rater. As with all things in life when someone has the ability to effect the outcome of something there will be some measure of influence peddling. Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.
-
Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.
This quote alone is worthy of it's own seperate thread....Tim, I would say that it certainly helps the given course. How and why it's on people's radar and what the given course represents in terms of a host of issues may or may not be a positive for the industry long term...
-
It is important to note that Golf Digest put together their best new issue this year without the help of any raters. Ron Whitten did it all by himself. Also note that journalists are not raters and raters are not journalists.
Tim,
I do not believe a single rater would quit just because he would have to pay the same fees as any other guest. If any of you would please let me know and I will pay your postage to submit your resignation. Certified return receipt, no less.
-
See Bart Bradley`s reply #88 as an exception to this line of reasoning.
Tim:
Bart may or may not favor a course because he was comped, but a course that's in the business of comping raters may view it as a good way to get favorable ratings. How many Barts are out there getting comped as raters? If, say, a dozen are comped at the same course, aren't the odds that that course will end up with more favorable ratings, all other things being equal?
-
Jk, Do you continue to ignore the fact that comps are NOT part of any compensation just to be controversial?
I'll say it for the last time, there is no expectation of a comp.
Every person is different in how they view the process.
The reality is that when someone (a normal person, not you lot) finds out I'm a rater (because I certainly don't tell them) they almost always mis-understand. They assume I write in the magazine.
It's been a long time since we had good old fashion rater bashing thread. It was my mistake to think Carl's query was genuine. That won't happen again. GN.
-
I think there is a need for raters for no other reason than to serve as foils in the John Kavanaugh narrative.
-
JC,
I can honestly say that I have played every great course I have ever desired because of my many friendships with raters. The majority comped to boot. I love raters, I love golf and believe my proposal of pay to play will go a long way to help both.
-
Tom- Isn`t that a completely factual statement that "without raters there are no rankings"? If a certain rater`s sense of self importance is inflated by such a statement then the magazines hired the wrong guy. Maybe I am naive but I can`t imagine that every rater that learns he won`t ever get comped again is going to walk away as JK says in his previous post. See Bart Bradley`s reply #88 as an exception to this line of reasoning. Additionally it`s a shame if architect A or B is only perceived as a really nice guy not because he is but because he is subliminally trying to influence a rater. As with all things in life when someone has the ability to effect the outcome of something there will be some measure of influence peddling. Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.
Tim: I agree that any ranking is the sum of different people's views. I don't agree that raters ought to be comped as part of the process, as many are today. I do not think it is a matter of "getting one over on the golf industry", as John K has suggested here; I just think it puts a lot of bias and behind-the-scenes dealing into the rankings process, and has an impact on the results, to a degree no one really understands for sure.
I just reacted to your statement because so many raters seem to think they are doing an Important, Thankless job, which is just absurd. I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren't out there pounding the fairways; they would just throw favors directly at the editors and writers instead of at panelists. ;) Next, you'll be telling me of all the good that lobbyist money does for government elections.
-
Andy:
Mea culpa on my part -- regarding your ascension of BM over Paa-Ko Ridge. Glad to see you have seen the light. ;D
How would your tiering system affect the state lists? Would you list ten courses without an order?
Andy, you asked a good question above -- I have said in the past when state ratings are concerned there should be more of an emphasis given to those who live in the state itself. Therefore, the periodic outside rater who doesn't live in that state should still be able to vote but such a vote is not given the same weight as someone from within who has likely played such courses a number of more times at different points in the calendar and with varying types of weather and turf quality conditions.
In regards to the positioning of courses -- I believe the state lists could be listed in numerical order because in most cases the states don't have the sheer numbers that a national list presents -- especially in the area of actual depth. No doubt certain states would have a much deeper roster - like New York and California, to name just two. But, the benefit at the state level is that people from within that respective state have likely played the courses so many times to allow for the missing cross comparison purpose that inevitably happens at the national level. Being a Jersey guy -- I know the key raters from within the Garden State are quite able to discern the distinctions between courses because of their wherewithal to have played them and to breakdown the ups and downs that each provides.
-
I spent this past summer as a first time "panelist." I've been a part of the system now from both sides, as a panelist and as a host professional. I feel embarrassed to identify myself as a rater because of the "game" that typically goes on between courses and panelists.
I enjoy traveling to see and play new courses. I've never understood why panelists need to identify themselves to courses. If a panelist wants to discuss details about the course set-up, conditioning, history, etc. then by all means but only for the sake of securing a few minutes with the resident pro or superintendent.
Raters shouldn't be playing "secret shopper" to try and catch courses in an extremely good or bad moment, but why broadcast your arrival?
Ken
-
Ken:
A bit like restaurant reviewers, who often go through elaborate disguises to hide their identity so restaurants don't go overboard in serving their needs at the expense of a regular diner's experience. I think golf course rating is a bit tougher, particularly at the privates, because multiple visits (which most restaurant reviewers -- the good ones -- do) can be difficult to arrange, and it seems a good rater would go the extra step of asking some questions about conditioning et al. on site, while the memory of the round is still fresh.
I can't imagine getting comped as a rater doesn't affect one's judgement of a course.
-
Kelly:
Here's whar you said -- (my BOLD emphasis added)
So an architect should try to find out who the raters are and then win them over and influence them? Does that really happen? I know an architect who bought a very nice camera for the head of all raters at GD. Is that the kind of thing architects should be doing?
Kelly, what's interesting is that certain mags actually printed the names of the people who are raters -- GD used to do it -- I believe Golf Mag still does. It's not hard to see that those looking to gets support would lobby those who could elevate their respective courses.
But I want to take issue with you on another comments you made later -- (again my BOLD emphasis added)
There is a certain level below which they will not waste their time and I am far down the ladder!
A qualified rater looks at ALL key courses -- and doesn't take the hollywood merry-go-round search only for the stars approach. I believe well-intenttioned raters will look at all deserving courses and frankly many of them are the handiwork of people who don't have the highest of profiles. Your speciific work in Pennsy at Morgan Hill and Lederach are two fine examples of that. Those who have failed to play them when they come to the Keystone State are leaving their golf design honmework assignment on the incomplete side of things.
-
Ken:
A bit like restaurant reviewers, who often go through elaborate disguises to hide their identity so restaurants don't go overboard in serving their needs at the expense of a regular diner's experience. I think golf course rating is a bit tougher, particularly at the privates, because multiple visits (which most restaurant reviewers -- the good ones -- do) can be difficult to arrange, and it seems a good rater would go the extra step of asking some questions about conditioning et al. on site, while the memory of the round is still fresh.
I can't imagine getting comped as a rater doesn't affect one's judgment of a course.
Phil,
Multiple plays is one of the inherent issues with evaluations. How many plays does it take? One play is tough to base much of anything on but that's how the system is set up. The first time I played Lost Dunes, I was less than thrilled. Each time I've played it since I've enjoyed it more and more and now consider it one of my favorites. Multiple plays would be even more unfair that the comping that goes on now.
I agree with you that identifying yourself as a rater to speak in depth with the staff at a particular golf course makes sense. I happen to be in the camp that also believes all comps for panelists should be eliminated. Does that mean I won't shell out $500 to evaluate Shadow Creek? Maybe, but I can't say I would look upon the experience a different way if my wallet wasn't $500 lighter either....
Ken
-
Matt W...
I love what you had to say here, "A qualified rater looks at ALL key courses -- and doesn't take the hollywood merry-go-round search only for the stars approach. I believe well-intenttioned raters will look at all deserving courses and frankly many of them are the handiwork of people who don't have the highest of profiles."
But you know what, I think you can take away the term rater. If a golfer is really trying to identify the type of golf and course that is the most fun for them, they need to look at a wide variety of courses.
-
Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.
This quote alone is worthy of it's own seperate thread....Tim, I would say that it certainly helps the given course. How and why it's on people's radar and what the given course represents in terms of a host of issues may or may not be a positive for the industry long term...
Jud-My point is that on a list like "Best Modern" or "Best New" someone that lives in a neighboring state 90 miles away may not even be aware that course "X" exists. The list makes them aware that it is an option. What would be a negative for the golf industry long term by such inclusion?
-
My biggest problem is why when golf needs revenue and fewer courses are being built the panels are growing in size. If you care about the game you can not rationalize this fact. This negative becomes a positive with pay to play. Let the magazines have ten thousand raters and everyone wins.
-
My biggest problem is why when golf needs revenue and fewer courses are being built the panels are growing in size. If you care about the game you can not rationalize this fact. This negative becomes a positive with pay to play. Let the magazines have ten thousand raters and everyone wins.
Last time I heard, we still live in a capitalistic society. These golf courses are making decisions based on what they *think* is best for them. If comping/refusing/pay for play is their choice, why do you think you know more than the club's management? Suggesting that a club is making a decision that is NOT in their best interest goes against anything that is holy in economic theory.
Or, you're just opaquely making a statement on raters that has nothing to do with money changing hands.
-
If every rater is comped and every course comps raters doesn't that put all courses on the same, level playing field? Seems to me that if a rater is comped everywhere they play then there is no bias of one course over the other.
So, the solution Mr. Kavanaugh, is not to take away the comps, but to institute comps across the board in order to level the playing field. ;D ;D
Also, since ratings attract the general public to purchase both rounds and memberships, I'm having a tough time distinguishing comped rounds to raters from other marketing costs. In fact, comping 20 raters to review your course and having the course in the top 100 is probably the cheapest and most effective marketing costs I can think of.
P.S. Clint Squier hits the nail squarely on its head. The clubs have decided that comping raters is in their best interest. Likely for their marketing purposes and their member satisfaction.
-
Tom- Isn`t that a completely factual statement that "without raters there are no rankings"? If a certain rater`s sense of self importance is inflated by such a statement then the magazines hired the wrong guy. Maybe I am naive but I can`t imagine that every rater that learns he won`t ever get comped again is going to walk away as JK says in his previous post. See Bart Bradley`s reply #88 as an exception to this line of reasoning. Additionally it`s a shame if architect A or B is only perceived as a really nice guy not because he is but because he is subliminally trying to influence a rater. As with all things in life when someone has the ability to effect the outcome of something there will be some measure of influence peddling. Ratings put courses on people`s radar and I don`t see how that hurts the golf industry.
Tim: I agree that any ranking is the sum of different people's views. I don't agree that raters ought to be comped as part of the process, as many are today. I do not think it is a matter of "getting one over on the golf industry", as John K has suggested here; I just think it puts a lot of bias and behind-the-scenes dealing into the rankings process, and has an impact on the results, to a degree no one really understands for sure.
I just reacted to your statement because so many raters seem to think they are doing an Important, Thankless job, which is just absurd. I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren't out there pounding the fairways; they would just throw favors directly at the editors and writers instead of at panelists. ;) Next, you'll be telling me of all the good that lobbyist money does for government elections.
Tom-You give the impression from your comments in the second paragraph of your post that I am a rater("I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren`t out there pounding the fairways" ). I am not a rater. I personally could care less if raters get comped or not. I take the lists for what they are and don`t equate them with gospel. Lobbyist money is not good for government elections?Are you sure? ;)
-
JC,
I can honestly say that I have played every great course I have ever desired because of my many friendships with raters. The majority comped to boot.
This is the same guy that has now decided that through his own new found altruism he will bring the floundering golf industry back to life by having the magazine raters pay. Nice. ::)
-
Tim,
It's really a question of course X being included by something other than purely impartial rationale at the expense of course Y.
-
In many cultures paying forms of protection money is more efficient than paying taxes for police. I guess that is economics. It is certainly not freedom.
-
Now that Golfweek charges dues to be a rater how is this any different than an organization such as the Outpost Club?
-
Carl,
In general, I fall into the "anyone is qualified" camp. I might even qualify as the "intelligentsia" (any place but here, of course) but I really dislike the idea of "tastemakers" who sit around and discuss movies, restaurants, art, etc. as if they know more than everyone else.
You like what you like, and most people like it instinctively, regardless of any detailed point system. One example, is cresting the hill at the first tee of Crystal Downs a few years ago when TD invited me to play there. I knew from my first look it was one of the special places in golf and I doubt I could have changed my view using any point system after walking off the 18th green. (and frankly, if any great course could go downhill toward the end, its CD, with its personality Mac/Max split from front to back nine)
And I have no problem with large panels. The more opinions the merrier and they tend to average out where they should.
-
When I rated courses, I used to put my rater card and my credit card on the counter, assuming that if they wanted to charge me for the round, this would eleviate the embrassement they might have in asking for payment.
I always thought the comp thing was a goofy policy to get you the rate the course higher if you didn't have to pay.
All it would take would be for the powers that be at GD, GM and GW to send out a 1 page letter and this policy would be history.
I'd bet the # of rater rounds would decrease by 50% and the average rating would drop by 1/2 point.
-
Tom-You give the impression from your comments in the second paragraph of your post that I am a rater("I am pretty sure that good courses would find their way onto the radar if you weren`t out there pounding the fairways" ). I am not a rater. I personally could care less if raters get comped or not. I take the lists for what they are and don`t equate them with gospel. Lobbyist money is not good for government elections?Are you sure? ;)
Tim:
My apologies. I did mistake you for a rater. The sentence you wrote to John about how "the rankings could not exist without raters" is a phrase I've heard a couple of times from self-important blowhard raters, and it caused a knee-jerk reaction on my part.
Instead, you are defending a group of guys you don't really know! You are a gentleman for doing so. Just fair warning, though: not all of them are in your class.
-
I swore that I wouldn't get involved in one of these discussions but what the heck. Yes, I was a rater at one time and I was told at every course where I took a caddie that I was the first rater who didn't take himself so seriously to make it seem that I knew everything. I also felt that if I was being comped that I would at least buy a shirt in the golf shop.
I should also tell you a true story about an episode at a rater event I attended. A fellow rater in my group had a hole in one and his only concern was that we wouldn't tell anyone because he didn't want to buy drinks for the group - I guess he was used to getting comped that paying for the event was as far as he would go.
My belief is that if you are going to be a rater it means that you have to be able to judge the quality of the course so you must see the courses which have been recognized as top quality architecture. It sometimes means going to see those courses and paying the freight which I can tell is often very steep - but I gladly paid it in order to understand what greatness is and this includes courses that want nothing to do with raters such as Shinnecock, Maidstone, and NGLA. You want to be a rater then make the effort to see Pine Valley even if you don't play it by attending the Crump Cup.
-
Jerry:
You are so right with your last post. Interestingly, what many people don't ever mention -- likely because they don't get it -- is that raters if they travel extensively are picking up numerous costs to play the different courses. Keep in mind, when people do get charged a high amount to play a particular course it's not unheard of for some people to then set insanely high expectatons for such a course(s) to meet. Frankly, if a rater is there for the right reasons -- the issue of whether they paid or were comped has little to do with seeing things clearly.
-
Everybody's opinion is affected by $. Simple fact of life. I wanted to play Sebonac unescorted. The price was I think $650 each plus caddie. I passed. How do I think I would have rated it if I paid that? Probably not as good as if I were compt'ed. And I think that applies to every rated.
I remember playing Oakmont and paying $350 each plus caddy. I found the course ridiculously difficult and rated it low. Would I have rated it higher were it not for the cost, probably not, but maybe the cost plus the bad round put me in a bad mood, no one is unaffected by whether the course fits their eye plus outside influences.
I remember courses that the pro was so arrogant, muirfield, even though I paid for unaccompanied for me and my wife, but was able to rate it fairly because it was an excellent course, an I remember other courses where the owner and staff fell all over me and I thought the course was shit I hated to give it a poor rating but I did.
Level the playing field, let everyone pay and the rating would be BETTER
-
I wanted to play Sebonac unescorted. The price was I think $650 each plus caddie. I passed. How do I think I would have rated it if I paid that? Probably not as good as if I were compt'ed. And I think that applies to every rater.
Not true at all.
-
Cary:
Once $$ enters the picture it can influence people from the negative side of things. Usually a number of clubs I know of will charge people to play but not the full guest rate simply because they are there for a rating.
If $$ is too high it will do what you mentioned -- and that doesn't advance the process or even the club(s) themselves.
-
I wanted to play Sebonac unescorted. The price was I think $650 each plus caddie. I passed. How do I think I would have rated it if I paid that? Probably not as good as if I were compt'ed. And I think that applies to every rater.
Not true at all.
Cary,
Maybe you would have rated it higher to make yourself feel better for dropping 8 bills on a round of golf? ;) ;D
The payment of money (or the lack thereof) will affect different people in different ways.
-
Matt: Excuse me but that is a crock! Are you telling me that there is some way of justifying a rater being influenced by how much it cost him to play the course? As you would say - come on man! What about the great classical courses that have no interest in being rated and charge really high unaccompanied rates - you telling me that the rater can justify knocking down his rating of Shinnecock, NGLA or Oakmont - come on. For that matter, is there really a reason for a course to be rated which has been at the top of the list for many years - okay, there may be something significant which has occurred but that is the rare exception. Who really cares if some rater thinks that Cypress Point is better than Pine Valley - I'm sure the members don't care and what difference does it really make? The only ratings which matter are new courses and how they compare to those which are already recognized as great - where does Old Mac fit in, how good is the Prairie Club, etc., but the rest are really meaningless.
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
John, I looked at this site. I did not study the details, but it appeared to cover trips for current raters (as opposed to camps for potential raters). Is that correct?
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
Please note that life is hard enough without being a rater on top of your other responsibilities. You will put your marriage, job and current friendships at risk should you choose to take this path.
John, I looked at this site. I did not study the details, but it appeared to cover trips for current raters (as opposed to camps for potential raters). Is that correct?
Wade:
True...and look...it is far from free!
Bart
-
Wade,
Every camp differs, this is just one of many throughout the year. I am not a rater myself but would suggest you give them a call and see what is up. Just don't mention that I sent ya.
-
Wowie ... Zowie ... What Frankenstein of a thread did I hatch?!?!
I am not qualified to be a rater, because as in many fields, an individual has to go through a certain fundamental process of learning, experiencing and absorbing. In the case of GCA, it is the on the ground study and understanding of the acknowleged great courses of the world. IMO, but arguably ANGC, PV, TOC, Royal Melbourne, Muirfield, Pinehurst No. 2, CP, Shinny?, WF?, Merion? & maybe a few more represent the Rosetta Stone of Golf Design. The opportunity for a single individual to do any fraction of that is quite daunting and difficult. These places are, for the most part, not in the public domain and not very welcoming.
That has not been my path in life.
-
Jerry:
I never said a rater was jusitified -- but if you don't think there can be a human backlash because of the fee then you are sipping some potent kool-aid - possibly a tad earlier than you should prior to the tolling of the New Year's Eve bell tonight.
A course that charges people should realize a rater is a bit different than your vanilla guest who is there for pure pleasure reasons. Raters are there to assess the course. I am neither suggesting nor implying that comps are the way to go 100%, but frankly how many people are going to rate a course in a given time frame? In the cases of those high proifle courses -- many of them cut-off the number of raters who may visit in any year. If those facilities didn't charge those raters what is it that they lose? Not a thing as far as I can tell.
The flip side is that when excessive fees are charged -- the person being charged will automatically have the facility in a two-down mode before the first tee shot is hit in a number of ways. Does that serve the course? I don't see how. If you don't think $$ influences the process so be it -- for you.
Jerry, let me help you out with something -- go ask people like Whitten and Klein and they will tell you this -- they have enough rating numbers for years for the big ticket places like Pine Valley, Cypress Point and others of that ilk. What they need is ratings from other places -- many of them remote but not all -- that see far little action from the raters themselves.
Let me also say this -- all courses need to be examined periodcally -- I don't make the lazy assumption - that you seem prepared to do -- that just because "X' course has been in the top ten it shall forever stay in the top ten.
Another thing -- the members do care. They read the pubs and they don't like it when they see others making strides upwards at their expense -- see the fanfare that happened when Shadow Creek made a beeline to the top of the GD ratings a few years back. Maybe not all feel that way but more do than I believe you care to admit.
Jerry -- I find it hard to believe you think the process is mainly "meaningless" -- save for the newest of the new clubs. I think ratings can be quite effective when they don't make assumptions for ANY club and that they try to provide timely info on how things are going now -- not from the distant past. When that is done then the gathering of such information can provide a real map on just where design stands at that moment in time.
-
Matt: I love you man and I think you know more about gca than most but that is pure jibberish! What the heck are you talking about! Who are raters - people selected by someone based upon whatever criteria he decides so that some magazine can claim its rankings are more credible than another magazine and for what reason - magazine sales and advertising sales. You think for one minute that the people selected are somehow entitled to play any course of their choosing for free or some reduced fee - why? Go ahead = tell that to the powers are Merion, Pine Valley, ANGC, NGLA, Friars Head, Sand Hills, etc. Life ain't free buddy and a magazine saying that you are some kind of an expert doesn't change the equation. People don't subscribe to GW because of the course rankings - they may find Brad's reviews interesting and a reason to get the magazine but the overall rankings aren't a reason to subscribe for a year.
-
Oh yeah - HAPPY NEW YEAR!
-
Jerry:
I love you to man -- but frankly when the magazines went into the gallup / zagat method in assessing courses they lost all sort of meaning to me and countless others. More solid info comes from this site than just about many other spots.
Jerry, let me say this to you as someone with maybe just a bit of inside knowledge -- the courses (save for the really elite few) are chomping at the bit to get raters to come to their courses. You'd be surprised to know that but many want the attention and many rightly believe in their own mind that they are right up there with the big time layouts.
If the elites don't want to "officially" invite raters -- there's plenty of eyeballs that get on without them being in the know. Like I said Klein and Whitten don't have a need for such visits -- they are already getting them -- they need reviews of places that don't get much attention.
You were the guy who said that the top elites should be forgotten -- nothing really changes fom that side of the coin. I don't agree with that at all. Unfortunately, too many raters are wrapped up in the "name" courses and fawn over them even when they don't merit the praise -- plenty of layouts within my neck of the woods can be held in that category.
Jerry, re-read what I posted in my last paragraphy to you. It is far from "jibberish." HAPPY nEW yEAR PARTNER !
-
Seems to me that cost of entry is just one of many non GCA issues that one has to ignore when assessing what's actually in the ground...i.e. exclusivity, tournament history, famous members, the overly-friendly staff, the quality of the lunch at the turn, the really cool men's locker room, the awesome club specialty cocktail, the phenomenal pro-shop selection, the fancy address, even the ocean views that don't come into play...
-
Seems to me that cost of entry is just one of many non GCA issues that one has to ignore when assessing what's actually in the ground...i.e. exclusivity, tournament history, famous members, the overly-friendly staff, the quality of the lunch at the turn, the really cool men's locker room, the awesome club specialty cocktail, the phenomenal pro-shop selection, the fancy address, even the ocean views that don't come into play...
Jud,
As long as subjective matters such as "ambiance" and "aesthetics" are factored into a panelist's review, the door is wide open for someone's eyes to leave the golf course and take in "the experience." Of course, opinions vary about what makes "the experience" at one facility superior to another as much as we all argue the merits of one design over another. In the end, you hope it all washes out.
Ken
-
Ken,
There's a place for that stuff-i.e. "The 50 Best Golf Retreats", "Best Golf Resorts", "Most Exclusive Clubs", "Tour Courses You Can Play", the CG's "Dumb Blondes" list etc. If the title of the list is "100 Best Golf Courses in the Country/World", then IMHO it should be all about the courses themselves and nothing else....
-
JC, Jud, That's why there's constant culling. When you have a panelist, such as has posted above, that cannot separate their game from the architecture, on a course with plenty of votes already, and the vote comes in as a statistical anomaly, they get culled. One the other side is true too. When someone spends 20 days playing comped golf at a course and they think it's one of the 10 best in the world, it stands out.
If RJ Harper hadn't taken advantage of the price elasticity at Pebble Beach, would clubs be charging 3-400 hundred dollars to play golf? Hell No! What's a round of golf worth? Just because they charge $650, doesn't mean it's worth it.
-
Ken,
There's a place for that stuff-i.e. "The 50 Best Golf Retreats", "Best Golf Resorts", "Most Exclusive Clubs", "Tour Courses You Can Play", the CG's "Dumb Blondes" list etc. If the title of the list is "100 Best Golf Courses in the Country/World", then IMHO it should be all about the courses themselves and nothing else....
Jud,
Agreed. I could give a rip about the clubhouse or entrance or the cart girls. Tell me about the course. I'm pointing out part of the process that is open for panelists to be influenced if they so choose.
The rock speakers on the practice range at Kingsley is cool and all, but that's not why Kinglsey is one of my favorite courses to play either...
Ken
-
Jud & Ken
You are missing the point. I think some (for sure I am) are saying that almost all raters are incapable of properly rating a course because they don't know enough about architecture or specific projects in question. That is why other issues creep in to detract or boost an opinion. Its also why it is seriously important for me to know the individual panelists and perhaps even the separate ratings of each panelist. Of course this means that a panel can't consist of 500 chaps - which is a good start if what we are really looking for is architectural comment. I however, don't believe this to be the case. Most guys really want to know about thhe experience of game and as I said earlier, most of those that profess to want to know only about the architecture are incapable of delivering a properly informed opinion on the matter.
Ciao
-
Jud & Ken
You are missing the point. I think some (for sure I am) are saying that almost all raters are incapable of properly rating a course because they don't know enough about architecture or specific projects in question. That is why other issues creep in to detract or boost an opinion. Its also why it is seriously important for me to know the individual panelists and perhaps even the separate ratings of each panelist. Of course this means that a panel can't consist of 500 chaps - which is a good start if what we are really looking for is architectural comment. I however, don't believe this to be the case. Most guys really want to know about thhe experience of game and as I said earlier, most of those that profess to want to know only about the architecture are incapable of delivering a properly informed opinion on the matter.
Ciao
Sean,
I agree with what you are saying. The original intent of this topic is if panelist have the knowledge to truly rate the architectural merit of the course. To this end, I think overall there is a small percentage of people with enough experience through travel and study to qualify.
The topic has also spun off on the tangent of how panelists can be influenced by comps and/or "fluff" in their evaluations.
Maybe if large panels are utilized the list should be the "100 Greatest Golf Experiences"..... :)
Ken
-
Sean:
A bit off-stray here, but wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of competency in assessing courses? It doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or thing, does it? Doak and Brauer and Co., for instance (from their comments posted here), sees things in golf courses that I can't even imagine thinking of, but no surprise there, as it's their business to do so, and I'm just a guy in his pajamas writing on the Net (I assume the reverse is true if they joined me at a competitive swim meet).
But I know ALOT more about architecture (and I assume you do, too) than many of my friends with whom I golf -- one of the pleasures I have is golfing with folks at a course with which I'm quite familiar, and they are not, and pointing out the various ways the architect used the land and/or other techniques for certain shots and holes. And I've learned alot about architecture in golfing with, and hanging around, others more knowledgeable than me about it.
I'm not sure where this gets us on the rater thing -- other than I'm not convinced there is a cadre of raters out there who know so much more about architecture than I do that it should remain their exclusive province.
-
From the standpoint of managing such a group, I can tell you that some of the people most convinced of their ability to judge golf courses are not the ones you want representing your publication in the field.
While I have never doubted their eagerness, interest, knowledge and ability to make judgments that are often quite sound, it's hard to separate that from a certain category of "access whore," as well as simply folks whose Type-A personality is the antithesis of the more diplomatic, low-key person (male or female) that's ideal. In both cases, it's a very small but vocal minority of the potential pool of applicants. But it's certainly an issue that pertains to the topic.
-
Phil
Sure there are degrees of separation, but that isn't really the issue. Guys rate courses of which they don't know squat about its architecture because the usual criteria for rating is walking or playing a course. I am sure these same guys may know intimate architectural detail about some courses, but that doesn't translate to all (or more accurately most) courses unless they are quite an unusual rater (most likely in the business). I know about architecture only on a very superficial level - that is the finish work, bunker placement etc, but most of what "I know" is just personal observation of given facts. I don't know what went into creating those facts so I can't properly judge the worth of those facts except from a playing PoV (which shouldn't be taken lightly because this is the real bottom line so far as I am concerned). I believe this to be the case for nearly all ratings of nearly all courses - that is why I say what really gets rated is the experience of a course. AND, if we are gonna talk about experience I see nothing wrong with adding in criteria that effects the experience. Indeed, I think these things effect even raters who know their stuff and are quite objective. So long as that is understood it isn't an issue. My problem is with these panelsists claiming expert knowledge and incredible objectivity when I KNOW this isn't the case.
Ciao
-
Sean...
I think I get what you are saying, but please correct me if I am misinterpretting it.
I think the argument you are making is that all the golfers see is the final course. They walk it/play it, they experience the shots, the routing, see the bunkers and putt on the greens.
What they don't know is what could have been and/or what would have been if someone else worked on the course. They don't know the amazing work that the architect did to piece together a great 18 holes on only 120 acres of property. Just like they don't realize the lousy job the architect did on this pristine 300 acre ocean front site with perfect soil suited for the game, which yielded a very good course on the greatest site in the world for golf.
Is that the gist of what you are saying?
If so, I think I agree and, in fact, I started a thread on this topic that totally fizzled. It was titled something like An architects best work on a bad site.
But at the end of the day aren't the Top 100 courses an almagamation of the land the course is on, the job the architect did, and the view point of the golfer? Does a golfer really give a course more kudos if a designer built a course that ends up being a 7 on land that should have yielded a 2 rather than a course that yielded an 8 on land that should have yielded a 10? Shouldn't the rating reflect the 8 is better than the 7 at the end of the day?
Now to go next level, those people truly in the know will disparage the 8 and rave about the 7. But like you say, who really knows. Maybe this is why Nicklaus, Rees Jones, and Fazio take so much heat.
Am I getting what you are saying?
-
Sean,
Panelists are there to rate the final golf course based on the categories provided by the magazine (if provided). They really don't rate architecture except as it relates to some of those categories. As Ken said, given that ambiance is one of the Digest categories then sure the experience matters to a point, as does aesthetics (another category). As you said, the whole thing is supposed to be from the playing POV.
Unless a particular panelist chooses to include it, rating has NOTHING to do with whether an architect had to overcome obstacles, whether the site was good or bad, whether it could have been better, or some other architecture topics that we like to discuss here. Its the panelists opinion of the final, finished product. Nothing more, nothing less. Given all that, its not as difficult as some panelists perhaps would like to pretend or as complicated as perhaps you think it should be!
-
I haven't read this entire thread but IMHO any golfer can rate a golf course....but why? There was never a need for ratings until there was a magazine that needed to sell ads. And now the magazine have become smaller and the second home RE ads had almost vanished. The money spent by developers for ratings was unjustifiable for golf alone....it had to be justified via RE. AND then to compound the problem there have not been enough courses built to actually compile an annual rating so the magazines have to come up with new "rating list" .....
But if RE is not in the equation most courses are only concerned with the people within 20 miles of their shop and focus there....thus we will rarely hear of them in ratings.... ;)
-
Mac
You get the idea.
Andy
Presumably the routing of a course is a big part of rating it. How in the heck does Joe Six pack know enough about routing to make any judgement? This is why I say these ratings are essentially quite superficial and on that level, sure, anybody can be a rater - of the experience of playing a course rather than the architecture of the course. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I don't think it is. In any case, courses have been rated to death and the need for this procedure has outgrown its usefulness as a regular event. Very little changes in rankings. Perhaps that is why all sorts of wierd cop out categories of lists are invented.
Ciao
-
For those of you guys so critical of the rating game and the people that do it, I'm curious which magazine rankings you deem to be FATALLY flawed? I'm not talking about course A is #20 but you think they deserve to be #18. I'm talking rankings that have courses that obviously deserve to be in the top 60 or so and don't make the list at all. Or courses that deserve top 20 billing but only barely slipped into the top 100. Isn't the point to identify the best of the best, and doesn't a large panel provide a large enough sample size of course visits to correct any one raters mistake?
For all the angst you guys are throwing around, how about some concrete examples of obvoius ommissions or mistakes that would automatically kill the credibility of the magazine in question? I'm sure there are raters that do it for the free access, but some of you guys are suggesting that the entire exercise is corrupt and pointless. Talk about prejudice..
-
Sean,
How does routing presume to fit into the Digest categories that currently count: Shot values, Design variety, Resistance to scoring, Conditioning, Memorability, Aesthetics, Ambiance? The following two are rated but don't currently count: Playability and Walkability.
Its actually a bit of a trick question that would make more sense if I included the definitions of the categories, but I want to see your response first :D
-
Jay,
You are opening up a big can of worms with that one! ;) I'd suggest just going back to any old Golf Digest threads (every two years, 2009, 2007, etc.) around April/May, and you'll find plenty of examples! The other two have their share as well, but don't seem to create as many passionate responses.
-
Jay,
You are opening up a big can of worms with that one! ;)
indeed. i find its easier to be critical when people speak in generality and create straw men to fight. lets get specific, and see if these angry folks deserve to be listened to at all.
-
Andy...
You've totally nailed it. To understand each entities rankings, you must study and comprehend the criteria used to rank them. Tom Doak did a great job or writing about his preferences in the Confidential Guide. Golfweek has a total transparent process, which you can download and read on their Raters Handbook. Golf Digest clearly publishes their criteria as well. I find the "Walk in the Park" and the "Resistance to Scoring" to be the two defining characteristics of these two entities.
You MUST understand the criteria used to understand the rankings process. IMO.
Jay...
I agree with the sentiment of your post. In fact, I've been working on something similiar to what you are saying for a few years now. Here is a link to my "controversial course" list. Each course is ranked by one and only one of the Big 3 rating entities.
http://www.mrpgolf.com/controversial.html (http://www.mrpgolf.com/controversial.html)
-
Good stuff Mac. Thats a fairly small amount of single entries considering that we're talking three unique lists of 100.
Given the amount of golf courses in the US, I think that its remarkable how similar the lists are in the end. Obviously, you can pick up on (minor) biases of each magazine, but most of those biases can be explained by the rankings criteria.
In fact, your data really solidifies my question to the critics. Where are the glaring ommissions or flaws in the system?
-
I chuckle when I read about the so-called perfect profile of what a rater should be. What's so funny is how conformity and personality type are set down as a clear dictate to follow -- usually from the highest of high commands. Anything or anyone that deviates from such a proscribed and acceptable mechanism is then viewed in a negative light. Fascinating. Nothing like edicts to mandate such regimented behavior.
-
Andy:
You make a valid point -- GD lays out the criteria that irs raters should follow.
However, I do agree w Sean -- the routing element for me is the 2nd most important element -- after the land the course occupies. How well were all the features used for the routing of the holes and does the course -- because of that routing -- look like it's always been there.
If there's any place that GD could really revamp its role -- it's in the criteria used.
-
For those of you guys so critical of the rating game and the people that do it, I'm curious which magazine rankings you deem to be FATALLY flawed? I'm not talking about course A is #20 but you think they deserve to be #18. I'm talking rankings that have courses that obviously deserve to be in the top 60 or so and don't make the list at all. Or courses that deserve top 20 billing but only barely slipped into the top 100. Isn't the point to identify the best of the best, and doesn't a large panel provide a large enough sample size of course visits to correct any one raters mistake?
For all the angst you guys are throwing around, how about some concrete examples of obvoius ommissions or mistakes that would automatically kill the credibility of the magazine in question? I'm sure there are raters that do it for the free access, but some of you guys are suggesting that the entire exercise is corrupt and pointless. Talk about prejudice..
Jay:
Here's one:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-05/wisconsin
To not have Lawsonia on the list of top-10 courses in Wisconsin -- compared to the likes of Sentry World -- is really a joke; there's no other word to describe an attempt at a serious rating that excludes Lawsonia in Wisconsin. I don't know that the process is corrupt, but any ranking of Wisconsin's best courses that doesn't include Lawsonia among the top 10 is pointless.
-
Andy:
You make a valid point -- GD lays out the criteria that irs raters should follow.
However, I do agree w Sean -- the routing element for me is the 2nd most important element -- after the land the course occupies. How well were all the features used for the routing of the holes and does the course -- because of that routing -- look like it's always been there.
If there's any place that GD could really revamp its role -- it's in the criteria used.
Matt,
I agree with you about the importance of the routing. Incorporating that as a criteria for panelists to consider could be a slippery slope.
Architects considered by many to be experts in routing courses, both past and present, spend so many hours on property. One aspect the casual observer will never know are the constraints placed on the architect affecting what may be his ideal routing. Compromises may have to occur.
A panelist on one or two trips around a course may be able to speculate what the architect's intent is, but will never know the constraints unless the reviewer has inside knowledge of the project.
I'm not going to question or critique Bill Coore on his routings for what, at least to me, are obvious reasons....
Ken
-
Architects considered by many to be experts in routing courses, both past and present, spend so many hours on property. One aspect the casual observer will never know are the constraints placed on the architect affecting what may be his ideal routing. Compromises may have to occur.
I would argue that the architect's intent nor the difficulties, advantages, peculiarities of the site, the budget, etc. have any bearing on how a golf course should be evaluated. The rating should be on what's on the ground relative to all other candidates. If one is rating the architect, then these issues are relevant.
Matt,
The routing is extremely important in my opinion, but I doubt that there is a very consistent definition among raters on what constitutes a routing. To some it is essentially the length and difficulty of the walks from a green to the subsequent tee. To others it includes mixing in variety by par type, direction of the hole, shot requirements, flow, wind effects, access to conveniences (toilets, shelters, F & B), etc. One advantage of GW's classic and modern segmentation is that it doesn't penalize the latter inordinately for the economic, legal, and environmental factors which make these routings less tidy.
-
Raters aren't rating "what could have been"... they're rating the finished product based on the criteria of that particular magazine.
-
Raters aren't rating "what could have been"... they're rating the finished product based on the criteria of that particular magazine.
Jay,
Under ther current ownership Dismal River is clearly a top 100 modern course. How can you explain away the antiquated magazine system that holds the faults of past owners against what lays on the ground today?
-
Matt,
I absolutely agree that the routing is important. I'm hoping Sean will play along and try to answer the question though before I say more.
-
Sean,
How does routing presume to fit into the Digest categories that currently count: Shot values, Design variety, Resistance to scoring, Conditioning, Memorability, Aesthetics, Ambiance? The following two are rated but don't currently count: Playability and Walkability.
Its actually a bit of a trick question that would make more sense if I included the definitions of the categories, but I want to see your response first :D
Andy
I don't know how routing is fit in. But, if we are gonna talk about the ranking of golf courses, then we must be able to insightfully comment on the routing to scratch at the concept of architecture which should then reveal why course A is better than course B, no? Otherwise, we aren't really talking about the best courses from #1 down to whatever. We are talking about what are the best courses to play and that is so far from objective that its laughable.
Lou
Perhaps you are right. It certainly makes life easier on me if I can just say most of the important stuff about a course is really only good for comparing archies. I know I have very little time for all the ins and outs of courses and really only care about what the course is as a finished product. I can accept that a course can have superb architecture, but still only be a middling good course. Still, I am drawn to those courses which are intriguing despite the lack of intriguing terrain and I think that bis in then main dwon to superior architecture.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I do think there are golfers (and probably raters as subset of those population) that look at golf courses as a collection of holes. For that group, the routing really isn't that critical. For most that participate here and certainly all those that value walking, routing is exceedingly important. However, just the fact that there is that discrepancy is noteworthy because I don't believe it existed 50 years ago. That's been discussed before, however.
I think routing actually can and should be considered in three categories, although only two that count currently:
MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide individuality to each hole, yet a collective continuity to the entire 18? I think the collective continuity includes routing, especially if holes feel like they don't belong.
AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game? If you consider that the traditional values of the game include routing a course and walking it then I think that's a reasonable inclusion.
The third is walkability for obvious reasons.
However, I still don't think its the job of raters to determine whether the routing is the best use of the land, or whether it could have better, etc. It really comes down to what is there and what quality it merits.
-
Andy
I don't know how routing is fit in. But, if we are gonna talk about the ranking of golf courses, then we must be able to insightfully comment on the routing to scratch at the concept of architecture which should then reveal why course A is better than course B, no? Otherwise, we aren't really talking about the best courses from #1 down to whatever. We are talking about what are the best courses to play and that is so far from objective that its laughable.Ciao
You mean that we are NOT ranking courses on how they play? Are courses just museum pieces? Sounds like something from the Dan King school of gca appreciation. It does make for a much faster and affordable way of enjoying golf.
Can a course with a great routing but indifferent green complexes and uninspired hazards be considered outstanding? I think not.
-
Jud T:
even the ocean views that don't come into play...
You're in the Mucci school of "setting doesn't count", then? You'd enjoy Kingsley just as much if it were routed through a junkyard?
-
John K...
Now you are playing the game!!
What would you rate Dismal on the Golfweek scale? I am sure you've already downloaded the Rater's Handbook, but in case you haven't it is available on the website you posted above. In eithe case, what are Dismal's strengths and weaknesses? You say it is "clearly" a Top 100 Modern course. What course(s) should it kick off the list?
Sean...
You have a really interesting take on rating the architecture given the land it is on. But aren't there so many more unknowable facets to this that we can't even begin to comprehend what was expected and/or even do-able from an architecture stand point? Legal, environmental, mandates from the owner, etc.
Either way, I do appreciate your attempting to evaluate the job of the architect rather than the actual finished product...but I really think the lists try to capture the latter.
-
Lou:
The sad reality is that too much of GD's focus sldie away from the main frame to the touchy feely issues. Routing to me is how well the architect is able to best use the available elements that the land occupies. That means every nook and cranny of the subject property -- one of the best descriptions is does the course look like it has been there for quite some time.
No doubt the spacing element is an important one - but I think that part of the equation gets a bit too much attention -- I try to gear my attention to the pacing of the holes -- how does the architect move from one part of the property to the other -- and doing so in a way that is not so abrasive or clearly adding inferior holes to the mixture in order to do so.
Lou - let me put it this way -- the quality of the land itself represents no less than 50-60% of the equation in my mind. The routing plays about 25% of that equation -- the rest then comes to the quality of the shots needed in order to play the course well. Get great land and a solid rating and you have a superlative course in 90%+ of the time in my mind.
-
Mac,
I told you at Sand Hills that one of the things I like about my independence is that I don't have to give courses numbers. I will say that I like Dismal more than Victoria National so that clearly puts Dismal as modern top 100.
-
Fair enough.
You know I like it a lot too.
-
I appreciate the response to my question on specifics. I'm not familiar with Dismal River other than what I've seen on here. I guess my questions are 1) how has it changed under current ownership... and 2) in your opinion would it be in the top 75 modern or the last 25?
-
Jay:
When people are asked about certain courses it's entirely possible that a layout may indeed be among the top 50 courses for that person. However, it would be important to know how many JN courses that person has played too. Getting some perspective does help clear things up considerably.
-
Jay...
I can't really answer either of your questions, but John said he liked it better than Victoria Nat'l...which I believe is ranked 67th.
Also, here is a fairly recent thread on Dismal.
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45674.0.html (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45674.0.html)
-
Raters aren't rating "what could have been"... they're rating the finished product based on the criteria of that particular magazine.
Jay,
Under ther current ownership Dismal River is clearly a top 100 modern course. How can you explain away the antiquated magazine system that holds the faults of past owners against what lays on the ground today?
John, How do you propose to get all of those panelists back to DR, in this short of a timeframe?
If DR belongs, it will happen, but, after such an atrocious start, its really hard to un-ring that bell.
-
Adam,
That is why no one uses a phone book any longer. I think the world has moved on from what I called antiquated magazine rankings in my initial post about Dismal. The same thing happened in reverse with Apache Stronghold. Sometimes editorial decisions override the numbers of days gone by.
-
Jay:
When people are asked about certain courses it's entirely possible that a layout may indeed be among the top 50 courses for that person. However, it would be important to know how many JN courses that person has played too. Getting some perspective does help clear things up considerably.
Matt,
I think that works both ways. While seeing more courses will give you a better idea of where it fits in a larger universe... it also leads to biases. Many of the most frequent posters here have major architectual biases that certainly play into there feelings on courses. The Dismal River thread (which I just read) is a perfect example of that.
-
Jay:
Without a deep portfolio of courses one can only say a given course is the best from what you have seen / played. That's what made Doak's CG book so powerful -- his wherewithal to see / play the varied courses in order to provide some sort of meaningful context for an overall perspective.
Jay you quickly threw into the equation -- biases. What does one have to do with the other?
If someone says DR is among the top 50 courses in the nation then I'd like to know a general idea of how many courses one has played and also a number of the total JN courses played. Context and overall perspective matter a great deal to me.
Please enumerate for me and others -- the names of people -- the "frequent posters" you believe here on GCA have "major architectural biases."
For the record I liked DR and I'm glad it has been hopefully improved. Would I have the course among my personal top 50 in the USA? No. But I would need to personally play the course again since the changes happened. Thanks ...
-
John and Adam...
You touch on a great point and that is things change. I think people do their best to keep up, but alas things change constantly.
I know that a big caravan of raters recently went to Dismal to see the "new" Dismal. Also, I think a lot of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the ownership group. Get the word out, invite raters, encourage them to see the changes...that is if they care about the rankings. I believe Chris J. and the ownership group at Dismal are doing the appropriate things in this regard.
But it will come down to people's opinions of the course in the end.
-
Andy
I don't know how routing is fit in. But, if we are gonna talk about the ranking of golf courses, then we must be able to insightfully comment on the routing to scratch at the concept of architecture which should then reveal why course A is better than course B, no? Otherwise, we aren't really talking about the best courses from #1 down to whatever. We are talking about what are the best courses to play and that is so far from objective that its laughable.Ciao
You mean that we are NOT ranking courses on how they play? Are courses just museum pieces? Sounds like something from the Dan King school of gca appreciation. It does make for a much faster and affordable way of enjoying golf.
Can a course with a great routing but indifferent green complexes and uninspired hazards be considered outstanding? I think not.
Lou
Rating a course on how it plays for who? How a course plays? Two questions which leaves me perplexed especially if we take the ordinary view of how a course plays for the best players - of which there are very few so very few actually know. Not to mention to discover how a course plays one needs to see it in different weather/wind conditions. No, you are rating the experience of a play more than anything else unless you are seriously intimate with the course and how it was designed. For instance, how in the heck does a person know how well the features of the land were used if they didn't know the property before it was a course? For that matter, do folks even know what features are built and which are incorporated by the routing?
Jaka B
By saying a course is top 100 whatever is the same as giving it a number.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Yes, but I was not obligated to say it.
-
Sean,
Yes, but I was not obligated to say it.
Jaka
Not many people are obligated to assign numbers. They do it in the main because they enjoy doing it. Even the guys who swear off numbers have some sort of "system" for deciding what they liked or didn't and if they would go back and under what conditions. Its human nature and so far as I know we are all human on this site.
Anyway - in case anybody is confused - I rate courses based on a number of things which roughly equates to the course (including beauty) ~60%, club, history, ambience (all that sort of thing) ~20% and value ~20%. Whether or not that qualifies me to be a rater is somebody else's guess, but it does explain why I would rather play Kington over Muirfield!
Ciao
-
Sean,
Yes, but I was not obligated to say it.
Jaka
Not many people are obligated to assign numbers. They do it in the main because they enjoy doing it. Even the guys who swear off numbers have some sort of "system" for deciding what they liked or didn't and if they would go back and under what conditions. Its human nature and so far as I know we are all human on this site.
Ciao
If we were discussing women I am certain that we would all be expert "raters". ;)
-
It might also be worth considering how many times a rater needs to play a course in order to adequately rate it. Perhaps once is not enough.
-
Course rating comes up about once a month. Did any new territory get covered this time?
-
Course rating comes up about once a month. Did any new territory get covered this time?
Ralph,
I think you already know the answer ;) ;D
-
All
Dismal River is a very special place for golf. I hope to have a GCA outing in early to mid June 2011 and assume some here are raters as well as the simply interested - all here will be invited. I hope many of you will come to see for yourselves.
A comment from the "not unbiased"". From my past life in golf, I have played more than 3/4's of the Golfweek Modern top 100. Based upon the Golfweek rating criteria, I would easily put Dismal River well into the top 25, well into. Dismal is Jack's best or second best course, and there are more than two JN courses in the ratings. The reason...simple...the site was beyond exceptional. It is also a unique design with terrific shot values, very well conditioned, and unlike any course I have played in the US outside of SHGC. Add the Nebraska Sand Hills...and...well...
Maybe it will take time to get respect. Maybe it never will. I can say this with all humility, Dismal is in my absolute top for golf and experience. There are few better.
Hope some of you will come out to see her.
-
To answer the question posed, Im qualified. Next?
-
Jud T:
even the ocean views that don't come into play...
You're in the Mucci school of "setting doesn't count", then? You'd enjoy Kingsley just as much if it were routed through a junkyard?
Scott,
I'd think it's just as good of a golf course. Would I enjoy it as much? Perhaps not. FYI-one of my favorite local courses is next to a garbage dump...I just think the scenic views are almost universally given too much influence, particularly where they don't come into play. If I want to go sightseeing or bird-watching, I don't need to pay $300 and lug my bag...Coastal property does matter in 1 regard: Wind...
-
Jud T:
even the ocean views that don't come into play...
You're in the Mucci school of "setting doesn't count", then? You'd enjoy Kingsley just as much if it were routed through a junkyard?
Scott,
I'd think it's just as good of a golf course. Would I enjoy it as much? Perhaps not. FYI-one of my favorite local courses is next to a garbage dump...I just think the scenic views are almost universally given too much influence, particularly where they don't come into play. If I want to go sightseeing or bird-watching, I don't need to pay $300 and lug my bag...Coastal property does matter in 1 regard: Wind...
There is nothing about the setting at Kingsley Club that adds anything to the golf course. That is one of the things that makes Kingsley so great is that it doesn't rely at all on anything external (i.e. setting, clubhouse, amenities, etc.). The only thing you can judge Kingsley on is the golf course and it is a phenomenal golf course.
-
8) JC,
One can also judge Kingsley by what's in the mailbox at the 18th tee!
On that note, this subject is all about a taste, like The Distilleries of Scotland, what's your favourite Scotch Whisky? Same for golf courses.. as one taste is normally sufficient to rate it.
Information on over 125 distilleries in the Speyside, Highland, Islay, Campbeltown, Lowland and Island regions, some of them are silent or dismantelled but most of the distilleries are still in operation... If you are planning a visit to Scotland would you not recommend:
SPEYSIDE
ABERLOUR
ALLT A'BHAINNE
AULTMORE
BALMENACH
BALVENIE
BENRIACH
BENRINNES
BENROMACH
BRAEVAL (SILENT)
CAPERDONICH (SILENT)
CARDHU
COLEBURN (SILENT)
CONVALMORE (SILENT)
CRAGGANMORE
CRAIGELLACHIE
DAILUAINE
DALLAS DHU (SILENT)
DALWHINNIE
DRUMGUISH
DUFFTOWN
GLENALLACHIE
GLENBURGIE
GLENDRONACH
GLENDULLAN
GLEN ELGIN
GLENFARCLAS
GLENFIDDICH
GLENGLASSAUGH
GLEN GRANT
GLEN KEITH
THE GLENLIVET
GLENLOSSIE
GLEN MHOR (LOST)
GLEN MORAY
GLENROTHES
GLEN SPEY
GLENTAUCHERS
IMPERIAL
INCHGOWER
KININVIE
KNOCKANDO
KNOCKDHU
LlNKWOOD
LONGMORN
MACALLAN
MACDUFF
MANNOCHMORE
MILTONDUFF
MORTLACH
PITTYVAICH (LOST)
SPEYBURN
STRATHISLA
STRATHMILL
TAMDHU
TAMNAVULIN
TOMATIN
TOMINTOUL
TORMORE
HIGHLAND
ABERFELDY
ARDMORE
AUCHROISK
BANFF (LOST)
BALBLAIR
BEN NEVIS
BEN WYVIS (LOST)
BLAIR ATHOLL
CLYNELISH
DALMORE
DEANSTON
EDRADOUR
FETTERCAIRN
GLEN ALBYN (LOST)
GLENCADAM
GLENESK (SILENT)
GLENGARIOCH
GLENGOYNE
GLENLOCHY (SILENT)
GLENMORANGIE
GLEN ORD
GLENTURRET
GLENUGIE (LOST)
GLENURY ROYAL (LOST)
LOCH LOMOND
LOCHSIDE (SILENT)
MILLBURN (LOST)
NORTH PORT (LOST)
OBAN
OLD PULTENEY
ROYAL BRACKLA
ROYAL LOCHNAGAR
TEANINICH
THE SPEYSIDE
TULLIBARDINE
ISLAY
ARDBEG
BOWMORE
BRUICHLADDICH
BUNNAHABHAIN
CAOL ILA
LAGAVULIN
LAPHROAIG
PORT ELLEN (SILENT)
ISLAND
ARRAN
HIGHLAND PARK
ISLE OF JURA
SCAPA
TALISKER
TOBERMORY
LOWLAND
AUCHENTOSHAN
BLADNOCH
GLENKINCHIE
GLEN FLAGLER (SILENT)
INVERLEVEN (SILENT)
KINCLAITH (LOST)
LADYBURN (LOST)
LITTLEMILL (SILENT)
ROSEBANK (SILENT)
ST MAGDALENE (SILENT)
CAMPBELTOWN
GLEN SCOTIA
SPRINGBANK
GRAIN
CALEDONIAN (LOST)
CAMBUS (SILENT)
CAMERON BRIDGE
DUMBARTON
GIRVAN
INVERGORDON
NORTH BRITISH
PORT DUNDAS
STRATHCLYDE
"Transform your Scotch Whisky Knowledge"
the clock is ticking.. the sunlight grows longer..
-
Everyone is qualified to rate golf courses.
Did you like it? What did you like about it? What didn't you like about it? How did it make you feel? Why did it make you feel that way?
There are people on this site that have played a gazillion golf courses, but their personal biases (preferences) always bleed over into their ratings. That is human nature...it won't change. So, the newer players need to simply observe, study, and chronicle their feelings, biases (preferences), and the courses. Do this with enough passion and over time you'll get your arms around it. Do this and include enough travel to go along with the passion and you will have the context and frame of reference to be a good rater/critic. But, aside from enjoying yourself and the travel, I am not sure what that really gets you. ???
Mac,
Spot on.
A few on this site may hurt their backs from all the patting ;)
It's just golf- a game meant to be played and enjoyed.
-
Golfweek offers a series of Rater Camps throughout the year. Here is a link to the one coming up in early January. I would suggest anyone interested in this subject needs to sign up and see if you can make the cut.
http://golfweek.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/golfweek9/event/golfweek923/index.htm
That seems a bit creepy to me.
while part of me wants to applaud the effort on the part of the magazine, the other parts worries about the homogonization of the process.....
-
When my wife (then girlfriend) first landed a job at a big daily paper, one of her jobs was to visit some of the city's galleries each week and compile a column of the best exhibits with a bit of info about them, the work on show etc.
My mum was amazed when she found out.
"I didn't know you had a strong interest in art?" she said.
"I don't," my missus replied. "Well, I like it, but I have no particular knowledge about it."
"But I plan my gallery visits on the strength of what looks good in that column. I always thought it was written by an expert!"
"No, some of the other people who have done it said if they are really busy they just ring the gallery, they don't even go out to visit."
By this stage my mum's illusion was shattered! - some newcomer journo with no particular knowledge was advising a few hundred thousand readers every weekend which galleries they should see - pretty ridiculous, she thought.
I felt the same way when I found out the identities of a few people who are magazine raters. My already thin faith in the lists was eroded completely.
Who is qualified to rate golf courses? Far fewer people than are tasked with the duty, in my opinion.
Exactly.
So why all the fuss about the ratings.
Why are we so obsessed with groupthink?
This is not a college football championship where a playoff system would eliminate some/much of the subjectivity.
-
Steve,
Now there's a list worth arguing about. Glenmorangie 18 year is numero uno..
-
Another reason why Kingsley is so great, they put an Irish Whisky in the mailbox on 18 ;D
-
Frankly I do not understand our obsession with assigning numerical value to "things" and drawing up "Top XX" lists. I think rating golf courses is right up there in the relm of meaningless, ridiculous, senseless, acts as trophy hunting.
-
8) Irish or Scottish .. i don't immediatelyremeber the brand.. all i know is i got a rich glow after a good gulp there last summer.. ::)
..but really, isn't golf course rating just like whiskey or wine tasting? swirl, smell the bouquet, pause, swig, judge the tastes and spit..
..and as i learned at an early age.. for wine.. buy on bread, sell on cheese, while for whisky, swallow ::)
-
8) Irish or Scottish .. i don't immediatelyremeber the brand.. all i know is i got a rich glow after a good gulp there last summer.. ::)
..but really, isn't golf course rating just like whiskey or wine tasting? swirl, smell the bouquet, pause, swig, judge the tastes and spit..
..and as i learned at an early age.. for wine.. buy on bread, sell on cheese, while for whisky, swallow ::)
;D ;D
Jameson's be the brand. I only made a note of it because I tend to prefer Irish to Scottish when it comes to Whisky. The water be sweeter on the emerald isle.
My question for you is, what kind of whisky shall we have in our bags at Belvedere? :)
-
JC,
Ahhhhh, yes, Jameson's, very smooth.. for us anything of substantial proof will do, but multiple tastings will be in order..
couldn't resist.. looking up a little history on this Jameson's subject.. like that their motto means "no fear", perhaps needed for the 7th or 15th at the Bel? Have you ever thought of distilling spirits?
Jameson is a Single distillery Irish whiskey produced by a division of the French distiller Pernod Ricard. Jameson is similar in its adherence to the single distillery principle to the single malt tradition, but Jameson combines malted barley with unmalted or "green" barley. The most famous component within Jameson is the "Pure Pot Still" distilling tradition.
The company was established in 1780 when John Jameson established the Bow Street Distillery in Dublin. Jameson was Scottish, a lawyer from Alloa who had married Margaret Haig, a sister of the brothers who founded the main Haig Scotch whisky firms, and related to the Steins, a Scottish distilling family with interests in Dublin. Originally one of the six main Dublin Whiskeys, Jameson is now distilled in Cork, although vatting still takes place in Dublin. With annual sales of over 31 million bottles, Jameson is by far the best selling Irish whiskey in the world, as it has been internationally since the early 19th century when John Jameson along with his son (also named John) was producing more than a million gallons annually.[1]
-
JC,
Ahhhhh, yes, Jameson's, very smooth.. for us anything of substantial proof will do, but multiple tastings will be in order..
couldn't resist.. looking up a little history on this Jameson's subject.. like that their motto means "no fear", perhaps needed for the 7th or 15th at the Bel? Have you ever thought of distilling spirits?
No fear is right. I'd never thought of cutting the corner on the 15th until this summer. Now, I see no other way to play it!!
-
question for you is, what kind of whisky shall we have in our bags at Belvedere? :)
If you haven't tried Red Breast Irish whiskey, you've done yourself a great disservice.
-
To quote one of my football couches, "none of you F______"
-
Or, for a slightly more historical perspective, as referenced in Tom Macwood's enjoyable essay, "The World's Finest Test", in 1939 the short-lived National Golf Review magazine convened a panel of experts to identify and essentially rank the best courses in the world.
The panel (or 'jury')? How's this: Lady Heathcoat-Amory (nee Miss Joyce Wethered); Mrs. E. H. Vare (nee Miss Glenna Collett); Edward, Duke of Windsor; Robert T. Jones, Jr.; Walter Hagen; Arnaud Massy; Joe Kirkwood; Gene Sarazen; Percy Alliss; Tom Simpson; C. H. Alison; Robert Trent Jones; D. Scott Chisholm; Hans Samek; Bernard Darwin; Grantland Rice; and William Richardson.
The 'rankings'? In parts, very interesting:
1. St.Andrews, Scotland
2. Cypress Point, California
3. Pine Valley, N.J.
4. Pebble Beach, California
5. Sandwich, England
6. National Links, N.Y.
7. Hirono, Japan
8. Banff Springs, Canada
9. Royal Melbourne, Australia
10. Foulpointe, Madagascar
11. Augusta Naional, Georgia
12. Timber Point, N.Y.
13. Oakmont, Penn.
14. Hoylake, England
15. Newcastle Co. Down, Ire.
16. Westward Ho!, England
17. Merion, Penn
18. Riviera, California
19. Sunningdale, England
20. Bel-Air, California
21. Shinnecock Hills, N.Y
22. Portrush, Ireland
23. Laksers, Illinois
24. CC of Havana, Cuba
25. Humewood, S.Africa
26. Seminole, Florida
27. Rye, England
28. Knocke, Belgium
29. Yale, Conn
30. Gleneagles, Scotland
31. Le Touquet, France
32. Winged Foot, N.Y.
33. Pasatiempo, California
34. Muirfield, Scotland
35. Walton Heath, England
36. Jasper Park, Canada
37. Portmarnock, Ireland
38. Pinehurst No.2, N.C.
39. Prestwick, Scotland
40. Birkdale, England
41. Lido, N.Y.
42. Ganton, England
43. Durban, S.Africa
44. Oyster Harbors, Mass.
45. Ponte Vedra, Florida
46. North Berwick, Scotland
47. San Francisco, California
48. St.Georges Hill, England
49. Garden City, N.Y.
50. Deal, England
51. Kawana, Japan
52. Engineers, N.Y
53. Swinley Forest, England
54. Brookline, Mass.
55. Saunton, England
56. Bethpage, N.Y.
57. Addington, England
58. Lakeside, California
59. Hollywood, N.J.
60. Woking, England
61. Wildhoeve, Holland
62. Royal York, Canada
63. Oakland Hills, Michigan
64. Morfontaine, France
65. Brancaster, England
66. Pulborough, England
67. Manoir Richelieu, Canada
68. Royal Adelaide, Australia
69. Hamburg-Falkenstein, Germany
70. Olympia Fields #4, Illinois
71. Chiberta, France
72. Lawsonia, Wisconsin
73. Los Angeles, California
74. Maidstone, N.Y.
76. Carnoustie, Scotland
77. Burnham, England
78. Scioto, Ohio
79. Capilano, Canada
80. Hot Springs, Virginia
81. Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon
82. Ballybunion, Ireland
83. Porthcawl, Wales
84. Liphook, England
85. Knoll, N.J.
86. Tokyo-Asaka, Japan
87. Maccauvlei, S.Africa
88. Kingston Heath, Australia
89. Chicago, Illinois
90. Sea Island, Georgia
91. Alwoodley, England
92. Eastward Ho, Mass.
93. Mid Ocean, Bermuda
94. Ville de Delat, Indo China
95. Zandvoort, Holland
96. Five Farms, Maryland
97. Turnberry, Scotland
98. Spa, Belgium
99. Fishers Island, N.Y.
100 a.Royal Worlington, England
b.Prarie Dunes, Kansas
-
PPallotta:
Years ago Digest had a small national panel -- bolstered by more numerous people at the state level. I always wondered then -- and even now -- how such a "star listing" ensures that remote and relatively obscure places can be played. I often think that when "star" people are involved you get a select reinforcing of the same courses.
-
And so just for fun, here's the list of what a bunch of professional golfers, architects and writers thought were the best American courses in 1936:
1. Cypress Point, California
2. Pine Valley, N.J.
3. Pebble Beach, California
4. National Links, N.Y.
5. Augusta National, Georgia
6. Timber Point, N.Y.
7. Oakmont, Penn.
8. Merion, Penn
9. Riviera, California
10. Bel-Air, California
11-20
Shinnecock Hills, N.Y
Laksers, Illinois
Seminole, Florida
Yale, Conn
Winged Foot, N.Y.
Pasatiempo, California
Pinehurst No.2, N.C.
Lido, N.Y.
Oyster Harbors, Mass.
Ponte Vedra, Florida
21-30
San Francisco, California
Garden City, N.Y.
Engineers, N.Y
Brookline, Mass.
Bethpage, N.Y.
Lakeside, California
Hollywood, N.J.
Oakland Hills, Michigan
Olympia Fields #4, Illinois
Lawsonia, Wisconsin
31-40
Los Angeles, California
Maidstone, N.Y.
Scioto, Ohio
Hot Springs, Virginia
Knoll, N.J.
Chicago, Illinois
Sea Island, Georgia
Eastward Ho, Mass.
Five Farms, Maryland
Fishers Island, N.Y.
41
Prarie Dunes, Kansas
-
PPallotta:
Years ago Digest had a small national panel -- bolstered by more numerous people at the state level. I always wondered then -- and even now -- how such a "star listing" ensures that remote and relatively obscure places can be played. I often think that when "star" people are involved you get a select reinforcing of the same courses.
I wouldn't know, Matt - perhaps you're right. But it's interesting how 'global' that list was...and I wonder if the "same courses" you reference were the same "same courses" back then?
-
PPallotta
Glad to see The Knoll mentioned -- one of the forgotten courses. People should see it today -- although it's still being improved throught he involvement of George Bahto.
When you say "global" it doesn't mean much to me because the same "global" courses are the main ones that get seen and played and therefore the reinforcing process goes into full force. I don't see some of these people deciding to forego The Old Course and trek
You'd be surprised to know -- or maybe not so surprised -- that Whitten and Klein literally beg raters to play courses not among the chosen few. Frankly, I think it would be good for raters to be assigned courses through a blind draw -- and not just within one's immediate area / neck of the woods. You'd be surprised to know that groupies of certain architects have a tendency to provide high marks to the same architects and therefore seek out their work and likely ignore the works of others.
-
Matt:
If you REALLY TRUSTED the stars on the "star panel", you could drastically reduce the minimum number of votes that a course needed to make the list, because if Walter Hagen and Bobby Jones and the Duke of Windsor all voted for someplace, you could rest assured it wasn't about whether they were comped or not! And then, most of the courses you spend so much time worrying about would have a reasonable chance -- although I still have no plans to visit Red Ledges in the next decade.
But, when you insist on 10 or 20 (or 45!) panelists seeing a place like Red Ledges before it is eligible to make the list, well, it's going to take a long time for that to happen. Really, it's not ever going to happen, unless it is so good that some raters convince others to make the trip [or they schedule a rater's meeting there ::) ]. In cases like that you'd be better off with the small panel and fewer minimum votes.
When I was running the GOLF Magazine rankings, I would try to get panelists to go see the courses that had 3-7 good votes so far. It was tough to do, but the Hidden Gems list we ran helped a bit. About 40-50% of those courses eventually wound up on the main list, and the other 50% fell by the wayside.
-
Tom:
The issue of the star syndrome is a simple one -- people unless prompted to do otherwise -- congregate at the same places. It happens then -- it happens now.
I have no issue with less people -- but if anyone believed that Sam Snead when he was on the national panel for Digest years ago was going to trek to the Dakotas to play some really fine course -- then you believe that leprechans are real.
The issue is getting people out to see the different courses that few ever get to. Sure, if the vote total were reduced it would help but the real issue is even with a lesser total -- the same high profile places garner the most praise. Think of them like Alabama and SoCal in Collegiate football to the TCU's and Boise State teams.
Tom, too bad you won't be visiting Red Ledges -- never know what you might be missing -- ditto for those raters who see UT as some sort of backward place to play golf. Your idea on prompting people where 3-7 votes existed is a good one -- but the aggregate style of group think will only permit a very small number of the "forgotten" courses to ever really rise up - throw in a somewhat remote location and the odds are even tougher.
-
Matt,
I agree with you that "group think" is alive and well in the rankings. And you are right about Sam Snead, or some of the people on the GOLF Magazine panel. They are not going to Red Mike, North Dakota. [By the way, is it still open? And would they need to go, now that you have dumped it from your list of must-sees in favor of Red Ledges?]
As an aside, when GOLF DIGEST had their national panel years ago, the process was MUCH different ... they took feedback from all their "other" panelists, and then the "national panel" sat in a smoke-filled room at the U.S. Open and decided upon changes to the list, based on input from the peons and on their own biases. It was only when GOLF Magazine got serious about their list and rated the courses in order, that DIGEST suddenly felt the need to have a load of data to back up their rankings, and to have their own #1.
However, I think you are severely overestimating the odds that if some of these courses you like had twenty votes, the other 19 guys would agree with your opinion of them. Without the group think factor, there might be FEWER out-of-the-way courses in the lists, because everyone has their own favorites and hardly any of those favorites would line up.
-
Tom:
Don't misunderstand me about Red Mike -- I liked the course but it's cuddled by a few because of the remote factor -- the architecture is good -- once you get to the 7th tee. Is it special enough to merit a trek of several hundred miles to see. No.
Red Ledges is one worthwhile to see. No doubt those who don't much cater to what JN does will not be impressed to the max - but I think Jack gained from his association with you and while he no doubt cannot change his core elements -- the overall course is far more than just a developer's desire to sell houses in a somewhat remote location.
I am aware of how GD used to do things -- it was good to see Golf Mag raise the bar through your involvement to make things better at least in terms of approach and overall feedback.
Tom, I have no illusion that some -- maybe many more -- won't see eye-to-eye with me on a range of courses. On the flip side -- few people have traveled as extensively as I have for well over 30 years to the various locations. The sample size does matter -- being able to size up how certain courses match up against one another. Some people think that if a course is great for a given area -- it is therefore able to be rated nationally. That, as you likely know, can be a major overreach on their part.
Groupthink robs the opportunity for the unknown and less illustrated courses from getting the attention. So much of the process is geared towards the elite top few layouts. And many of them get their spot in the ratings not because of the architecture but because of the Tv exposure from staging tournamnets and the like. Aggregate ratings nothing more than a hodge podge of numbers crunched together. Frankly, from all the people I have ever met who were raters -- I would dare say no more than 10-15% are qualified. The rest are just enjoying the moment.
-
Matt:
I appreciate your interest in the subject, and do not mean to imply that you are any worse than anyone else here in thinking that the magazines are not doing their jobs in getting more people to more out-of-the-way courses. And I am very sympathetic to that, since I have designed at least one ore course that I think should be ranked highly, but is too far out of the way to be included to date.
But, there is no easy consensus on which of those courses ought to make the lists. So you can either send a bunch more guys there (many of whom don't know their head from their opposite end), or you can just take recommendations like Red Ledges and Rock Creek with a grain of salt depending on who has told you, and wait until more people go to see them.
Yes, the latter approach means that some courses are not recognized as fast as they should be. But it also means that other courses are not lauded prematurely when they should not be. Just look at all of the newer courses which have made one list or another and then fallen back! There is plenty of group-think going on at this level too ... i.e., Tom Fazio has several courses in the top 100, and I like this new course better than half of those, so it MUST BE a top 100 course!
Of course, developers and architects would prefer that the magazines rush to put new courses into the lists, even if they don't belong, because once you've gotten a ranking it is yours to advertise forever. [High Pointe is closed for business, but I could still put up a billboard which read "Top 100 course in America -- GOLF Magazine".]
We both know that using the word "journalism" for a golf magazine is pretty silly, but by any standard of journalism, it would be better to take the slower route to recognizing courses, instead of pasting them into the rankings as soon as possible, and not caring how many of them fell out later.
-
Tom:
Believe it or not -- in today's info-quick-sharing world one doesn't need the vast army of people to rate courses. That was true years ago -- not now. Word spreads very fast and I have always considered myself an Indiana Jones type -- if something is out there that merits real attention I'll do my utmost to see / play it.
Information today is quicker and usually the sheer unknowns are not totally invisible. The problem is the aggregate style voting process -- getting the herd to get off their lazy collective asses and into the hinterlands.
I agree w you 100% -- we don't need the onslaught of BS about all these course lists. Good ratings take time -- they take also a bit of spacing to allow for some perspective and context on what a course provides. The rush to judgement only allows for the inane see-saw you have courses entering quickly and leaving just as fast.
-
What purpose does rating a course serve?
-
Craig:
People have been doing lists for as long as the printed word has been appearing.
People also want to know where the best of anything is located -- golf courses are no different than movies, restaurants, vacation spots and on and on it goes.
No doubt it's subjective and there will always been room for disagreement -- the issue is how extensive the homework is by the people who claim to be raters -- in my experience, few have that element before articulating what they believe is really worthwhile to see.
We only have limited time on this planet -- if info can be passed along that highlights where the quality golf experiences are why not take advantage of it ?
-
Craig:
People have been doing lists for as long as the printed word has been appearing.
People also want to know where the best of anything is located -- golf courses are no different than movies, restaurants, vacation spots and on and on it goes.
No doubt it's subjective and there will always been room for disagreement -- the issue is how extensive the homework is by the people who claim to be raters -- in my experience, few have that element before articulating what they believe is really worthwhile to see.
We only have limited time on this planet -- if info can be passed along that highlights where the quality golf experiences are why not take advantage of it ?
Craig - pretty solid post!
-
Matt, I think its a nice little scam....and from what I can tell it serves no purpose what so ever. Do I need a rater or a list in a magazine to tell me I might enjoy playing Bandon? Heck no! I have friends that can tell me that and in the last ten years you could not pick up a magazine...from People to Playboy, that did not hype the course....and to be honest, if I were a golf course architect I would be offended that some guy in knee highs, burmuda's, and a clip board was rating my creation based on his magazines criteria of how many bunkers were too many, or how the views were from the tee areas.
I think its a lot of masturbation....actually, more like a circle jerk. But hey, it seems that now days we need someone to tell us what to like and not like....so have at it hoss!
-
Do I need a rater or a list in a magazine to tell me I might enjoy playing Bandon?
I am reading Dream Golf right now and I think it states pretty clearly that some of the first people to play Bandon were writers and golf course raters. So, I think your answer is "yes".
And I think that is a great point that Matt keeps bringing up...that raters need to get out there and see every golf course they possibly can to verify, discover, and uncover quality golf courses. I believe Tom Doak was a rater/ratings editor and he discovered, uncovered, re-discovered Crystal Downs and, I think, The National Golf Links of America...and probably a few more than that. I find that to be valuable.
Do all raters represent the magazines they work for well? Obviously not. Some seem to tell John Kavanaugh all about the in-house dirty laundry. Some seem to be nothing but "access whores". Some seem to be looking for nothing but freebies. However, I hope a few are doing some real work and taking their job seriously. And, furthermore, I hope even more raters read this thread and take the job more seriously and start getting more scuttlebutt started about how well they behave and how well they do their job.
-
Craig:
Believe what you will -- you say scam -- OK -- if that's your take then embrace it.
Craig, few people get to play a wide smattering of courses -- many of them simply don't know better and therefore miss out on the available time they do have to play courses of note.
I can tell you this for sure -- if there was no interest the mags would not be using them. People enjoy seeing lists of all different types. Golf course lists do generate eye-ball viewership. Frankly, many of your friends received the lowdown on plenty of places -- prior to them leaving to play there -- few people serve as a Louis & Clark and get to blaze new trails without getting the info from elsewhere. That's why people tune in to GCA too.
You grossly simplify what a solid rating can do -- I don't see eye-to-eye with many of the things the top tier mags do but generating healthy discussion on what constitutes quality golf design is always interesting to me.
Let me mention that often times the view of the unaffiliated person can be quite healthy and even more attune to what is available to play. But if you think that ratings are a "circle jerk" then knock yourself out and believe what you will.
-
Matt, I think its a nice little scam....and from what I can tell it serves no purpose what so ever. Do I need a rater or a list in a magazine to tell me I might enjoy playing Bandon? Heck no! I have friends that can tell me that and in the last ten years you could not pick up a magazine...from People to Playboy, that did not hype the course.
A lot of the rankings are about marketing and selling magazines. But it seems to me you ARE relying on raters. That's what your friends do. That's what the magazine hype does.
Now maybe the question is, does structuring/formalizing the process in the way the rankings services have, make it more accurate or valuable? Probably depends on you and your friends.
Overall, I agree completely with Matt's main point. Maybe I even broaden it a bit: you can't rank courses in any category if you haven't seen virtually all the top candidates. Few people have done so. Especially on the national or world level.
But I also wonder how different the rankings would turn out, if we could find raters with that much experience. At the top end, as I pointed out before, our GCA rankings have virtually all the same courses as GM. Matt, do your world or national top 20 lists differ much from the GCA rankings?
-
:-X
-
Jim:
The short answer to your question is that there are some differences -- more based on me trying to include different types of courses among my "best" -- I agree with Tom Doak when he listed his best 31 in CG because it allowed him to include courses of different design types / locations, routings, hole types, and of course different architects.
Jim, it's so crucial to be ACTIVE in order to remain current. My world list doesn't include any courses from Australia or NZ. Ditto for China. Never been to either of those places.
Getting a world list is easier today because of the onslaiught of information but nothing beats the personal touch.
I did mention to Tom -- and likely others here on this site -- that bonafide ratings need to be spaced out to allow for changes and for some real perspective. The mags have gone beserk in having such updates every year or two and frankly all that does is generally reinforce the same courses -- the groupthink approach through an aggregate system has tendency to simply collect votes because the mags embrace the inane belief that all raters are equal and that all their votes are equal. That works in electoral politics but not in really assessing courses through the perspective of someone who has a great deal more to provide and offer whencourses are studied and reviewed. Just my take on it.
-
You know ... Golf course ranking is a LOT like wine rankings.
There is absolutely a market out there for people that want information -- any information -- on where they might best spend their hard earned money and limited time playing golf. To ignore this market is just plain bad business sense for a magazine. Most golfer are hardly as critical as this lot is concerning "relative" rankings.
Like high-end wine that has very limited release, it's my observation that courses that are often more difficult to get on frequently get less critical review. (Like bringing the kids to Disney --- darn it, we're going to have a good time!)
When the time comes to saddle up and go play the course(s) with your buddies, you can be sure someone is going to ask why such-and-such a place was selected. Be it word-of-mouth or published material, a ranking was almost certainly crucial to that decision.
-
I think initially 99% of play on a new course is because the PR department got an article in a regional paper, or a spot on TV and someone in the "gang" sees it and suggest the gang go play it next week.
Would the Influence of the symbiotic relationship between the golf course PR department and the magazine be any different withhout the rater? I dont think so...
-
Craig:
C'mon -- wake up please.
People are quite adept in sifting through a PR release and the actual comments from people who have no dog in the fight.
Frankly, try to realize this -- other sources are also involved -- GCA being one of them. Even though the key posters are not always raters -- the info provided can be quite useful.
-
Matt, please try and understand this....the poster on GCA represent less than 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of one percent of all golfers. And they proabbly represent about 50% of those golfers that actually understand, consider, and have the knowledge to appreciate the architecture behind the course they just played.
So, they read a list and the list says Sand Hills is better (rated higher) than Chambers Bay....do you seriously think that has much to do with where they will play their next round of golf....or more importantly, where they will spend their dollars on a golf weekend with the boys or the wife?
People base their golfing decisions on a handful of things....Access....cost....distance from home...if they have a friend that has played it and liked it, that helps, if its in good condition, that helps, if the course looks good on the web site, that helps. I doubt for the average golfer the opinion of a rater figures into their decision.
-
Craig:
Maybe I'm failing to penetrate the clouds that are swirling around your head -- if my previous statements have not helped please allow me to try once again.
I have no illusion that Joe Sixpacks of the golf world represent the main frame players -- so what is so earth shattering in that comment? The issue is that those who really love golf do want info on top tier layouts -- many of these people have to depend upon some info source(s) in order to differentiate the bad from the so-so and the ones further up the food chain.
GCA does that -- even for the tiny populace here. Frankly, GD did that for a number of years but it's far less so in the last 5-10 years.
Craig -- let me help your own misunderstanding -- the issue isn't that the average person will play a high number of rounds at average or even below venues -- the issue is when they want to search out for something more the ratings -- beyond the always unreliable word of mouth statements -- can lend some addiitional credibility.
Craig, I'll say this again -- if rating s were completelky ineffectual then mags would not place them and waste valuable space in their respective pubs. People do read them and they do influence where people play. You may think it's very small but I can tell you this from my experiences the ratings are used by the courses as a gold plate endorsement -- even when they are no longer rated the courses still use them as a way to bolster their case. For you and your group that means little -- but I can tell you this check out the vast number of outside rounds played at Old Works in Anaconda -- the place has done very well by outside play not connected to the immediate region -- the reason that is so is because of the ratings which put the place on the map in the first place.
Something to ponder. ;)
-
question for you is, what kind of whisky shall we have in our bags at Belvedere? :)
If you haven't tried Red Breast Irish whiskey, you've done yourself a great disservice.
Pete - My son gave me a bottle of Red Breast for Christmas... OUTSTANDING!!!
-
Mike,
To stay on topic, rated #1 Irish Whiskey by no less than GCA'er Jack Marr; good stuff indeed!
-
Deleted.