Ben,
Following the Discussion Group, I have learned that the GD ratings are held in low regard by many (most?) members of GCA. As a newbie, I am eager to understand why that is.
GD uses eight criteria:
--Shot values (do holes present a variety of risks and rewards and test accuracy, length, and finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two?)
--Playability (does course challenge low handicap players while providing options for high handicappers?)
--Design variety (how varied are the holes in lengths, direction, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours?)
--Memorability (how distinctive are individual holes?)
--Conditioning (how firm, fast, and rolling are the fairways; are greens firm yet receptive and put true)
--Aesthetics (does course take advantage of scenery to add pleasure to a round?)
--Ambience (does the atmosphere reflect and enhance traditional values of the game?)
--Resistance to scoring (is the course difficult, but fair, for scratch golfer?)
I put "resistance to scoring" last since it is clear to me that many GCAers find it objectionable as a criterion. I agree. I much prefer "playability" (challenge low handicappers while providing options for high handicappers).
"Ambience" also strikes me as squishy and having nothing to do with the quality of the design.
The other criteria seem legitimate to me -- and consistent with the values often expressed on this site. Am I correct about that?
A separate concern, for me, about the GD ratings is the number of panelists. With such a large number, including significant increases in recent years, consistency in how the criteria are applied is inevitably an issue.
As for the question that initiated this thread, I would think that GD's decision to require courses to have more evaluations might have several distinct effects:
--More evaluations, all other things equal, add credibility since any given outlier evaluation (high or low) has less weight.
--But more evaluations requires more evaluators, raising the consistency problem mentioned above.
--And requiring more evaluations may mean that more courses drop out because hosting so many evaluators is too burdensome.
A separate issue is how GD presents the evaluations, ranking courses from 1 to 200. The scoring differences are often minute. I might be more inclined to present the list differently -- for example, grouping courses that are within a certain scoring range as ties. I haven't thought through how to do that, but there might be a way to more accurately represent how courses compare.
Even with these issues, I think GD's ratings are a good thing. I look forward to seeing them...even when I may not agree. Discussing why I don't agree is part of the fun, and it makes me think about what I value in golf course design.
That said, I have all of Tom Doak's Confidential Guides. Tom, and company, present a different take, one that I like. When deciding whether to play a course, I put more weight on the CG evaluation than GD's rating.
James - if this requirement means a doubling in the number of rankers (along with the number of ratings), I’ll be interested to see whether these new panelists (ie late adopters) will be less invested in the consensus opinion than their predecessors; or instead if they’ll be even more prone (through insecurity) to merely confirm the conventional wisdom and not risk being outliers.
We’ve often discussed here the GD rating criteria; but I think more relevant will be the *rater* criteria, ie what type of golfer (where they live, how much they travel, their handicaps, their affiliations/memberships etc) might GD be specifically looking for as new panelists.
It’s sort of like gca.com itself. Is it a better and more interesting discussion board if comprised only of industry professionals and a select group of well-travelled and experienced golfers who know (or think they know) what makes for top-flight gca; or is there value in having a larger group of posters, many of whom self-identify as inexperienced students and not teachers and who thus might express/have an openness to differing ideas?
I suspect the answer is: the old guard values (and promotes) itself and denigrates any new approaches, while the newbies don’t yet know that they don’t know — for better and worse.
Does GD want to further cement the old guard or foster the new one? I think that’s the key question.
Peter
Hoover, you and Tim Martin really should find something useful to do with your lives instead of following me around yapping at my heels like a couple of rabid lap dogs. Maybe you can start by trying to make at least some contribution to the site; I can’t remember anything of value either of you have ever written here. (How about even trying just to answer James’ question?)
Your constant digs don’t bother me in the least, but they’re not funny or interesting or insightful — they’re just annoying.
I get it — you’re “keeping it real”, in your own sorry ways. Well, how’s this for keeping it real: go get a life. I’ve tried to ignore you, partly not to be rude and partly because if you can’t stand someone knocking around ideas on a discussion board meant to foster knocking around ideas then I don’t know what to say. But enough is enough.
Don’t read my posts if they bother you so much; I certainly stopped reading yours a long time ago.
It would be disingenuous if I ever once pretended to have played the courses that I've only read about; but I've always been open about the fact that I haven't played those courses -- and you're well aware of that.
No, the "anger" is all yours and Hoovers, though thinly disguised as contempt. To team up like sniveling school-boys over and over again until you finally get a reaction speaks of your problems, not mine.
When your mocking of a question I posed on a "less is more" thread is picked up and repeated almost word for word by Hoover on a totally unrelated thread, then I have to say enough. Seriously? My ill-informed posts are that troubling to you, even when I'm simply speculating about the GD rating process? Wow.
As I wrote to Hoover, just ignore my posts, and instead spend some some time and intellectual capital actually trying to add something of interest/value here. And please knock off with the respectful tone you sometimes affect; that's the only disingenuous part in all of this. I answered your question on that thread in good faith, but it’s clear that you didn’t pose it in the same way.
Peter
To others: apologies for being part in wrecking an potentially decent thread.
I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine.
Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.
Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.
So, I see that Golf Digest is doubling the number of ratings per course required for their rankings (from 30 to 60) over the next couple of years, and eventually to 75.
What impact do you think this will have on the ratings?
Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.
Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.
This is my sense as well. I don’t know the demographics of the current cohort of GD rafters, but I do think growing the pool will have an impact on the ratings, probably favoring architectural factors over atheistics and conditioning.
Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.
Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.
This is my sense as well. I don’t know the demographics of the current cohort of GD rafters, but I do think growing the pool will have an impact on the ratings, probably favoring architectural factors over atheistics and conditioning.
Why would you think that? I’ve been involved in the golf industry my entire career...not to mention I’ve been playing golf my entire life. Within that limited experience, I can tell you with great confidence that a VERY small percentage of the people I’ve come across even care about “architectural factors” when compared to asthetics and conditioning. A larger pool of raters can only lead to a dumbing down of the rankings...I’d say expect more of the same.
There is a golf digest rater who lives in my hometown in Alabama. He pretty much only rates the top courses on the golf digest list. So it just becomes self fulfilling prophecy. He's not even played what I consider the best course in the state. In fact that course is not even in the golf digest best in state.
Sean,
I agree GD has too many criteria. I would condense the list to five equally-weight criteria:
Shot Values (presents a variety of risks/rewards, tests accuracy/length/finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two)
Playability (challenges low handicap players while providing options for high handcappers)
Design Variety/Memorability (holes varied and distinctive in lengths, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours)
Conditioning (firm, fast, rolling fairways with true greens)
Walkability.
As for whether more raters will dumb-down the ratings or bring fresh new perspectives, I think the jury is out. I hope for the latter but fear it will be the former.
And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine. Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.
And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine. Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.
It is quite possible you may be shocked..... :)
I would be shocked if mag ratings are led by marketing. I would think a list is produced and then clubs are contacted to sell space because they made the list. I don't see a problem with this.
Ciao
And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine. Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.
I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine.
So, I see that Golf Digest is doubling the number of ratings per course required for their rankings (from 30 to 60) over the next couple of years, and eventually to 75.
What impact do you think this will have on the ratings?
Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?" -- GOLF DIGEST[/size]
Never quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.[/size][/font]
Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?" -- GOLF DIGESTNever quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.
Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.
I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?
In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".
And then I have never seen any magazine that has the votes counted by an outside agency or accounting firm etc which leads me to believe it is very possible for the final outcome to be whatever is needed by the magazine. Therefore the advertising side of the magazine can work with the rating side to have things work out nicely.
I was the "outside agency" for GOLF Magazine for 15 years for just that reason - George Peper liked that I was never in the office and didn't know anyone in the advertising department. The list was always printed exactly the way I calculated the results.
I don't know if any of the magazines ever edit the results now, but there is so much collusion going on beforehand that it hardly matters.
Also, to James Brown: how do you think they're going to double the size of an already large panel? They'll have all the panelists recommend a buddy or two! That is hardly going to eliminate the good old boy network. The GOLF Magazine panel ran much better when it was all independent voices, before there was a club of guys who had played them all and compared notes.
Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?" -- GOLF DIGESTNever quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.
Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.
I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?
In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".
I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine.
I've never worked in the print business but I do understand math. GD subscription revenues are in excess of $20MM and advertisement revenue is more than double that. In addition, unlike many magazines revenues are reportedly up for GD and Conde Nast so I really don't think $100M either way is going to determine keeping the lights on. I do think it helps justify admin costs of the effort and in todays cost center centric world a natural target.
You obviously aren't very familiar with the economics of the magazine publishing business :)
Resistance to scoring. "How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tee?" -- GOLF DIGESTNever quite understood how an average rater was going to establish this until I heard that Golf Digest raters all must be 5 handicap or better.
Why is the word fair even in the criteria? Isn't that just an excuse for the 5 and lower handicap to downgrade a course because of things he doesn't like.
I.e., being paired with low handicappers at the Bandon Resort, and listen to them complain about the bunkers in the middle of the fairway that they just hit into being unfair. They hit a good shot up the middle of the fairway that works on any RTJ style course, so the fact that the fairway has 30 yards of room on either side of the bunker still get the bunker labeled as unfair. The RTJ style course lets them gain additional advantage over the average golfer so in truth the wide fairway with the bunker in the middle is inherently fair to the average golfer, so how is a low handicap going to determine this kind of fairness?
In actuality, the word fair is probably misused here, and really means not too difficult. So how is even the 5 handicap going to determine fair. The boys on tour will easily handle what he thinks is too difficult, so he will misjudge "fairness".
Garland,
How then do you explain the Bandon courses being so highly rated? Perhaps the most over rated courses in the world.
Garland,
How then do you explain the Bandon courses being so highly rated? Perhaps the most over rated courses in the world.
GD uses eight criteria:
--Shot values (do holes present a variety of risks and rewards and test accuracy, length, and finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two?)
--Playability (does course challenge low handicap players while providing options for high handicappers?)
--Design variety (how varied are the holes in lengths, direction, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours?)
--Memorability (how distinctive are individual holes?)
--Conditioning (how firm, fast, and rolling are the fairways; are greens firm yet receptive and put true)
--Aesthetics (does course take advantage of scenery to add pleasure to a round?)
--Ambience (does the atmosphere reflect and enhance traditional values of the game?)
--Resistance to scoring (is the course difficult, but fair, for scratch golfer?)
...
At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like. (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more. And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )
Jon,
I can see how #18 at N Berwick would be good match play hole. Forget par. Who can get it in the hole the fastest?
That said, it doesn't require the player to make a choice...does it? Try to drive it on the green or as close as possible. I don't see why a player capable of hitting the green would ever lay up.
Or am I missing something?
Whatever its strategic merits, I have fond feelings for #18 as the beautiful climax of a trip around my favorite course...at least so far!
Jon,
and if you push the drive its Sinn Fein time.
Ciao
I just got that one....
Having said that, of all the GB&I courses we discuss, I think N Berwick is the course where I differ most from mean viewpoint on GCA
It does absolutely nothing for me. Can't quite put my finger on why.
Jon,
I can see how #18 at N Berwick would be good match play hole. Forget par. Who can get it in the hole the fastest?
That said, it doesn't require the player to make a choice...does it? Try to drive it on the green or as close as possible. I don't see why a player capable of hitting the green would ever lay up.
Or am I missing something?
Whatever its strategic merits, I have fond feelings for #18 as the beautiful climax of a trip around my favorite course...at least so far!
Garland,
I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard. Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation. The latter is GD's description of "playability."
It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability." Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."
Anyone can build a "difficult" course. And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play. The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable. I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.
"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished. The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.
A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies. At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like. (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more. And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )
...
What would the ideal cadre of raters be in a practical world?
Pine Valley would rank below Bandon if you are an idiot. Funny thing, only idiots subscribe to magazines. You may be on to something.
Garland,
I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard. Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation. The latter is GD's description of "playability."
It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability." Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."
Anyone can build a "difficult" course. And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play. The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable. I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.
"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished. The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.
A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies. At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like. (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more. And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )
Pine Valley would rank below Bandon if you are an idiot. Funny thing, only idiots subscribe to magazines. You may be on to something.
Garland,
I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard. Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation. The latter is GD's description of "playability."
It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability." Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."
Anyone can build a "difficult" course. And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play. The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable. I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.
"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished. The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.
A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies. At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like. (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more. And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )
So let me ask, I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?
Garland,
I agree "difficult, while still being fair" is not an appropriate standard. Presenting a challenge for low-handicap players while creating options for high-handicappers is a much better formulation. The latter is GD's description of "playability."
It is not clear to me why GD includes both "resistance to scoring" and "playability." Worse yet, it is my understanding that only "resistance" is used to calculate rankings, although raters are asked to score "playability."
Anyone can build a "difficult" course. And the more difficult it becomes, the more tedious it would be to play. The trick is build one that is challenging yet enjoyable. I think that is what GD is trying to to get at, but failing.
"Fair", a term I confess to having used, should be banished. The spirit of the game is to meet the challenges presented, including bunkers in the middle of the fairway...even hidden bunkers in the middle of the fairway as on TOC.
A comment Sean made also resonates with me: An excellent course may have 3, 4, or 5 "truly superb holes" that may make up for other deficiencies. At N Berwick, #2-4 and #12-17 would elevate it near the top of my rankings no matter what the other holes were like. (#18 is not a great hole, but the setting...oh my, what a setting. #1 gets you to 2-4 but not much more. And the holes around the turn are not as compelling. )
So let me ask, I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?
Sean,
Of course, I saw the OB on the right. I do not, however, consider it "very easy to dump a tee shot there."
I would say the proper tee shot, not just the safe one, is toward the left side of the green. The up-and-down from there is not difficult. Nor is NB's "valley of sin" as difficult as the one on TOC. Up-and-down is readily achievable.
The penalties, for me, fall short of what would be necessary to make #18 a good strategic hole.
But let me repeat: I love NB...and even #18, albeit for different reasons.
I played Oakmont in Pittsburgh, a top 10 course, I found it "awful", penal beyond my expectations, nothing fun or enjoyable able it. Why does this persistence exist, a stupidly difficult course, and yet it is held in highest regard?