[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Vegis Kiawah was good enough to post the "Golf Digest"
top 100 rankings with and without "tradition" included in the ranking criteria.

Why would tradition, an intangible, or subjective at least,
be considered in evaluating the architecture of a golf course ?

What is tradition in the "Golf Digest" context ?

What is the incubation period before a club can qualify for tradition ?

What is the incubation period before a club can be on equal footing with others with respect to traditon ?

Is "tradition" nothing more than a hidden fudge factor ?

How valid is "tradition" as an evaluative tool ?

Looking at Mike's chart, I see clubs awarded tradition points, but have no idea how they came to garner them.  Could someone explain how each club earned points for tradition ?

Should "tradition" be removed from the process of evaluation ?

[TEPaul]

A lot of the "tradition" factor has to do with members. If Pat Mucci belongs it's an additional 100 bonus points on the "tradition" factor.

You want to see the all time tradition member list though. Pick up George Bahto's book and turn to the section when The Creek club was pulling itself out of debt (and shedding the Women's National). That group of guys was the ultimate heavy duty tradition list I ever saw in my life! You can't get any heavier than that!

[THuckaby2]

Golf Digest comes up with points for "tradition" as follows:

Tournament History (20%)
Architectural Significance (40%)
Ambiance (40%).

The editors do the first two, course rating panelists evaluate and give ratings only for ambiance, which is defined very thoroughly, but in short is "how well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?"

Much speculation has been given to whether this all is just a fudge factor... hell, I don't know.  I do know this:  all of these things matter and you're kidding yourself if you think they don't.

TH

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

TH--

There's a caveat to the "Ambiance" rating.  Courses 0-10 years old don't get any ambiance rating.  Courses 11-20 years old get 10% of the rating giving by panelist.  Courses 21-30 years old get 20% of the rating given by panelists, and so on.  A course has to be 100 years old before it gets 100% of the ambiance points awarded by panelist.  Or, at least that was the way it was calculated in 2001.  Since rating criteria constantly evolves, Ron Whitten will probably try to fine-tune it again this year.  I've spoken extensively to him on the matter and he does his best to make it as fair as he can... (although I wish he’d devise a system where The Ocean Course would inch up back closer to it's original 41st place of '97 rather than the 65th in '99 and 67th in '01.).

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  I'd have to guess they do tweak this every time the ratings are done.  What I quoted above was from our manual, that's all.

What sucks to me is how much this matters... and how small the numbers are between the ranked courses... oh well, such is golf these days.

It's never going to be completely "fair", but I too believe the GD editors do they best they can.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Thanks for the response,

What does "architectural significance"  mean ?

What constitutes "Tournament" ?

PGA Tournaments ?   USGA Tournaments, State or Regional association tournaments,  Club Sponsored Tournaments  ?

How does Pine Valley, Maidstone, Crystal Downs, Seminole, NGLA, LA CC or Somerset Hills qualify for Tournament points ?

Now we're informed that ambiance is an age related factor ?
That if one club's ambiance is clearly superior to another's that its age relative to the other will override the actual finding ?

Shouldn't all of these be removed ?

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

I'm just a lowly panelist and have no answers for you here as I am VERY far from privy to how this all works.

I will say that I don't think any of what GD does should be removed, because to me these things all do matter.  But that's just my opinion.  This is all quite difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, but tell me NGLA has a certain "something" that a great new course just won't... I know this is "unfair" to the new courses, but they have ways to make up for this.. to deny NGLA some credit for this "something" is worse, in my opinion.

TH

[John_Conley]

A friend pointed out that Sand Hills, which does not register on the "Tradition" front, is actually about as "traditional" a layout as you can find.

I think you were most accurate when you called it a "fudge factor".

As I've said 100 times, most of the disagreement with the Golf Digest list comes from people who don't agree with the criteria.

[THuckaby2]

Looking at the definitions, Sand Hills would score off the charts high on Architectural Significance and even more so on Ambiance... any disagreement there?

So it loses on the 20%, tournament history.... no sweat, that does matter and such is life.

It can still be the greatest course in the world without that!

I hesitate to call it a fudge factor as these things do "matter."  

I'd say the complaints come more from those who aren't happy with how "their" course comes out.  The criteria and methodology seem just fine to me....

TH

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Y'all should keep in mind that the overall purpose of top 100 rating lists are to SELL MAGAZINES.  It's an arbritrary list, based on the opinion of about 800 raters and the editors of Golf Digest.  Same holds true for Golf Magazine and their 100ish panelist and Golfweek and their 125ish raters.  It's not a pure science.  There are no hard fast set of rules on golf course architecture.  What's one man's heaven is another's hell...  The editors of Golf Digest, the only ones who matter since it is their list, believe "Tradition" is a legitimate criteria.  So be it (just as long as they think The Ocean Course has tons of tradition )...

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Mike - and this is especially good-natured and telling coming from you given you are one of the few on this earth with a very legitimate right to complain!

The purpose of the ratings is to sell magazines indeed and the creators of them obviously don't have to answer to anyone.  It just really sucks how seriously they are taken... as if I have to tell you that!  

TH

[Tom Doak]

Patrick,

I'm one of the people who has called this a "fudge factor," and I can answer some of your questions.

A lot of things have been factored into the "tradition points" the magazine has typically awarded.  Ron Whitten told me years ago that Stonewall got a fraction of a tradition point because it was an all-walking course.  I'm pretty sure (from the # of points it gets) that Crystal Downs gets some bonus points because it is a MacKenzie design.  But the mother lode of less obvious tradition points goes to courses which have been on the GOLF DIGEST Top 100 (or Best New) in years past:  Greenville Country Club got 3 or 4 points, and that's the only tradition it has!

Tradition points exist to stabilize their list.  Without them, there would be a lot more change and a lot more modern courses, because there are so many courses so close together and there's so much hype about new courses and their definition of a great course is weighted toward long and expensive.  And if there was so much change, their rankings wouldn't look so definitive.

The ridiculous part is that panelists have already factored in "tradition" in their ratings of everything else.  I'd bet everything I own that Seminole gets better votes for "shot values" because Ben Hogan loved it, than an exact replica of Seminole in Iowa would get.  The same goes for Merion, National Golf Links and the rest.  They already get the benefit of the doubt because of their ambience, but then GOLF DIGEST gives them bonus points as well.

I don't think tradition has anything to do with the ultimate quality of a golf course, though there is something to be said for golf courses which have stood the test of time.  And there should be some factor to counteract all the new courses which are spending marketing dollars to promote themselves as fantastic.  I just think "tradition points" have gone far beyond that in GOLF DIGEST's scheme.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think tradition has anything to do with the ultimate quality of a golf course, though there is something to be said for golf courses which have stood the test of time."
Tom Doak

Here, here! Or is it Hear, hear?!

[THuckaby2]

I don't think tradition has anything to do with the ultimate quality of a golf course, though there is something to be said for golf courses which have stood the test of time.  And there should be some factor to counteract all the new courses which are spending marketing dollars to promote themselves as fantastic.  I just think "tradition points" have gone far beyond that in GOLF DIGEST's scheme.

None of these ranking systems are perfect, that's for sure.  We all have our opinions, I am certainly WAY WAY WAY less qualified than Tom Doak on this subject, but I'd say tradition DOES have at least a little something to do with the quality of a golf course...only as a positive, something that adds to the quality, but cannot be denied... it matters to me to walk in the footsteps of Hogan or Jones or Ouimet... to sample the work of MacDonald or MacKenzie or Ross or Raynor...

Just as it is very likely to mean such to future players to play an original Doak...

You just have to be patient, Tom.

New courses can't have it both ways... the laws of physics just won't allow the creation of instant tradition, though places like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes bend these laws to the point of breaking....

And tradition does matter.   People can deny it, but they're fooling themselves.

Thus for me, GD does a pretty damn good job of trying to quantify the unquantifiable....

TH

[THuckaby2]

There, there!

I just disagreed with the exact quote you're trumpeting, TEP.

I just want to point this out for those who give me crap for always agreeing and never saying anything negative!

TH

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Paul -

"Hear, hear" originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of "hear him, hear him".

Twenty inches of snow last week. Hard to stay focused on architecture. Hoping to come down to Alpine CC.

P.S. That was quite a fusillade from Mr. Mucci to open this thread.

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore;

Thanks, I understand now, but in the British Parliament it sounds more like "Hair, hair", correctimundo?

[Matt_Ward]

If you want to spell the word tradition in the context of today's ratings for GD you can start with one simple word -- PROP! As in propping up the ole standby-'s to make sure they stay in the position(s) they presently occupy.

Tom Doak said it plainly, simply and accurately.

The sudden rise of Shadow Creek when it jumped into the GD top ten a few years back caused a great deal of fanfare and controversy. The bottom line is that when you add categories to support the "old guard" you get other legitimate candidates scrambling for what's left.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Paul -

When the number of cable television channels began to grow exponentially, many Americans were transfixed by the broadcasts of the English Parliament on C-SPAN.

The sight of a wig-wearing dandy being shouted down in the middle of a speech was quite compelling. It almost seemed like it was taking place in a pub. This in comparison to a generic United States politician droning on in front of an embarrasingly empty House of Representatives.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Nothing says that you can't sell magazines by having a more candid methodology for establishing ratings.  Or, that you can't sell magazines by removing the fudge factors.

If you feel that there should be a "tradition" category for raters, then the criteria for determining same has to be such that it can be communicated to the raters and consistent in its application.

You can't say, as Tom Doak pointed out, that Seminole gets points because Hogan loved it, and other courses get tradition points for reasons other than having Hogan love it.
There has to be some universal, some standard that requires consistency.

Atlantic has hosted a USGA championship and an MGA championship in its brief existance, shouldn't that give it the maximum points available under tournament, especially when compared to courses that have been around 50-100 years that have hosted nothing in the last 30-40 years.

I find the ambiance factor disengenuous as it's really an age related factor.

Let's discuss the ambiance factor.

The Medalist in Florida has ambiance and more importantly, members and staff make you feel as though you are a member.  I've been to other clubs, that make you feel about as uncomfortable as you can get, yet, they get ambiance points.  That's not just a joke, it strikes to the core of the rating PROCESS/CRITERIA.  It is a material flaw irrespective if it works out for Sand Hills or any other golf course.

Based on the information provided by you and others, it also indicates that two clubs can NEVER be on equal footing if one is from the turn of the century and the other a recent creation.  

To just cite a few clubs as examples,
What tradition does Somerset Hills have ?
What ambiance does Somerset Hills have ?
How does Somerset Hills compare/differ from The Medalist in these two categories ?

Insert Maidstone, NGLA and any other courses you want in this exercise, and I think you'll see the inconsistency, and the need to remove "tradition".

But, that's just my opinion, TEPaul is still wrong.

[Dunlop_White]

Ideally, outside influences, such as “tradition” and “ambience” should not manipulate raters. Although many raters fully understand that the substance of the design outweighs the form of its surrounding parts, (golf tournaments, years of existance, shoe shines, locker rooms, lunch etc.) raters, nevertheless, are human and therefore cannot totally segregate peripheral influences.

Just as juries have difficulty disregarding incriminating, inadmissible evidence, raters too are inherently prejudiced by the subjectivities which bookend a round.  

Since extrinsic matters, such as “tradition” and “ambience”, naturally influence many panelists anyway, then why do golf publications find it necessary to list them specifically as criteria?  Tom Doak is right!

By doing so, they are sending a deleterious message to architects, developers, and golf clubs across the world. In an attempt to bolster their recognition and ranking, many golf clubs sadly struggle to create “ambience” when it is much better being natural and unforced.

[TEPaul]

"If you want to spell the word tradition in the context of today's ratings for GD you can start with one simple word -- PROP! As in propping up the ole standby-'s to make sure they stay in the position(s) they presently occupy"

I just love it! These rating people really do take themselves sooo seriously, don't they?

PROP, is it? You guys really think you're keeping the old architecture afloat?! In my opinion, the best possible thing that could happen to the great old architecture is to have those magazines and their rankings take the great old pre WW2 architecture off those magazine lists altogether! They don't need the magazines--they never did.

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Mucci:

It's all very simple to me.

Tell me the "feel" is the same at The Medalist as it is at NGLA.

Then tell me NGLA doesn't deserve some positive "points" for this "feel".

That's all that tradition, ambiance, whatever you want to call it is. You have ambiance all wrong by the way - it has NOTHING to do with service or being made to feel like a member or anything like that - go read the definition again.  Rustic Canyon has ambianbce out the wazoo and it is brand new and there is literally zero service there (intentionally) and no members.  Ambiance as defined has NOTHING to do with service, or age for that matter, though the latter can help.

In any case, using the correct definitions, it does all matter - all three criteria add to the greatness of the golf course.  And yes, there are some things that only a course of age can have.  I see no problem with that.

No, this isn't "fair" to the Tom Doaks and Gil Hanses of the world.

But at some point in the future, Tom Doak and Gil Hanse will be on the other side of this, as Pete Dye is rapidly becoming... patience.

And in any case, none of this was meant to be fair. Golf Digest or any of the magazines don't have to answer to you or me or anyone - they do what they do, for their own reasons, and it's just unfortunate how seriously this whole silly exercise is taken.

TH


ps - I've never been to Somerset Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

"Feel" is subjective at best.

Are you talking about the "feel" of the golf course, or the "feel"
of the clubhouse, pro-shop, staff, etc., etc..

Ambiance is the pervading atmosphere, and if one "feels" that the club is "cold" to them, why on earth would you award it points for mistreating you ?

It would seem prudent to stick to the architecture and leave the intangibles out of it.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick.

I am sensing why Tom Paul battles with you so.

Ambiance is absolutely NOT the pervading atmosphere, as it pertains to anything but the golf course itself...To use an example close to my heart, I was treated like absolute dog shit at Chicago GC, but I'd give it very high ratings for ambiance, given that the definition of such is:

"how well does the overall feel and atmosphere OF THE COURSE reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game of golf?" (caps added by me)

The "service" sucked and I was made to feel very third-class and made to know absolutely that I didn't belong.  Nevertheless, the place oozed "traditional values of the game of golf"... the CBMac design was enough for that to come through no matter what the people there did to me.

Maybe this helps, maybe not.

And yes, this is very subjective.  What part of evaluation of golf course architecture isn't?  You really think you can scientifically, objectively quantify all the rest?

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()