[Guest]

texsport,

It is all scientifically worthless. "truthfully" "valid"? You are joking right?

Statistically evaluating your version of the "truth", unless done by an all-knowing God, will result in an imperfect analysis the only worth of which is that it sort of satisfies YOUR biased preference for certain aspects of the game of golf. While I share your high regard for shotmaking as an important part of golf, I do not share either your leap of faith into statistical analysis of purely subjective "data" or your apparent certainty that golf's version of the Dead Sea Scrolls would speak only of architecture.

[THuckaby2]

Tom H- Why are you a rater? If there is no larger purpose why the heck would anyone want to do it?

Adam:  because it's fun, because it allows me to see a lot of golf courses I otherwise wouldn't be able to, because I was invited to do it, and because I felt I could give a different perspective than most other "raters", coming from the muni background that I do.

I do NCGA "course rating" for a higher purpose...

Did you expect a different answer?

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

It seems wierd to argue about who is willing to read about golf architecture. I think Brad Klein's articles are subtle about hitting the reader over the head with the architecture talk. But He does seem to have the "values" down. I remebmber his descriptions of Prarie Dunes, and how while reading it I felt the windswept grasslands along with the roll on the greens. It was subtle. I would think that the subtle could use a point counter-point and Gib would be perfect. His bash you over the head approach to writting is a perfect compliment and will step-up the educational process for the few, the proud, the GCA  junkies.

Tom H- I did expect excatly what you wrote   but the higher purpose with the ncga escapes me. Is that political posturing or is there some inequity you want to correct as it relates to the rating of some of your haunts?

[THuckaby2]

Adam:  I'm only a bit removed from politics as it pertains to golf.  Peon here, remember?    And no, I like the handicapping system as it is... so I see nothing I want to correct, really, even if I could.

No, my only thinking re that type of rating as a higher purpose is that that actually involves a bit of study and WORK, and thus isn't 100% "fun" for me, as the other type is.  John V. and the others here who do this can attest that course rating in this sense is damn complex, and if you do it RIGHT, takes a lot of concentration and effort.  So for me, while it still is a lot of fun, it at least in some sense is "giving back to the game", to use a stupid trite phrase...

TH

[texsport]

texsport,

It is all scientifically worthless. "truthfully" "valid"? You are joking right?

Statistically evaluating your version of the "truth", unless done by an all-knowing God, will result in an imperfect analysis the only worth of which is that it sort of satisfies YOUR biased preference for certain aspects of the game of golf. While I share your high regard for shotmaking as an important part of golf, I do not share either your leap of faith into statistical analysis of purely subjective "data" or your apparent certainty that golf's version of the Dead Sea Scrolls would speak only of architecture.

Don't know what you mean by my biased version of some aspects of the game. The game is, and will always be, getting the ball into 18 holes in as few strokes as possible. If that's biased then I plead guilty.

Seems to me it's Golf Digest that is trying to act as the "all-knowing God" . Splashing The Best 100 Golf Courses across the front of the magazine, including a tear out insert, plus publishing a whole annual book declaring their adjudged list is pretty good evidence. In other words,we're talking about GD's biased opinion, the worth of which is the issue here.

In my admittedly  biased opinion, and please excuse my ignorance,"Best Courses" should mean just that-not who has the most asthetically appealing clubhouse collection of photos from some 1930's U.S.Open played on their course. This is especially true when the course is no longer a good enough test to hold any modern professional tournament.

Golf is a changing game and courses that don't change to keep up are antiques. This is the best reason for rating classic and modern courses. I've got nothing against the preservation of historical sites.


Obviously many old courses have updated their layouts to stay competitive, but those that haven't should not be rated as highly primarily on the basis of past glory.

To each his own and I'll take courses that are true tests of my version of the game with modern equipment in play without regard to frills that have no effect on my score.


Texsport

[THuckaby2]

To each his own and I'll take courses that are true tests of my version of the game with modern equipment in play without regard to frills that have no effect on my score.
Texsport

To each his own most definitely - it is a big beautiful golf world.  But the essence here is that if I play The Country Club, when I get to 17 green I'm gonna be so much looking for ghosts of Ouimet and trying to find the spot Leonard hit his putt from, hell yes it will have an effect on my score - way more so than if they somehow lengthened the hole 50 yards or put in additional hazards... Just two very different ways to look at things.  History does effect me... and I am certainly not alone in this.  Beyond that, the fact TCC remains such a great test for players today, as much if not more so that it was for Ouiment, well, it ought to get credit for standing the test of time.

THAT is why TCC gets "points" for "tradition."  Many think this is wrong, and more power to those who do.  I can absolutely understand the logic.  Hopefully you can understand the other way of thinking, in any case....

TH

ps - GD course rating panelists are not paid a cent - all that is allowed to be accepted is gratis green fees, and only when such are offered (it's not to be expected).  A handicap of 3 or less is also required.  "Frills" such as you seem to think are also not a part of the equation.  Go re-read this thread if you care to know what is.  I say this not to be confrontational at all - I like the way you think, actually - but this should hopefully just clear up some misconceptions you seem to have.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

TCC may be a bad example.

The golf course that Leonard holed his putt during the Ryder Cup is a course that few, if any, ever play.

It is a hybrid and a composite.

The second hole changes from a par 4 to a par 3, the 9th and 10th holes are eliminated, as is # 12, then the first two holes of another nine, a par 4 and a par 3 are combined to make a par 4, the third hole from the other nine is converted from a par 5 to a par 4, and then the last hole from the other nine is put into play as # 13.

It is the most contrived of arrangements.

How can anyone seriously rate a hybrid course that is rarely if ever played by anyone.

It would be akin to rating the Ridgewood golf course based upon its hybrid configuration for the Senior PGA Tour Championship.  Day in and day out, for the last 70 years, noone has ever played that course, and going forward, if it's played that way one day a year it would be a lot.

So, now I go back to Tradition.

How can you award tradition points for a golf course that exists for one day a year, maybe ?

Shouldn't the golf course, that exists day in and day out, for the members, be the course that's evaluated, or should we start combining hybrid courses from Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Montclair, Upper Montclair, Ridgewood, Pinehurst, Doral, and other 27 and 36 hole layouts ?

What course did Ouimet play ?

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:  

TCC was just a convenient example, given I just read a great book about it!  This wasn't meant to stand up in court.  Let's just assume I can play the "composite course" for purposes of this illustration, ok?

There are many, many, many other examples - TCC was just obvious and close at hand.  As I said, I've never been there.  If I do play there, damn right I'll find the right green where the Ouimet and Leonard heorics took place... and whatever course that happens to be on, that one gets points for tradition.  How's that?

But is is a bad example, mea culpa.

How about Pebble Beach?  Each time I've come to 17, the thought of Jack hitting the pin and Watson striking the chip that made me throw things at the TV dominates my play far more than any sand, distance, or ocean.... is that better?

TH

[Guest]

Texsport,

You wrote, "To each his own". Well said. That should be the sentiment of everyone after reading this thread. Of course, that is just my bias. Not everyone will graciously let others, including GD, go their own way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Pebble Beach has a strong history by any criteria,
Amateur, PGA tour and USGA.

In an earlier example I cited Kitanssett, which hosted a Walker Cup 50 or so years ago.  By what criteria are they judged if that's their sole contribution to tournament golf at a State, Regional or National basis.

How would they compare to Atlantic, which, in it's 11 year existance has hosted USGA and MGA tournaments, with others possibly on the horizon ??

So you don't get the wrong impression, I like TCC a great deal.
It has a special significance to me since I played one of my best rounds ever, the first time I played it, in a member-guest with a host and a fellow partner that I had never met, along with a client of mine that I was meeting with for the second time.  I made a point of playing the third nine after the tournament, and have returned, but never so successfully.

History and tradition exude from the grounds and clubhouse.
I just find the rating of a hybrid, composite course, a little disengenuous.  But, try to get there, you'll love it.

[Emanon]

Guest,

Come on now, after that psuedo scientific counter blather directed at Texsport, you're now saying GD should be allowed to go their own way??  Can't imagine them not, with their history at rating courses..

It appears the original premise of this thread is still valid, there is no consistent rhyme or reason guiding the overall input data's generation by raters, honest and as forthright as they may be in trying to fulfill their lofty objectives. Thus, like computer GIGO.. Garbage In Garbage Out.  Just because the ratings have 8 decimal places (or subcategorizations) doesn't mean any are really significant.

Graciously we go.. Naaaahhhhhh!!  

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
Look at all these dog tracks nominated by those Golf Digest guys!  What on earth are they thinking  

PEBBLE BEACH, PINE VALLEY, AUGUSTA NATIONAL, CYPRESS POINT, OAKMONT, SHINNECOCK HILLS, MERION, WINGED FOOT West, PINEHURST #2,OAKLAND HILLS South, OLYMPIC Lake, SEMINOLE , BROOKLINE, MEDINAH C.C. #3, SOUTHERN HILLS, NATIONAL GOLF LINKS, MUIRFIELD VILLAGE, SAN FRANCISCO, CRYSTAL DOWNS, QUAKER RIDGE, RIVIERA, LOS ANGELES North, OAK HILL East, INVERNESS, CHERRY HILLS, PRAIRIE DUNES, GARDEN CITY, BALTUSROL Lower, SCIOTO, OLYMPIA FIELDS North, SHADOW CREEK, WINGED FOOT East, PEACHTREE, SPYGLASS HILL, WANNAMOISETT, SAND HILLS, WADE HAMPTON, INTERLACHEN, THE GOLF CLUB, COLONIAL, BANDON DUNES, MAIDSTONE CLUB, CHICAGO, FISHERS ISLAND, SOMERSET HILLS, BETHPAGE BLACK, PLAINFIELD, CASCADES, KITTANSETT, MILWAUKEE

I know some of you are hung on the "correct" order!  Personally, I'm not.  But I'd appreciate if those of you who know the correct order would arrange them for me.  It would also help if you explained why!  Oh and feel free to toss out any courses that are a complete waste of time!  
Mark

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:  very well, this all makes great sense to me.  And I never doubted you would like TCC - from all accounts, it's hard not to like the place!  It was indeed a bad example though and my mea culpa is sincere.  I was just trying to explain how little thought I gave to the choice of that...  

Now re your questions, well... I'd say in this case, tradition is in the eye of the beholder.  So if the MGA has meaning to you, then it gains "points" in your eyes.  Course such as that, therefore, will get few "points" for tradition, as it is meaningful only to a minority.  Courses such as Pebble where we all saw it on TV would get far greater weight here.  Again, this is patently unfair, but to me none of this was ever supposed to be fair, so who cares?

The biggest point to me remains that denying the influence of "history" or "tradition" or "staying power" is silly.  It exists, and at least a certain category of golfers feels it at courses that have it.

TH

[Steve Lang]

Agreed.  A great set of courses, a nice distribution of a bunch of features that make course great.  How about all those par 4's at Inverness??  

Why not bunch them by age to help educate folks and by dates of last restoration etc, the only real facts about them?  

Why do they have to be given a ranking number on an arbitrary fudged scale, over and over and over again? Because it sells paper!  

I vote with my wallet GD, this stuff won't bring me back, but you don't seem to care.. a pity.    

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

TH--

One of the points made earlier is that raters factor in tradition already (like you were saying you would do on the 17th at The Country Club).  Adding additional points for "tradition" is a bit of overkill.  Believe me, I'd much prefer that The Ocean Course sat at 38th (without the added "tradition" category) rather than 67th which it is with "tradition..."

[Mr. KISS]

Rankings are subjective and based on the criteria used.  By incorporating a tradition criteria into its rankings, Golf Digest is by definition not ranking golf courses solely on the basis of their ARCHITECTURE.

But if you eliminate the tradition element from GD's rankings, as Mike Vegis@Kiawah did, the revised list will most likely not reflect a ranking based solely on ARCHITECTURE to many people because the other non-tradition criteria used most probably don't reflect their views on architecture either.  For example, if you believe that great architecture is reflected by an ability to challenge and provide options to many different classes of players, and not just scratch golfers, then GD's reliance on the resistance to scoring by scratch golfers makes no sense either.

[THuckaby2]

Gotcha, Mike.  And I understand this... But I for one would not "double dip" in this way.  The only criteria in which Ouimet and Vardon would matter in the evaluation is "ambiance".  It would not matter in any others... I was just trying to explain how it DOES effect shot-making, for those who think that's all that should count.  But specific criteria get specific ratings, at least how I do it.  I can see it as a danger, though... one ought to be quite careful with this.

Interesting... to me Kiawah Ocean would get damn good points for ambiance and it surely has a great tournament history... Yours is a fine example for those who see fudge facftor, that's for sure!  

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Kiss,

The problem is the category, "tradition"

We're told that this is composed of three (3) sub-set categories, however, no one has defined the evaluative process within those sub-sets, and someone indicated that one particular sub-set, "tournament history" is provided by the magazine.

I just want to know how "tournament history" is determined.
What are the criteria in terms of time frames, and the organization hosting the tournament.

Surely there must be an established, published guideline.

If not, how could one gain a sense of relativity, and a sense of understanding on the evaluative process ?

Tom Huckaby,

If everyone used their own interpretation of tournament history, you'd have no consistency and no reliable standard for comparison/evaluation, hence the results would be seriously flawed.

Does three invitationals equal one regional, and five regionals equal one USGA ?  There has to be a consistent criteria on which to base one's evaluation of the category.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I guess I'm not sure why that matters if the panelists don't rate it?  They only contribute on the ambience aspect of tradition (the 40% portion) and that I believe was defined above.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

If the magazine is going to make a list, ranking clubs, creating relativity, then they have an obligation to their readers to disclose the formula or criteria that generated the rating.

They have an obligation to provide the basis for comparison.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

That long list of capitalized golf courses in your post! What's that supposed to indicate--how clever and necessary Golf Digest is to list them?

Only trouble is almost ever course you listed has been well received and quite famous in America long before Golf Digest was in diapers and receiving toilet training!

But now you think Golf Digest is all important, with or without its "traditions" points and criteria to keep them where they've always been?

No way.

[Dead Gophers of Boston]

Here's de plan.. we sneak into GD's warehouse, heist the remaining issues of the rankings issue, or any other issue there and SUV them over to the Constitution's dock.. expensive ride but real comfortable and showy too, cause its a nice backdrop against the old boat.. lots of tradition and contrast there,  we call the local and national press and film the modern Boston tee party to free us from the rankings anarchy we find self evident.

[TEPaul]

God I love Boston! They've always had the best revolutionaries in America!

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
GD in my opinion gives too much detail on their criteria and that is why sites like this jump on them.  

What is Golf Magazines criteria for their list!  What is Golfweek's?  Do either of these explain how they weight things?  Golf Magazine doesn't even have criteria!  

I said before, it's not so much the criteria as it is the panelists!

If you think the panelists are questionable, so be it.  Maybe many of us are.  But at least a good number of them get out there and are studying the golf courses "in the field" and you at least have to give them credit for that.  
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I've heard it said that 99% of GD raters are clueless?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()