[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Ron Whitten described it to me this way:  

Ambiance is still misunderstood by most clubs and even a few panelists. It's defined as "how well does the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game.  We don't spell out those traditional values, but leave it up to panelists to decide what values of the game they deem important.  (Personally, walking is a traditional value. I'd abolish the separate walking category and include it here, but I don't run the show.) It's the one area where panelists are allowed to consider ancillary things, such as clubhouses and caddie programs, in our survey. I could care less about the size of shower heads in the locker room (but some of our editors love that stuff.) On the other hand, I think barber shop poles in the middle of the fairway at 150 out don't reflect traditional values, nor do GPS systems or even red/blue/white markers in the fairway. Yardages determined by caddies reflects the grand old game, but that's a game of the past at most places.

"Right now, I'm guessing most panelists deem residential development courses to be "non-traditional" and thus lower in Ambiance than core courses. (Ironicly, of course, is that one of America's oldest residential courses -- Pebble Beach -- is now No. 1.) If that's the case, The Ocean Course should do pretty well in Ambiance. But that's just my guess. Without seeing written comments or talking with panelists (which I haven't done with this latest survey), I don't know what most were thinking.

Of course, The Ocean Course doing well in the panelist's ambiance rating did us no good since we weren't old enough to reap the benefits...

[THuckaby2]

Thank you once again, Mike.

I am happy to see that I've been doing ambiance ratings "correctly", as my take on it is damn near exactly the same as Whitten's.

TH

[john stiles]

Re: Mike Vegis' post and the numbers,

Mike,

How did you arrive at the list of rankings without tradition ?
The ranking lists,  even assuming the top 100 (w/tradition) was used to generate a ranking of only these top 100 without tradition,  still look odd.

The 'real'  list of top 100 without tradition would be interesting.   If someone has the real ranking for courses without tradition, please post that list.

What looked odd to me is that there were no courses on the  'list with tradition'  that slipped out of the top 100 without tradition.  Some courses in the 90-100 range stayed in that range without tradition or with (Aronimink, Wilmington,Greenville, Atlantic, NCR, Shoreacres, etc.).  Some modern courses in the mid range (w/o tradition) stayed inside 100 with tradition (Sanctuary, Crosswater, World Woods, Quarry, Double Eagle, etc).  

The moderns are crowding the 50-100 range and taking hugh hits for tradition by comparison.  GD has long delayed the Golfweek split of Modern and Classics. Considering the new courses coming 'online' and that 'ambiance' will soon count for courses reaching 10 years of age and increasing for these modern courses,   there will be more pressure on the 'classics'.  (ex: of extremes....The Quarry goes from 40 to 91 and while falling, is passed by Canterbury going from 98 to 56.)

Is it that the shot value points (which are doubled) are much greater for moderns given the more modern penal style with the forced carries and more lateral and cross water hazards of this era ?  Maybe shot values shouldn't be doubled since you have a value for scoring resistance.  

Anyway,  making another assumption that the rankings are very tight,  say in the 50 to 100 range,  there are courses making comparatively large leaps up and down the list ....

Hugh jump to a 'better' ranking with tradition.....  Canterbury, Cascades, etc. and the weird bird that gets a much better ranking with tradition is Harbour Town (pullease) .......a great course, significant in its day, a good routing but with almost no ambiance. It must the tradition of going over to Harbour Town after the Masters.   The Honors drops because of tradition (?) but then it could go up the list when it soon reaches 20 years of age ? Goofy.  

Within the top 100,   the movement by 'tradition' is really amazing.  'Tradition' sure seems like a prop...or.....a short term solution to the issues of modern vs classic.

I agree with others that maybe it is good that the classics are dropping off for the sake of the classics.  This might save a classic or two.   Also, I would say that the classics would be much better off, in terms of GCA, if the USGA would hold the men's top events on the newer courses whenever possible ....or....they should start that USGA Open trail with the $$$ in the coffers.....since they will not work on the little white ball and technology issues.   USGA events on the moderns would 'raise' their tradition rating and hurry the classics off the GD rankings.

John

[A_Clay_Man]

I find it interesting that the only justification mentioned so far is to sell magazines. When I heard the Emperor and our Armenian scribe discuss GW role they viwed it as an opportunity to effectuate a change in GCA. I extrapolated their goal to mean "NO MORE CRAP, PLEASE"

For GD I suppose that isn't in their make-up and are more sensitive to the needs of advertisers. I would've thought the newbies would spend more in their marketing blitz's than some stuffed shirt that rests on Laurels or more appropriatly, posteriors.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

All I could do was put the raw numbers from the actual magazine's ranking issue into Excel and manipulate them (by subtracting the "tradition" category).  Obviously, I didn't have the numbers for the courses who came in 101 and above so I would have no way of knowing which courses fell out of the top 100 and which snuck in...  My interest was in where The Ocean Course fell since that's my own special interest...

[THuckaby2]

Adam:  GW's role in the creation of rankings is to effect a change in GCA like my role in life is to dunk on Shaquille.

All of these rankings in the end sell magazines.  GW, Golf, GD, whatever.  They each come at it from different angles but to say GW is somehow rising to a higher purpose that GD is well... not how I see it.

This does not lessen my respect and admiration for the many GW rating panelists I know, nor for Mr. Klein.  Of all the national magazines GW does do the best job of evaluation and analysis, no doubt.  But come on, without selling the magazine none of this exists.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

TOM, TOM, TOM,

Using TEPaul's name is similar to Harry Potter and the mention of the name Valdemort, it's not safe to do so, he may be lurking.

You referenced the term "Ambiance" as a rating category.

Webster's dictionary defines "Ambiance" as:
"the pervading atmosphere"

If someone is going to use a word, a term, I can only go by its accepted definition, not someone else's interpretation.

Mike's explanation refined what Ron Whitten meant by the term, "ambiance".

Perhaps, "the absence of artificial aids and devices"  would better define what raters are to look for, as opposed to ambiance.

Is there a difference in a club with marked sprinkler heads and another club where the sprinkler heads aren't marked, but the pro shop sells a book showing the yardages from every sprinkler head, tee, bunker etc., etc. ?

I would be curious to know how Pebble Beach, Winged Foot and Quaker Ridge were viewed in the adjacent housing context, especially in comparison with some residential community courses.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Sorry for the triple name use - my parents used to do that all the time - still do - shaking their heads as they say it.  I've started to do it myself with my kids.  Odd habit.

You continue to strangely miss the boat on this, which prompted the triple name.  Maybe Mr. Paul would not find this strange... and hush!  Whisper when you mention he who's name cannot be said.  

In any case, if we are going to discuss and critique the Golf Digest ranking system, how can we do anything else than use THEIR definitions?  Yes, "ambiance" has a far different meaning in Webster's.  But we're not discussing if the Webster's "ambiance" counts for golf course evaulation - your post pondered the value of the GOLF DIGEST use of "tradition".  They give percentage value to a term they call "ambiance."  Thus it makes no sense to evaluate anything but their term... That is, unless you want to completely change the question.

Do you?

Sticking to the first question, I continue to believe GD does a fine job of attempting to quantify what really is unquantifiable.

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

You'd disagree that this concept matters for golf courses?

If so, then fair enough.  I believe you do disagree, and that's fundamental to all of this, so we shall never come to any common ground here. That's certainly ok also... But let's get straight where our differences are as well!

TH

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Boys, Boys, Boys (oops, now you've got me doing it), let's not bicker.  We all owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Golf Digest and Ron Whitten.  Had they not come up with the top 100 list so many years ago, I'm quite sure the brotherhood of GCA junkies would be much, much smaller.  I doubt there would even be a GCA website.  The appreciation for the nuances of architecture would be totally lost except for a very few truly hard-core.  Such lists opened the subtlety of design to the masses, including many of us who post here...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Until Mike Vegis provided the intended definition and use of the word for Golf Digest, neither of us knew precisely what they meant by it.  And, I would suspect that other raters weren't clear on the context in which it should be applied.

I'm not critical of Golf Digest's rankings, or any other rankings.

I do have questions about the process or methodology used.

And, I would agree with the subtracting of points for barber poles or big plastic dishes in the fairway, as well as other artificial devices/markers.

The other area that I question is the adjacent housing issue, and it's universal, consistent application.  For example, you can't take points off of Applebrook for the housing on # 18 and not do the same for # 18 at Pebble Beach.

Anyone who thinks that Rankings only sell magazines, isn't giving them enough credit.  They do far more, and can be valueable to a golf club if viewed properly.

[THuckaby2]

Mike - this isn't bickering!  I find all this to be pretty darn civil... Oh, I can bicker if you want...  

Patrick:  we're not as far apart on this as it would seem.  I suppose I got fooled by your sequential questions:

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

What is tradition in the "Golf Digest" context ?"

and the fact that you referenced Mike's re-compilation of the Golf Digest list... I thought this was far more about Golf Digest specifically than the concept in general.

[SNOTTY ASIDE:  I for one have always been quite clear on what Golf Digest means, and I provided the definition.  I do however understand that Mike's quote from Whitten clarified things.  Of course I never had any question... but that's just me!]

In any event, I personally would prefer that the entire concept be just "bonus points" which can be added for those deserving - ie those Doak says have stood the test of time - and this can't be far from what Golf Digest does, can it?  I wouldn't subtract points for artificial devices - I'd ADD points for those who avoid such, or come up with creative, traditional means to convey the information.  I'd also certainly not make that the bellweather for all of this, by any means.  Everything that effects whether a course reflects and upholds the traditional values of the game of golf would matter.  As you can see, I like the GD definition.  

As for adjacent housing, that's certainly not a defined criterion, not by Golf Digest anyway...

But if it is to count, universal application would be wise, certainly.  I can't see it always being a negative anyway... the houses adjacent to Pebble are certainly not the same as the slummish condos adjacent to SFGC, for example....

TH

[THuckaby2]

No Dave, this isn't Russia.  At least I didn't think it was.  

Interesting... your methodology seems to be pretty much how Golf Week does things, at least how I understand it from talking to all the GW raters we know.  That's a fine way also.  But this "I know what I like when I see it" methodology without any particulars is the most subjective of all.  I don't have any problem with that whatsoever... it just has to be made clear from the start that's all the list is: a list of what a fairly small group of people like and don't like.

Golf Digest just takes a different tack, and does try to quantify all of this, with data from a much larger group.

Golf Magazine has an even smaller group, and it's even more subjective - no numerical values at all, just a straight ranking of what's better than others.

Each way is valuable.  There's no right or wrong way to do this.  And there are many other ways it could be done also, I'm sure!  Rich wants the Michelin star system, you want what you state - that's all great.

One way or the other, we're never gonna agree... and that's the fun of it.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

The issue boils down what is the core emphasis on any course assessment?

The addition of "tradition" is a clever outside attempt to skew the final outcome so that certain "classic" courses remain viable (defined by their continuing status within GD's top 100). Think of the points that go to courses that have hosted major championships but have little heft architecturally? There are plenty of people who sadly still provide support for courses that garner high marks for visibility on television.  

When a course is rated the central and all important aspect is the analysis of the type of shots and holes you encounter, in my opinion. The additional critteria have been added to thrwart many of the newer courses from edging further up in the standings.

When the word "tradition" is added it's clear the attempt is preserve the past even when the chief merits (see my top priority mentioned above) don't justify it. I've said it before many times there are a number of outstanding courses that have opened within the last 25 years, however, because the space above them is occupied by other courses that are "propped" up by periphery categories you get a very static listing. That's why it's good to have a different take on ratings that you see with GolfWeek because "modern" designs are indeed mentioned. However, I'd still like to see a ratings that highlights the areas of primary emphasis I previously outlined.

When people start adding into the equation the merits of the clubhouse or the size of the shower heads, to name just two, these are the same type of people who measure the quality of the restaurant by the types of curtains that hang in the facility. Tom Doak said it best regarding the "double whammy" effect that already takes place because there are way too many panelists who are awed by the name of course "x" simply because Hogan / Nicklaus, et al played there. These courses receive a small, but significant, "boost" prior to the creation of such categories like "tradition" and "walking." When you add these other categories you get the margin necessary for them to remain rated within the top 100.

Look, ratings is subjective, we all know that, but it's the "core" areas that should drive the process. Weighing down the selection process with esoteric and inane categories only serves to confuse rather than clarify what is really superb architecture / golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

The quality (?) of the adjacent housing can be the luck of the draw or neighborhood, and the value of the home shouldn't be a consideration in evaluating the quality of the architecture.

On the first tee at Pebble, a three story hotel wing parallels the right side, the big homes come later in the round.

Dave Schmidt,

No, this isn't Russia, but then again, what is these days ?

[texsport]

Golf Digest's rating system is like the all exempt tour. Everyone knows that there are better players/courses out there but they can't get into the big time because of the system.

I haven't paid any attention to GD's ratings for a long time because of the biased system. When I've sent questions to the editor, pointing out that the magazine's publication of their ratings as "The Best Golf Courses",  they are not being truthful because of the biases built into the sytem. Tradition, walking (when 90% of the golfers including the majority of their course raters ride), ambiance, and history have nothing to do with a player hitting quality shots. The best course should be the best playing course-nothing more-nothing less.

I've suggested that GD publish alternate ratings based on the quality of the golf course alone. Haven't seen it happen yet but maybe it eventually will.

I agree that the purpose of the ratings is to sell magazines but I also think that selling advertizing to want-a-be courses is part of the equation.

I repeat, I never even look at their ratings any more.

Texsport

[Dan King]

I love these arguments: Our useless, meaningless numbers are much more meaningful than your useless, meaningless numbers.

Mike Vegis @ Kiawah writes:
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the likes of Golf Digest and Ron Whitten.

Why? What have these rankings done to advance golf course architecture? They've done plenty of harm, but what is the good they have done that deserves gratitude?

I've been trying to rank the various days of my life. There was my wedding day, then again there was also when we got divorced. There were the days my children were born, but then there was that day with two young hookers in Reno named Good and Plenty. Sure as a day that affected my life, the birth of my children was huge, but I can't see a pack of Good 'n Plenty and not think found thoughts.

It sure is tough to rank totally unrelated things.

Dan King

Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

[THuckaby2]

Well, you know how you and I fundamentally disagree on this, Matt.  I'd say with conviction that in an analyis of The Country Club, for example, the clubhouse, shower heads, etc. obviously shouldn't matter for squat, but the fact that Ouimet defeated Vardon and Ray in a playoff there, and the fact this course remains as great today as it was then DOES matter.  I've never played there but I'd guarantee you I'd feel the ghosts of those greats if I did.  To somehow not have that "count" is silly.  To me, trying to make the same putt Ouimet did... on the same green Leonard performed his feats so many years later... that is all part of The Country Club and denying this to somehow make things "fair" for modern courses is silly.  

But hey, it's a big beautiful golf world, and to each his own.

One final point:  in any ranking system we've discussed, the "core areas" DO drive the process.  "Tradition" is just one of the criteria for GD, as you well know.  

You say it shouldn't count, I say it should.  That's just fine.  But remember it is just a small part of the whole... One could just as easily argue the "fudge factor" comes in any of the other criteria.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Interesting, Dan... and strange that I too have tried to rank the days of my life.  Strange how I have no problem with the worst... it's the best that's tough. But I haven't experienced Good and Plenty!

The whole thing is silly beyond a doubt.  Unfortunately, the rankings are taken so seriously and mean so much money, it's tough to wish them away.. as much good as this would do, for golf, and for golf architecture... Thus to me, this discussion of silliness is worthwhile... at least as much as Haiku Tuesday, anyway.  

TH

[guest]

Dave,

In tennis, it is the number of sets won that counts. You can win more games and lose, but not sets. And this is not Russia where you can win more battles and still lose the war.

Others,

In this volley of words, Tom seems to be winning the war by simply stating that THIS is how the GD ratings work. If you want to start your own ratings system, feel free. But GD is what it is. It is NOT set up to ONLY value golf architecture. If you want that ranking setup, then great. But what is the point of trying to tell the rabbit it should fly? If you want a ranking setup that flys, find one that flys and leave the rabbit alone. And let us all know when you have perfected your ranking system that deals with course architecture only. That will probably make for a thread that goes on longer than the Bridge thread. Hold on to your hats.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan K:

You're right -- after Good and Plenty -- who needs to rank golf courses! What a silly waste of time when other pursuits are available.

Tom H:

When you speak about fudge let me remind you that GD is the one doing the fudging with the insertion of non-course related criteria. Don't you think many of the ole-guard were "upset" that Shadow Creek pushed into the top ten not too long ago?
Tom, help me understand what the "fudge" is when you look simply and plainly at the holes and the shots that are required. That is golf -- right? The showerheads represent what -- you've got to help me out with that one! Ditto, all the BS that's calculated into the mix to do what -- prop up the older courses that could not continue if such categories were eliminated. I know a "fix" when I see one -- it's no different than giving one team four downs to make a first down and another "older" team five downs.

Look, it's great that Francis O whipped Ray and Vardon's butt at TCC. It's a historical fact no doubt and one that elevated golf in America greatly, however, it's the quality of the course TODAY that counts. When ratings do in fact come out it's the merits of the holes TODAY -- not from nearly 100 years ago that needs to be assessed. I'm not downplaying the significance of the event in 1913, but course ratings are not past oriented they are based on existing situations. If events have happened there (i.e. major championships) that's great but it should not be some sort of all-important consideration or factor.

When one starts handing out points for an additional boost you penalize modern courses, and even other older courses, that have significant "core" strengths.

You're right Tom -- we do disagree. But texsport said it best in his post. Ratings can only be taken seriously, if at all, when they are credible. When esoteric criteria are thrown into the mix and reasonable people can see what is being so cleverly done you have a skewed representaton on what is deemed the "best."

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

First, I never said that shower heads mattered.  Read my post again, if you care to.

So ok, potato, potahto, and yes, we can call this whole thing off.  We came to no common ground before, and I have no hopes we can now.  I seem to be an emotional golfer, you seem to deal more with the here and now.  That's ok, there are more of you than there are of me.  But if you can play The Country Club and not feel the magic, well.... that says it all, to me.  This all comes back to the Shinnecock/NGLA distiniction once again!

I'm also just not nearly as cynical as you and prefer to believe, however naively, that Golf Digest does what it says it is going to do, and doesn't use "tradition" as a manipulation of the results, as you and so many others claim.  Mr. Whitten's words speak loudly to me, and I prefer to take them at face value.

In any case, the most important point of all is that there are many ways to do this, many ways this IS done, and they are all rather silly.

To me, the GD ratings are credible.  They also take into account something which to me, and dare I say the vast majority of golfers, does matter:  what GD defines as "tradition."

But then, I'm new to this, and I like to look at the good rather than seek out the bad.

And I'm not going to change in that respect.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

I think these "rankings" discussions are amusing.  They've been going on as long as I can remember and nothing changes.   Face it guys, it's NOT the criteria, it's the panelists that impact the rankings.  Yes there is a "fudge factor" if you want to call it that but all panelists know this and take that into consideration in their reviews!  At the end of the day, it's the knowledge and experience of the panelists that primarily determine where courses fall on the list.  I keep my own personal list which happens to be quite different from GD's and I place the courses accordingly and this is reflected in my reviews.  Also, if you notice, the "tradition" numbers don't change much from year to year.  If course XXX got a 4.3 one year it probably will get something similar the following review period.  

By the way, unlike Ron and a few others, I happen to love those huge shower heads like you find at Merion, Garden City, Seminole, etc.  But guess what, they don't impact what numbers I put down on my review    
Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Tom H:

Guest is quite right -- there are other ways to get to Rome. The GD ratings are just one opinion -- nothing more and nothing less. We clearly don't need another Bridge thread do me now.

Tom, please do not believe I'm cynical -- I'm just speaking plainly from my experiences. Again -- nothing more and nothing less.

Mark F:

Glad to know you apply "core" elements, but please don't dismiss the fact that just the simple inclusion of these "added" points has a very large impact on which courses stay and which courses are eliminated from consideration.

Would love to see your personal listing though! Bring it to Alpine on January 11 partner if you dare ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

If we accepted everything, just the way it is, with no constructive criticism, progress would be impossible.

[john stiles]

Re: this funny topic

If I am reading GD rating system correctly, and if the course is 'old' enough,   ambiance maybe counts 1.4 times (once for ambiance and then again as 40% of tradition) ....... huh ?

As others said........maybe the rankings can sell magazines but that is small potatoes to resort trips, resort pricing,  property, memberships, advertisement in magazines, etc.  

Although there is a limit for tradition,  it sure matters as you can see course rankings, even within the top 100,  bounce way up or down by Mike Vegis' posting.

Maybe a wine type rating with a doak qualifier ....so that a course might be a  50  +9.  The  +9 doak qualifier would be for GCA.  You don't add the two but you consider both when making golf arrangements....maybe like a tyre, you say it is a 50 GCA 9.   Split the rankings into modern and classic and then add the doak qualifier.  Those 'other' golfers have their number and GCA golfers have theirs.

So like an Old Town might be, on the classic,  ...say   80 GCA 8

John

ps >>    excerpt from GD Whitten article......    "Ambience: How well does the overall feel and atmosphere reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game ? "

" Bonus Tradition Points consist of three parts: 20 percent Tournament History, 40 percent Architectural History and 40 percent Ambiance.   A course can earn Tournament History points for conducting national events--a bigger number for majors, a smaller one for tour events. Some courses, such as Pebble Beach and Augusta National, have long since reached the maximum allowable points in this portion of Tradition.
Architectural History points are earned for each appearance on America's 100 Greatest or other Golf Digest rankings. Courses deemed significant in the history of design also earn points.

The Ambiance portion is an average of all panelists' scores in that category. To earn any part of the Ambiance score, a course must be at least 10 years old. The older a course gets, the greater the Ambiance score it receives.

The maximum for Bonus Tradition Points is 10. Since Ambiance fluctuates with each new panelist ballot, Bonus Tradition Points will go up and down from survey to survey."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()