[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The ratings are useful, especially for those who are just getting into the game. By identifying the best courses and the best golf architects, the newcomer has a point of reference by which to judge the 'best'. However as time goes by and you develop a genuine interest in golf architecture, the rankings become less important. There are plenty of courses that are ranked that I have no desire to see and likewise there have been many courses that are not ranked that I have gone out of my way to play (and glad I did). In my mind there is a big difference between a golf course collector and a golf architecture aficionado.

[Ran Morrissett]

I define the value of any rating by:

1) who is doing it (i.e do I respect the opinion of the people on the panel)?

2) the system that they are to adhere to when voting.

Hence, I like GOLF Magazine's the best as there is no system (any system is doomed to fail) and there are a lot of people on the panel whose opinion matters to me.

Regardless, it seems to me that it's pretty scary for owners/clubs to let panelists on to their course.  Look at this DG - some of the most boneheaded posts have come from Golf Digest panelists :-/  , which highlights the huge variance that exists within one magazine's own group of raters.

Cheers,

[Mike Nuzzo]

To Matt's original question I'd like to share an experience describing the usefullness of ratings:

During my move from NJ to Houston a couple of years ago, I decided to drive and hit the best public courses I could find and coordinate arriving in a reasonable time relative to our stuff on the moving truck (the Mrs. flew down).
So prior to finding this great site or knowing any better I ranked my possible courses using primarily Golf Mags top you can play, and Digest's best of state (LA) for one stop.
Here is what I wound up with:

Pine Barrens - NJ
Royal New Kent - VA
Stonehouse - VA
Pinehurst #2 (twice), #4, #7, #6 - NC
Kiawah Ocean - SC
TPC Sawgrass - FL
Cambrian Ridge (Jones Trail) - AL
Bluffs on Thompson Creek - LA
Houstonian - TX

Needless to say I could do a little better today, but in retrospect it still makes for an extremely enjoyable and educational trip.
Hint - it wasn't the most direct route.  

Aside from being something to argue about, ratings do have some usefulness.  At least it creates a baseline of possible courses to see, then you just come on here and ask which courses are "better".

mike

[THuckaby2]

I define the value of any rating by:

1) who is doing it (i.e do I respect the opinion of the people on the panel)?

2) the system that they are to adhere to when voting.

Hence, I like GOLF Magazine's the best as there is no system (any system is doomed to fail) and there are a lot of people on the panel whose opinion matters to me.

Regardless, it seems to me that it's pretty scary for owners/clubs to let panelists on to their course.  Look at this DG - some of the most boneheaded posts have come from Golf Digest panelists :-/  , which highlights the huge variance that exists within one magazine's own group of raters.

Cheers,

You got anyone specific in mind, Ran?  Them's fightin' words, if so.

But you are right on in that the system determines the worth of the ratings.  I happen to LIKE the criteria we are required to evaluate for Golf Digest as I believe it reflects the preferences of real world golfers better than either Golf Mag or Golf Week.

But to each his own.

In any case, I trust the individual opinion far better than any group rating anyway.  I know the preferences and biases of my many "rater" friends in here and thus I know to trust their opinions most definitely, bearing that in mind.

Beyond that, it's all just conversation fodder.  Or it should be, anyway.

TH

[brad_miller]

TH, I thought GD had a handicap limit for its people?

[THuckaby2]

Ha!  Touche.  They do and I was required to send them a copy of my handicap card.  Thank god that month I met the limit!  

TH

[Rob_Waldron]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as are course ratings. We all have courses that we would recommend to our friends. In fact this website has served as a wonderful resource for golfers travelers looking for courses to play. The ratings provide a sense of pride for architects, owners, members, etc. Rating courses has also provided a target for new courses. We may not all agree with the ratings of certain courses but then what we we argue about?

One important factor that contributes to a raters evaluation is his point of reference based on past experience.  I would hardly value the opinion of a novice golfer playing his first private club. However I would value the opinion of a low handicap golfer who has played the best courses in a given area, particularly if he has had the opportunity to play the course in competition.

Stephen Kay shared with me a discussion he had with Ron Whitten regarding the ratings he was receiving from GD Panelists in different parts of the Country. Apparently raters who had exposure to some of the traditionally top rated clubs in the northeast tended to be tougher on many of newer courses. Raters can only use their personal experience as a basis for evaluation. The more courses they play the better the frame of reference.

How many times have GCA contributors made their personal lists of favorites available? Quite often. The trust you put in a list is directly correlated to the trust you put in the source!

[THuckaby2]

Right on, Rob.  We've discussed exactly this before in here.. frame of reference is important most definitely.  I am very glad to see you noted it goes both ways though - just as public courses novices are overawed by the great classics, members of those clubs tend to be two hard on new courses.  Sometimes the generalization here only goes the one way...

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()