[Doug Ralston]

After seeing yet another version of absurd ranking of courses in Kentucky [and other states], I thought you might want to see how the amatuers do it.

Here is how we started: http://golfkentuckylinks.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2433

Here is the unveiling: http://golfkentuckylinks.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2605

Here is the forum discussion area to explore: http://golfkentuckylinks.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=1

And our new front page with this years rankings: http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/  obviously click on Top 18 to see results, then on the scores generated to see how each individual course was offered by the members who played and ranked them.

This whole excercise was fun as hell. We had our debates, our stories and our laughs. What I wonder is why the national rags cannot just say "Insufficient data to rank this state" about those they obviously did not explore enough to be legit. Golfweek was SAD!

Doug

[Chris_Blakely]

Doug,

Thanks for sharing.

How do you feel about the results?

Chris

[Doug Ralston]

Doug,

Thanks for sharing.

How do you feel about the results?

Chris

Hi Chris;

I thought the results were pretty good, actually. While I personally had some variance, overall it looks about right. It is clear that the Parks Trail are a cut above the rest, and it is sad that they are obviously not rated by others who I honestly doubt give much effort in Kentucky.

And the process was a fun discussion of it's own. When Ron Watterson ran the site, he and Moe Miller rated them by themselves, and we always had fiery discussions. Now we tried having the whole site be invovled, and I think it legitimizes the result, such as any opinion listing can be called 'legitimate'.

My question is what you and others think of our process. We considered other aspects in the criteria, and some of it was certainly inspired by ideas gotten on this site. But being a mountain state, for example, we resisted 'walkability' and such as being unfair to those who live in such regions. Yes?

So Chris, what do you think we might have done better?

Doug

[Andy Stamm]

I'm from Indiana. I've played golf at only two places in KY, Kearney Hill probably 5x, which I quite enjoyed and some average track in Louisville that was a nice day out, but not more. Both courses were very walkable. I've spent a fair amount of time in Louisville, Lexington, and Mammoth Cave, and I've driven to and from those places as well as through KY many times. Is KY really a mountain state? Maybe in the southeast and Appalachia, but I think of KY as great rolling hills and bluegrass, and pretty good terrain for parkland courses. I would think that rating walkability would be a good idea as most of the state is good for walking golf courses. Am I missing something?

[Doug Ralston]

I'm from Indiana. I've played golf at only two places in KY, Kearney Hill probably 5x, which I quite enjoyed and some average track in Louisville that was a nice day out, but not more. Both courses were very walkable. I've spent a fair amount of time in Louisville, Lexington, and Mammoth Cave, and I've driven to and from those places as well as through KY many times. Is KY really a mountain state? Maybe in the southeast and Appalachia, but I think of KY as great rolling hills and bluegrass, and pretty good terrain for parkland courses. I would think that rating walkability would be a good idea as most of the state is good for walking golf courses. Am I missing something?

LOL,

Andy, you clearly have not been east of I-75, virtually all of which is hill to mountain country.

We drew up aspects to rate on a point system. Higher the number being better. How would people's preferences for walkability, which are one way or the other, fit into this rating system. To put it in is to say one point of view here is more worthy than the other. And, believe it or not, this is NOT the case. There are plenty of people who not only like to play courses that are difficult to walk, but also think they are as good or better for that. So how do we tell them their courses are less worthy because WE judge walkability as OUR standard. There is no objective judgement at all here.

Now, when giving info about a course, I find no problem talking about walkability. That way, for those who are concerned about such, they can make decisions based on it. But to give a rating number based on it is just plain biased. Forget that .

And BTW, you will note we rated Kearney quite high, it made the Top 18 quite easily.

Now let me ask you: What do you think of Golfweek's rating of Indiana courses? I ask because, though I disagree with a lot of specifics, I think it is clear they DID play most of the best courses in Indiana. Just as it is clear the did NOT in Kentucky. Very different cases. And what did you think of our way of having the entire site involved in the rating process, setting aspects to be considered only, letting them express their own impressions. Afterall, I argue, those impressions are the true basis of playability and therefor the play, of courses. And once again, it was fun! I find people enjoying a task are more likely to be diligent.


Doug

 

[Andy Stamm]

Honestly, I'd never looked at the ratings, but having just done so, I don't have a problem with IN's. I've played only half or so; for the most part I saw the ones that I expected to see. I see that the old course at French Lick is very high, Notre Dame is in there as well as the Fort. I'd have been unpleasantly surprised had they not. I was surprised not to see Otter Creek, but I don't know the other courses, so I don't know if that's an omission or not. I don't see anything that looks way out of place. My taste and raters' tastes are so far out of line, that I don't even bother with the lists.

I don't have have a problem with your methodology at all. In creating rankings like this compromises have to be made. I understand yours on walking. That compromise would limit the lists usefulness for me (or someone like me given that I don't play in KY).

But, a list like this has plenty of bias no matter what. For example, ambience and aesthetics don't have much value to me (certainly not on par with design variability), but they are ranked. So you're basically using YOUR standard to tell me that MY courses are less worthy, because some of my favorites score poorly here and move down the list accordingly. I do value walkability, and the courses I like are very walkable so again my courses are less worthy than they would be if that were rated. So I don't think that omitting walkability solves the problem.

And another problem for me is that this list (as well as the others) don't rank price or value. To move up the rankings a course can plant a bunch of flowers, build a new wing on the clubhouse, and have employees pick players up at their cars. This would likely improve scores on ambiance and aesthetics, but the course hasn't been changed at all. And presumably the cost has to go up to pay for these things, but that's not reflected in the rankings. But an increase in price would definitely affect how often I played a course.

I think using the whole site etc. was a great idea. It also seems to have gotten you better results.

You're right I haven't been east of Lexington. Don't most of the people in KY live in the flatter parts at least?

Of the top 18 (or maybe even the ones that were considered for the list), how many were located in mountainous areas and therefore aren't very walkable?

[Andy Troeger]

Doug,

The more lists I see, the more I am becoming convinced that if you find the right "raters" you don't need categories. Allow them to rate based on what they find most important, and let the results fall where they may. Part of the reason some of the cartball courses you love don't do well on the national listings is because some raters like to walk and those courses do not allow them to do that. The categories in your rankings don't really allow for that, although Golf Digest doesn't count walkability anymore either. I think walking is a tough thing to categorize, because there are some pretty fun cartball courses and some dreadful courses that are still easy walks--even though I like to walk I'll admit the overall correlation isn't there. If you don't have the categories at all and just do overall scores, then everybody gets to rate based on what's most important to them.

On the other hand, with inexperienced raters categories help organize thoughts and force them to think about the course beyond taking five seconds to come up with a score. I do think that's helpful, at least until the rater goes through the exercise enough to move beyond needing the categories. GolfWeek I believe has categories, but only the overall score actually counts.

When I rate for Golf Digest I score based on their categories as best I can per their methodology and send them what comes out without making too many alterations. I do compare scores for different categories on different courses to try to get it right. On my personal list, I play with the numbers until I get the course where I want it, partially through my "FUN" category. So in reality I could cease with the scores altogether and just rank courses where I want them. The point of all this is that some courses get pretty significant bumps up or down on the Digest criteria compared to where I would rank them if I based it solely on my own opinion of what makes a course great. For example, I gave Cuscowilla and Sherwood the same total score using the Digest criteria, but there's a 32 spot gap on my personal list between them. The biggest reasons I prefer Cuscowilla of those two is that its more playable and more walkable which makes it more fun for me, but they both have good shot values, design variety, memorability, and aesthetics.

If you and the others that participated in the list are happy with the results, that's all that really matters in the long run. I find the exercise to be just as fun as the results, personally.

[Chris_Blakely]

Doug,

Thanks for sharing.

How do you feel about the results?

Chris

Hi Chris;

I thought the results were pretty good, actually. While I personally had some variance, overall it looks about right. It is clear that the Parks Trail are a cut above the rest, and it is sad that they are obviously not rated by others who I honestly doubt give much effort in Kentucky.

And the process was a fun discussion of it's own. When Ron Watterson ran the site, he and Moe Miller rated them by themselves, and we always had fiery discussions. Now we tried having the whole site be invovled, and I think it legitimizes the result, such as any opinion listing can be called 'legitimate'.

My question is what you and others think of our process. We considered other aspects in the criteria, and some of it was certainly inspired by ideas gotten on this site. But being a mountain state, for example, we resisted 'walkability' and such as being unfair to those who live in such regions. Yes?

So Chris, what do you think we might have done better?

Doug

Doug,

I have only played the first 6 of the top 18, 8 , 11, 13, 16 & 18 on the list.  However at first glance it looks to be a good list.  Houston oaks seems quite low.  I was shocked to see eagle ridge #1, b/c it is such a polarizing course.  It is my #1 course in ky. I assume the conditions portion of your rankings torpedoed the oaks course?

Chris

[Doug Ralston]

Andy, Andy, and Chris;

Sorry, was away yesterday. You left me a lot to think upon.

Andy T; I tend to agree with you on the idea that the best aspects of golf course rating are those important to you internally. In fact, I think perhaps what describes my natural evaluation of a course is how if feel after I play. As you likely know, the #1 course on our list is also my favorite place to play golf that I have been lucky to play [even including 'The Vic' ty John]. When I walk off ER I do so reluctantly. More so than elsewhere. Thus I know that, for me, this is a great course. I worry not the least how others feel.

BUT; as a group we at GKL wanted a more group-agreed idea of why one course might rate above another for the general public. Thus we invented idea we could understand or at least agee upon to measure.  If you all go back through the past 6 months of posts on the 'Kentucky Courses' area of the Forum, you will find both how we derived the aspects, and how we applied them to each individual course.

Perfect system? No such animal obviously exists. So we let the fun of playing golf and gabbing about it guide us to what we could all live with.

Andy S; I have to admit I did feel discomfort at the absence of Rock Hollow, Sultan's Run and Trophy Club in the GW Indiana rankings. But overall they seemed to get a lot of the right courses. It indicated that someone actually played those courses.

Sadly, and the reason I spoke out, they clearly did NOT in Kentucky. No one who did could have completely ignored the State Parks Signature Series courses, who dominated the ranking of those of us who play there regularly. My only question to these national rags is: Why can you not just admit you do not have enough info to rate every state? No shame in that, you have limited resources and you will rate those that reputation and convenience will allow 1st. I just HATE seeing ratings that reveal a lack of significant information. And then when someone from a nearby state reads these, and comes to play courses far below best quality, they will certainly say "That all you got?" and not return. Ratings DO have influence. Uninformed ones hurt those businesses we WANT to be strong and provide a quality product. We all lose. "N/A is ok.

Chris; If you look back in the Kentucky Courses area you will see how each course was rated. I brought up The Oaks and indeed rated it high in every aspect except the horrible conditioning. Unfortunately, so few people on the site now have even played it that it did not have enough ratings to be considered for the Top 18 lists. As for ER, it turn out that most of those who were rating had enough game not to be intimidated by the all-or-nothing nature of a lot of those holes, and ALL of them had to admit that, even having just played Hidden Cove and others, their who trip home was dominated by comments of Eagle Ridge . No one can deny it is exciting. And if you hit the ball straight, it is quite short and you can score there. Did you note how far ahead it was? No one even close.

Thanks guys. I really just wanted to show how other methods of rating could be invented and be satisfying. And, of course, to blow off steam at the big boys who do NOT come there but still rate. In the end, my love of controversy cannot be assuaged. Enjoy looking at our site. Feel free to join and comment as you will.

Doug Ralston [retired golfer]

[Jeff Shelman]

I played several of the courses on the list back when I lived in Cincinnati/NKY back in the late 90s.

The biggest surprises to me are the rankings of Fox Run and Lassing Point. I don't like Fox Run and am surprised to see it that high. I think there are some good holes, but the 18th hole is just ridiculous.

I really like Lassing Point. I thought it was the best public course in NKY.

[Anthony Gray]

  Played Kearny Hill several times while in grad school. It was very playable and big on fun.

  Anthony

 Who designed the UK courses?

 

[Andy Troeger]

Doug,
First off, I know you mentioned GolfWeek but stop the nonsense about national magazines rating courses without seeing them. You have absolutely no evidence of that. I won't speak for GolfWeek, but Digest has plenty of panelists based in Kentucky who I'm sure manage to play the courses in their own state. I know GolfWeek has a large number of panelists as well--I'm sure some of them visit those courses. We have lists of courses that need more evaluations before our deadlines--that's not the issue. That doesn't mean you have to like the results.

BUT; as a group we at GKL wanted a more group-agreed idea of why one course might rate above another for the general public. Thus we invented idea we could understand or at least agee upon to measure.  If you all go back through the past 6 months of posts on the 'Kentucky Courses' area of the Forum, you will find both how we derived the aspects, and how we applied them to each individual course.

Perfect system? No such animal obviously exists. So we let the fun of playing golf and gabbing about it guide us to what we could all live with.

I do give your group credit for having the initiative to do this project, and I think there's much to be said for rankings that come from people that are truly familiar (multiple plays) with courses when compared to the hit-and-run style of national panels. That, to me, is by far the biggest strengh of your list. I read through some of the info on the website but have too much homework this weekend to read the whole thing. My point against categories just remains that they automatically favor certain courses over others--I've come to like the idea of giving panelists on an individual level the opportunity to make the call. You used the word "invent" which I think describes perfectly the creation of categories to evaluate courses. They are an artificial way of doing it--but again there's still some benefits to that. I do applaud the publication and explanation of your methods--if someone doesn't agree with your methodology then they at least have the ability to understand how you came by your rankings and can choose to discard them if their criteria for golfing greatness is different from yours. Those who do agree with the methodology should have a good resource to guide their play of Kentucky golf courses in the future.

[John Mayhugh]

That's your group's list of top 18 public access courses, not the top 18 in the state, right?

Perhaps I missed it, but do you have any sort of summary page showing how many people participated and how many ratings per course were submitted?  It seems like from viewing some of the course vote threads that there were courses with only a few persons rating. 

Also, you rated using these categories, scored from 1-5: aesthetics, ambiance, conditioning, use of property, risk/reward, test of the full game, design variation, & memorability.  It seems like all categories were weighted equally - is that correct? 

[Doug Ralston]

Andy;

Stop buddy, you are making me laugh till I cry. I did not say I did not LIKE GW's list, I said is was ABSURD!! There is absolutely no way that anyone who actually played the 1st three on our list would even put courses like Heritage Hill and especially Cherry Blossom [which some actually rated #1 in the past  ] anywhere in the same order of magnitude. Both are courses kept in good shape. Each have a couple good holes, and the rest are average to mediocre. Nope, till GW provides me with a rater who can even successfully describe ER, HC, and DH, I will contimue to assert that they sent no one there. Absurd! Hey Andy, I am not alone. Lots of us there laugh at it. If it did not matter, we would not likely even complain. Unfortunately, those of the beaten path Park courses rely on rating lists and word of mouth. And with the bad economy they are in trouble. They deserve support for this quality of course, and what is written in these lists truly hurts them.

John;

Yes, this is public access only. Obviously, if had been privates included, some big names would have appeared. We allowed anyone who was joined to GKL, and had played the courses, to feel comfortable that they could try to rate them. Most of us did not rate courses we had only played once of had not play recently enough to remember well. But we were pretty free of restrictions. And also yes, we decided on certain aspects and left them equal in weight as opposed to the much more difficult excercise of determining relative values. We got what we got. No one was absolutely satisfied it was right. How could they be. Be we did seem to have a good concensus that it was overall pretty close to real. Such as any list ever could be. You do know, yes?, that rating courses is totally subjective. Only by adding a lot of subjective insights can we even expect to approach an objective validity. In the end, we liked what we had. And, as I say, it was fun!

Anthony;

UK Club has two courses, Big Blue and Wildcat. To my understanding, there was origionally one 18-hole course called 'Players Club'; which Art Hills retooled and expanded to these two. Both are quite interesting< I actually like Wildcat better. Both are, or course, kept in great condition because the team does still play there. It has be opened to the public, Big Blue just this year.

Jeff;

I partially agree about #18 at Fox Run. It is certainly unusual, and the second shot is a nightmare even after a good drive. Still, I just try to whack it diagonally across the lake to that hillside and then pitch and run from there, knowing the green will be dangerous from that angle [it slants right to the water]. hairraising. Still Fox Run has, IMHO, a LOT of truly good holes and is a blast to play. As for Lassing, a long time favorite. Sad to say, it has fallen far as to conditions, which used to be immacualte. I would have personally had it a little higher, but I still think new courses remove it from theTop 5-8 courses statewide.

Everyone;

I am glad you took a look at how we did what we did. It is not perfect and we knew that from the beginning. Our 1st goal had to be to try something and see what happened. I personally feel like Andy, that 'raters' should be trusted to rate on their own, mostly internal, aspects, and then let the chips fall. I think those unique tracks will not hide from them because we all still can see certain things that are pretty universal among golfers in those special courses.

Great to talk to you all again.

Doug

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()