[James Brown]

So, I see that Golf Digest is doubling the number of ratings per course required for their rankings (from 30 to 60) over the next couple of years, and eventually to 75. 


What impact do you think this will have on the ratings? 

[Tom_Doak]

Some club pros at the older clubs may take up arms.

[Mike Sweeney]

[Steve Lapper]

Pure $$$$ Grab by Tarde & Co. Could it be any more transparent?


Like Tom said, I imagine (and know) several club pros and presidents who will just say "go fish!"

[James Brown]

For a discussion group that seems quite interested in ratings, I am surprised no one has taken a crack at the actual question.  Obviously, more rafters means more $ for the magazine.  But will more ratings impact the rankings?

[BCowan]

James,


   I don't think so, if they aren't changing the criteria to focus on it's more garbage in, garbage out.  It would be great if more GCAers in their home state did Top 25 or 40 listings so visitors could find some of the gems that Doak & Co miss.   

[Jack Carney]

Access is going to get much harder with all the requests no doubt. I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine. The effort seems to be more on consensus to the average but is that a good thing. A committee with the intent of designing a horse came up with the camel. A consolidation of efforts is a great solution and Ben has a great idea. However that will undoubtedly never happen

[Peter Pallotta]

James - if this requirement means a doubling in the number of rankers (along with the number of ratings), I’ll be interested to see whether these new panelists (ie late adopters) will be less invested in the consensus opinion than their predecessors; or instead if they’ll be even more prone (through insecurity) to merely confirm the conventional wisdom and not risk being outliers.
We’ve often discussed here the GD rating criteria; but I think more relevant will be the *rater* criteria, ie what type of golfer (where they live, how much they travel, their handicaps, their affiliations/memberships etc) might GD be specifically looking for as new panelists.
It’s sort of like gca.com itself. Is it a better and more interesting discussion board if comprised only of industry professionals and a select group of well-travelled and experienced golfers who know (or think they know) what makes for top-flight gca; or is there value in having a larger group of posters, many of whom self-identify as inexperienced students and not teachers and who thus might express/have an openness to differing ideas?
I suspect the answer is: the old guard values (and promotes) itself and denigrates any new approaches, while the newbies don’t yet know that they don’t know — for better and worse.
Does GD want to further cement the old guard or foster the new one? I think that’s the key question.
Peter

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Ben,


Following the Discussion Group, I have learned that the GD ratings are held in low regard by many (most?) members of GCA.  As a newbie, I am eager to understand why that is.


GD uses eight criteria:


--Shot values (do holes present a variety of risks and rewards and test accuracy, length, and finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two?)


--Playability (does course challenge low handicap players while providing options for high handicappers?)


--Design variety (how varied are the holes in lengths, direction, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours?)


--Memorability (how distinctive are individual holes?)


--Conditioning (how firm, fast, and rolling are the fairways; are greens firm yet receptive and put true)


--Aesthetics (does course take advantage of scenery to add pleasure to a round?)


--Ambience (does the atmosphere reflect and enhance traditional values of the game?)


--Resistance to scoring (is the course difficult, but fair, for scratch golfer?)




I put "resistance to scoring" last since it is clear to me that many GCAers find it objectionable as a criterion.  I agree.  I much prefer "playability" (challenge low handicappers while providing options for high handicappers). 


"Ambience" also strikes me as squishy and having nothing to do with the quality of the design.


The other criteria seem legitimate to me -- and consistent with the values often expressed on this site.  Am I correct about that? 


A separate concern, for me, about the GD ratings is the number of panelists.  With such a large number, including significant increases in recent years, consistency in how the criteria are applied is inevitably an issue.


As for the question that initiated this thread, I would think that GD's decision to require courses to have more evaluations might have several distinct effects:


--More evaluations, all other things equal, add credibility since any given outlier evaluation (high or low) has less weight.


--But more evaluations requires more evaluators, raising the consistency problem mentioned above.


--And requiring more evaluations may mean that more courses drop out because hosting so many evaluators is too burdensome.


A separate issue is how GD presents the evaluations, ranking courses from 1 to 200.  The scoring differences are often minute.  I might be more inclined to present the list differently -- for example, grouping courses that are within a certain scoring range as ties.  I haven't thought through how to do that, but there might be a way to more accurately represent how courses compare.


Even with these issues, I think GD's ratings are a good thing.  I look forward to seeing them...even when I may not agree.  Discussing why I don't agree is part of the fun, and it makes me think about what I value in golf course design.


That said, I have all of Tom Doak's Confidential Guides.  Tom, and company, present a different take, one that I like.  When deciding whether to play a course, I put more weight on the CG evaluation than GD's rating.

[BCowan]

Ben,


Following the Discussion Group, I have learned that the GD ratings are held in low regard by many (most?) members of GCA.  As a newbie, I am eager to understand why that is.


GD uses eight criteria:


--Shot values (do holes present a variety of risks and rewards and test accuracy, length, and finesse without overemphasizing one over the other two?)


--Playability (does course challenge low handicap players while providing options for high handicappers?)


--Design variety (how varied are the holes in lengths, direction, configuration, hazard placements, green shapes and contours?)


--Memorability (how distinctive are individual holes?)


--Conditioning (how firm, fast, and rolling are the fairways; are greens firm yet receptive and put true)


--Aesthetics (does course take advantage of scenery to add pleasure to a round?)


--Ambience (does the atmosphere reflect and enhance traditional values of the game?)


--Resistance to scoring (is the course difficult, but fair, for scratch golfer?)




I put "resistance to scoring" last since it is clear to me that many GCAers find it objectionable as a criterion.  I agree.  I much prefer "playability" (challenge low handicappers while providing options for high handicappers). 


"Ambience" also strikes me as squishy and having nothing to do with the quality of the design.


The other criteria seem legitimate to me -- and consistent with the values often expressed on this site.  Am I correct about that? 


A separate concern, for me, about the GD ratings is the number of panelists.  With such a large number, including significant increases in recent years, consistency in how the criteria are applied is inevitably an issue.


As for the question that initiated this thread, I would think that GD's decision to require courses to have more evaluations might have several distinct effects:


--More evaluations, all other things equal, add credibility since any given outlier evaluation (high or low) has less weight.


--But more evaluations requires more evaluators, raising the consistency problem mentioned above.


--And requiring more evaluations may mean that more courses drop out because hosting so many evaluators is too burdensome.


A separate issue is how GD presents the evaluations, ranking courses from 1 to 200.  The scoring differences are often minute.  I might be more inclined to present the list differently -- for example, grouping courses that are within a certain scoring range as ties.  I haven't thought through how to do that, but there might be a way to more accurately represent how courses compare.


Even with these issues, I think GD's ratings are a good thing.  I look forward to seeing them...even when I may not agree.  Discussing why I don't agree is part of the fun, and it makes me think about what I value in golf course design.


That said, I have all of Tom Doak's Confidential Guides.  Tom, and company, present a different take, one that I like.  When deciding whether to play a course, I put more weight on the CG evaluation than GD's rating.

I don't care for these.



Memorability (how distinctive are individual holes?)-  Are we focusing on reward of angles and uses of land?  Are holes with water more memorable? 

Conditioning (how firm, fast, and rolling are the fairways; are greens firm yet receptive and put true)   I highly doubt Firm is used with conditioning for GD, bigger maint budget more high ticks in this dept.  I wonder why Pinehurst #2 dropped so much....

Aesthetics (does course take advantage of scenery to add pleasure to a round?)- Horrible, so a flowering tree in bloom and courses on water get higher marks.  Nothing to do with Architecture imo.

Ambience (does the atmosphere reflect and enhance traditional values of the game?)- Exclusivity gets marks, just like on GCA. 

Resistance to scoring (is the course difficult, but fair, for scratch golfer?)- You already covered that, would a 6400 yard course not on water get a fair shake, NO. 

Also Variety I don't like, what if the land yields better use by having more right to left holes or vice versa?   Direction of holes I hate, if course goes out and comes back it's okay to have 5 holes with same wind, but back and forth is bad bad bad even if holes have more variety and good-great Architecture

[glenn.hackbarth@gmail.com]

Ben,


Thanks for quick reply.  I understand your perspective now.


I value Memorability.  A key test after playing a course for the first time is whether I can remember the different holes clearly...or whether they run together.


Likewise with variety.  I want different holes...lengths, directions relative to prevailing winds, curving left and right, etc.


And I value aesthetics.  The game is about enjoyment, and aesthetics are part of it....although pretty is less important to me than many of the other criteria.


As for whether GD raters actually base conditioning scores on "fast and firm," I share your doubts.  As I said in my original comment, I think consistency, and rigor, in application of the criteria is a big issue.

[BHoover]

James - if this requirement means a doubling in the number of rankers (along with the number of ratings), I’ll be interested to see whether these new panelists (ie late adopters) will be less invested in the consensus opinion than their predecessors; or instead if they’ll be even more prone (through insecurity) to merely confirm the conventional wisdom and not risk being outliers.
We’ve often discussed here the GD rating criteria; but I think more relevant will be the *rater* criteria, ie what type of golfer (where they live, how much they travel, their handicaps, their affiliations/memberships etc) might GD be specifically looking for as new panelists.
It’s sort of like gca.com itself. Is it a better and more interesting discussion board if comprised only of industry professionals and a select group of well-travelled and experienced golfers who know (or think they know) what makes for top-flight gca; or is there value in having a larger group of posters, many of whom self-identify as inexperienced students and not teachers and who thus might express/have an openness to differing ideas?
I suspect the answer is: the old guard values (and promotes) itself and denigrates any new approaches, while the newbies don’t yet know that they don’t know — for better and worse.
Does GD want to further cement the old guard or foster the new one? I think that’s the key question.
Peter

How would you rate courses such as NGLA, Pebble, and Ballyneal using the GD rating criteria?

[Jack Carney]

Not expressly mentioned but my sense of the increase in panelists is partially to return to more traditional architectural values. A look at the rankings over the last ten years or so shows courses like the Alotian et al rising significantly in the rankings. I think this is a result of the experience level reductions in the panelists, only reason I can think of really. Architecturally such courses aren't all that and mostly fueled by marketing and mystique in my opinion.


Also - the category's mentioned are correct but the short definitions are very condensed. the handbook has several pages dedicated to each category and I think you would appreciate such much more than you might now.

[Jack Carney]

NGLA, Ballneal and Pebble - very high in my opinion

[Peter Pallotta]

Hoover, you and Tim Martin really should find something useful to do with your lives instead of following me around yapping at my heels like a couple of rabid lap dogs. Maybe you can start by trying to make at least some contribution to the site; I can’t remember anything of value either of you have ever written here. (How about even trying just to answer James’ question?)
Your constant digs don’t bother me in the least (considering the source), but they’re not funny or interesting or insightful — they’re just annoying.
I get it — you’re “keeping it real”, in your own sorry ways. Well, how’s this for keeping it real: go get a life. I’ve tried to ignore you, partly not to be rude and partly because if you can’t stand someone knocking around ideas on a discussion board meant to foster knocking around ideas then I don’t know what to say. But enough is enough.
Don’t read my posts if they bother you so much; I certainly stopped reading yours a long time ago.

[Tim Martin]

Hoover, you and Tim Martin really should find something useful to do with your lives instead of following me around yapping at my heels like a couple of rabid lap dogs. Maybe you can start by trying to make at least some contribution to the site; I can’t remember anything of value either of you have ever written here. (How about even trying just to answer James’ question?)
Your constant digs don’t bother me in the least, but they’re not funny or interesting or insightful — they’re just annoying.
I get it — you’re “keeping it real”, in your own sorry ways. Well, how’s this for keeping it real: go get a life. I’ve tried to ignore you, partly not to be rude and partly because if you can’t stand someone knocking around ideas on a discussion board meant to foster knocking around ideas then I don’t know what to say. But enough is enough.
Don’t read my posts if they bother you so much; I certainly stopped reading yours a long time ago.

Peter-I will be completely honest with you as you have been with me. I find it disingenuous to constantly be commenting on courses that you have not been to in a way that conveys that you have. You ask provocative questions in an effort to attract attention yet don’t have the experience to enter into a dialogue regarding same. I don’t think your self imposed exile was long enough. Why such anger man?

[Peter Pallotta]

It would be disingenuous if I ever once pretended to have played the courses that I've only read about; but I've always been open about the fact that I haven't played those courses -- and you're well aware of that.   
No, the "anger" is all yours and Hoovers, though thinly disguised as contempt.  To team up like sniveling school-boys over and over again until you finally get a reaction speaks of your problems, not mine.   
When your mocking of a question I posed on a "less is more" thread is picked up and repeated almost word for word by Hoover on a totally unrelated thread, then I have to say enough. Seriously? My ill-informed posts are that troubling to you, even when I'm simply speculating about the GD rating process? Wow.   
As I wrote to Hoover, just ignore my posts, and instead spend some some time and intellectual capital actually trying to add something of interest/value here. And please knock off with the respectful tone you sometimes affect; that's the only disingenuous part in all of this. I answered your question on that thread in good faith, but it’s clear that you didn’t pose it in the same way.
Peter 


To others: apologies for being part in wrecking an potentially decent thread.

[Tim Martin]

It would be disingenuous if I ever once pretended to have played the courses that I've only read about; but I've always been open about the fact that I haven't played those courses -- and you're well aware of that.   
No, the "anger" is all yours and Hoovers, though thinly disguised as contempt.  To team up like sniveling school-boys over and over again until you finally get a reaction speaks of your problems, not mine.   
When your mocking of a question I posed on a "less is more" thread is picked up and repeated almost word for word by Hoover on a totally unrelated thread, then I have to say enough. Seriously? My ill-informed posts are that troubling to you, even when I'm simply speculating about the GD rating process? Wow.   
As I wrote to Hoover, just ignore my posts, and instead spend some some time and intellectual capital actually trying to add something of interest/value here. And please knock off with the respectful tone you sometimes affect; that's the only disingenuous part in all of this. I answered your question on that thread in good faith, but it’s clear that you didn’t pose it in the same way.
Peter 


To others: apologies for being part in wrecking an potentially decent thread.

Peter-The truth hurts and I guess this is the reason for such a hateful post. In the 9 years I have had a sign on I don’t ever remember trading a message with you or responding to more than a half dozen of your posts. I have responded a few times of late for the reason I previously mentioned and you never answer my questions? Finally you acting like the Jack Kerouac of GCA is old and tired. Trade in the blades, persimmons and the bad attitude for a big driver and a smile. That’s what you are missing man!

[Peter Pallotta]

There’s nothing hateful, Tim. But I don’t think I’m obliged to sit idly by as I’m constantly being mocked — especially for doing something (ie having fun engaging in discussions on a golf-related site) that is harming not a single person or (usually) adding anything negative to the world. I’m blessed with a full rich life, and don’t “need” to be or do anything differently. And I know this too: that I’ve never gone out of my way to criticize/mock another poster, including you and BHoov, until I was pushed to it.
We’ve wreck a thread, and for what?
Peter

[Jack Carney]

Guys Guys Guys!!!

[Joel_Stewart]

I really don't think the $$$s mean much to the magazine.

Are you joking, it means everything. If they don't about the money why charge the panelists?


They are squeezing the panelists for every nickle they can. It wouldn't surprise me if panelist revenue isn't a line item in the balance sheet.

[Michael Wolf]

For what it's worth, there are less than a dozen GD raters in Iowa, Alabama and Mississippi. There are multiple courses in the deep south that could rightfully be considered top25 in their states that average less than a single rater visit per year. That's total visits, including as guests of members, tournament rounds etc.


Backing up to Ben's comment on duplicating the exercise he and his fellow enthusiasts perform for Michigan rankings - I'd doubt there is more than a single foursome in many states that is qualified to compile such a list. That's before even considering whether they'd be interested in contributing to such an exercise.


Even four men as well traveled as the co-authors of the Confidential Guide have included one (1) new course visit in the State of Alabama in the last 30! years, as an example.


It's a big BIG world, and everyone's time is limited.


For that reason I'd think increasing the diversity of any ratings panel on almost any subject would be something that was welcomed. That obviously assumes you can control the quality of the input, which is a huge assumption. Otherwise go 180 degrees in the other direction and include just a handful of paid raters whose work could be assigned and reviewed.


What's certainly not needed is another 1,000 people telling me why Somerset Hills is better than Baltusrol. I need to know where to play the next time I'm at a wedding in Amarillo, Texas.


My .02

[BCowan]

Michael,


What makes one guy qualified to vote?  There is a contributor on the CG that I don't care for his opinions or votes, doesn't make him more qualified for seeing more courses then I. How did the qualified people do that had High Pointe in the Top 100? 


Frank Kim is in Alabama and if he is the only Alabama gcaer I'd trust his AL Top 25 over any Rag.  Paid raters would lead to even more corruption. 

[Michael Wolf]

Ben,


What if Frank doesn't want to play 50 different courses, many 100's of miles away even in the same state, on his own nickle every year? What if Frank get's transferred to Boston? I'd never think 1 opinion was better than 4. Again, assuming the quality can be maintained. In the CD's I'm more curious about the 8686's than the 7777's.


Don't understand your point on corruption - isn't there a financial motivator for TD and others to make sure their ratings are accurate? Otherwise folks are less inclined to buy the next book or read the next article?


I think your Michigan ratings are spot on BTW, just skeptical there's anywhere near that much man power in many places.




Michael

[BCowan]

Michael,


    Good point about travelling, Frank does move around a bit.  Golf is a passion and it's Noble to spend your own Nickle on your passions then to have them given to you for free.  If people doing ratings had to pay what the average Joe who is interested in cool/neat courses, I'd have more respect for them.  Only 2 of the 21 who did MI rankings are raters, so I don't know if they were comp.  Yes, it would be great to have more opinions per state for doing state rankings.  It has to start somewhere, I believe Ohio has 10+ gcaers.  People here have the power to influence change or open up people's mind about overlooked courses, but they would rather sit back and bitch.  I agree with your variance comment.     


   Paid raters would be a smaller size and they might be a bunch of group thinkers that favor certain types of Architecture.  They could also get paid off by clubs trying to move up on the list.  The CG is done very well and adds course descriptions which is very important.   


  Thanks for you compliment about the MI rankings, they turned out well, hope to have it dialed in a few years with more plays by everyone.


   It's sad Alabama doesn't get more love, they have such beautiful land there. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()