News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #75 on: January 15, 2022, 12:33:08 AM »
David,


I have only played three Bandon courses, including the original, Pacific and Old Mac. The original was definitely my least favorite and by a wide margin. Just didn’t find it appealing at all.
Hi Tim,When comparing precious gems it is easy to look at the least of them and say it is my least favorite gem. However, it is still a gem nonetheless. Are you saying it isn't a great course in your view?  Or just that it is the least favorite of the Bandon courses, but still worthy of 4 hours of your time whenever given the chance?
On LI I could say of Shinny, NGLA and Maidstone that Maidstone (OMG terrible example huh?  ;D ) is my least favorite. Wow hard to say that Maidstone is in any way my least of anything. However, it is still a great course and one of the top 50 courses in the world.

Just wanted to give BD it's due respect perhaps here.


The only problems with this explanation are
1) Maidstone is not, actually, rated in the top 50 courses in the world - or even the top 100, I think?, and
2) Maidstone is better than Bandon Dunes.  :D


Tom, jeepers it is the concept. ;D  also are you buying into ratings as an accurate reference for quality!? :o  necessary evil is rhr general concensus as imperfect as it is.


A great area for golf LI and pick out 3 of their top courses, even though #3 is your least preferred of the 3 it is still a great course.  So keep it in perspective.


 Same for Bandon Dunes resort analogy I think, BD while bot someone's favorite compared to PD or OM is still a great course.


Yeah Kalen is correct for world ranking 56 and 29 in usa list.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #76 on: January 15, 2022, 05:29:05 PM »
This is all incredibly pathetic. Credit to Mike DeVries for having the good sense to not get dragged into it. Not that there’s any sign he was approached for comment as part of this story…


Spot on Scott. The Planet Golf article reflected very poorly on Darius Oliver, and this latest effort on ausgolf.com.au reflects equally poorly on the subject and author. I cannot understand why Duncan Andrews and Selwyn Berg would choose to throw themselves under the same bus.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2022, 09:27:12 PM by Chris Kane »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #77 on: January 15, 2022, 09:25:07 PM »
David,


I have only played three Bandon courses, including the original, Pacific and Old Mac. The original was definitely my least favorite and by a wide margin. Just didn’t find it appealing at all.
Hi Tim,When comparing precious gems it is easy to look at the least of them and say it is my least favorite gem. However, it is still a gem nonetheless. Are you saying it isn't a great course in your view?  Or just that it is the least favorite of the Bandon courses, but still worthy of 4 hours of your time whenever given the chance?
On LI I could say of Shinny, NGLA and Maidstone that Maidstone (OMG terrible example huh?  ;D ) is my least favorite. Wow hard to say that Maidstone is in any way my least of anything. However, it is still a great course and one of the top 50 courses in the world.

Just wanted to give BD it's due respect perhaps here.
Jeff,


I would much rather play Maidstone than Bandon Dunes. BD is a “the first course to play after a long plane ride”. That is, get jet lag out of your system and prepare for the better stuff that is coming next.
Tim Weiman

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #78 on: October 24, 2023, 04:44:38 PM »
The photo of the new GOLF Top 100 ranking posted on the Cabot St. Lucia thread appears to show that Cape Wickham, ranked 70th in the World in the 2021-22 Top 100 Courses list, has plunged 30+ spots and out of the Top 100 altogether.


Here is the link to the World list published at golf.com. It is the 2021-22 list.


That is a big drop. Love to learn more about the why.





BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #79 on: October 25, 2023, 10:46:15 PM »
Darius Oliver appears to take umbrage with the latest Golf Magazine world top 100. He does come across as perhaps just a tad bitter.


https://www.planetgolf.com/rankings/worldwide/golf-magazine-world-top-100/2023


USA GOLF Magazine has released its 2023 ranking of the World’s Top 100 golf courses, with a continued emphasis on American courses and American designs.

The magazine ranking with the most professionally, and personally, conflicted panelists in golf is chaired by Ran Morrissett, an initial investor in the Cabot business and a current consultant on one of their projects in Florida. Morrissett has done particularly well for the Cabot brand this year, by managing to sneak the new Point Hardy course at Cabot Saint Lucia onto the Top 100 list, a couple of months before it even opens. The original Cabot Links course continues to over perform as well, being ranked #79 in the World.
Morrissett is also a cheerleader (or promoter) for the designs of Tom Doak, who was a previous chair of this panel and remains a judge. Unsurprisingly, Doak courses continue to perform well with the new Lido course at Sand Valley debuting at #68 and the St Patrick’s course at Rosapenna rising 6 places to #49. More curious is the elevation of Rock Creek in Montana, which is a nice course now ranked #73 on the entire planet.
Aside from the Lido and the as-yet-unopened Point Hardy course at Cabot Saint Lucia, other new courses on the 2023 list are Te Arai (South Course) in New Zealand at #85 and Lofoten Links in Norway at #88. Royal Cinque Ports makes its first World Top 100 list in 100th place, while each of Shanqin Bay (#95), Victoria GC (#96) and Machrihanish (#97) have reentered the ranking after previously falling off.
Without doubt the most dubious omission from the 2023 Top 100 list is Cape Wickham in Tasmania, which has apparently become an inferior course to the likes of Garden City, Cape Kidnappers, Camargo, Royal Troon, Rock Creek, Royal Lytham, Cabot Links, Peachtree, Nine Bridges, Castle Stuart, Whistling Straits, Muirfield Village and Yeamans Hall.
The absence of Cape Wickham from a World Top 100 ranking hurts that lists credibility.
As with most American lists like this one, there are several courses included that would struggle to make Victoria’s Top 10 and others that you wouldn’t seek out if they were located in a strong golf market like Scotland, Ireland, Australia or England.
There is also a clear preference toward super elite, private American clubs. Incredibly, 29 of the Top 50 courses in the World are apparently American – and only 3 of those courses are available for public play. Garden City at #48, for example, is a charming club with a really lovely golf course – a course that, at best, might rank somewhere in the 12–20 bracket in Australia.
Fortunately, the influence of the GOLF Magazine Top 100 has continued to wane over the years, with most astute golfers looking at these results with amusement and a healthy degree of skepticism. Local Australian panels continue to rank Cape Wickham among the Top 3 courses in the country.
I note my own personal bias here, as a designer of Cape Wickham.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2023, 11:00:19 PM by BHoover »

Sean Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #80 on: October 26, 2023, 02:23:59 AM »
Like the effort that originated this thread, this from Darius does seem ill advised.


In my view he is right about Cape Wickham being severely under appreciated by this list but I’m not sure this is the way to address it.


It was previously at 70 and I think that was underrated. I see it as an equal of Barnbougle so somewhere in the 35-50 range.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #81 on: October 26, 2023, 02:34:16 AM »
Darius Oliver appears to take umbrage with the latest Golf Magazine world top 100. He does come across as perhaps just a tad bitter.


https://www.planetgolf.com/rankings/worldwide/golf-magazine-world-top-100/2023


USA GOLF Magazine has released its 2023 ranking of the World’s Top 100 golf courses, with a continued emphasis on American courses and American designs.

The magazine ranking with the most professionally, and personally, conflicted panelists in golf is chaired by Ran Morrissett, an initial investor in the Cabot business and a current consultant on one of their projects in Florida. Morrissett has done particularly well for the Cabot brand this year, by managing to sneak the new Point Hardy course at Cabot Saint Lucia onto the Top 100 list, a couple of months before it even opens. The original Cabot Links course continues to over perform as well, being ranked #79 in the World.
Morrissett is also a cheerleader (or promoter) for the designs of Tom Doak, who was a previous chair of this panel and remains a judge. Unsurprisingly, Doak courses continue to perform well with the new Lido course at Sand Valley debuting at #68 and the St Patrick’s course at Rosapenna rising 6 places to #49. More curious is the elevation of Rock Creek in Montana, which is a nice course now ranked #73 on the entire planet.
Aside from the Lido and the as-yet-unopened Point Hardy course at Cabot Saint Lucia, other new courses on the 2023 list are Te Arai (South Course) in New Zealand at #85 and Lofoten Links in Norway at #88. Royal Cinque Ports makes its first World Top 100 list in 100th place, while each of Shanqin Bay (#95), Victoria GC (#96) and Machrihanish (#97) have reentered the ranking after previously falling off.
Without doubt the most dubious omission from the 2023 Top 100 list is Cape Wickham in Tasmania, which has apparently become an inferior course to the likes of Garden City, Cape Kidnappers, Camargo, Royal Troon, Rock Creek, Royal Lytham, Cabot Links, Peachtree, Nine Bridges, Castle Stuart, Whistling Straits, Muirfield Village and Yeamans Hall.
The absence of Cape Wickham from a World Top 100 ranking hurts that lists credibility.
As with most American lists like this one, there are several courses included that would struggle to make Victoria’s Top 10 and others that you wouldn’t seek out if they were located in a strong golf market like Scotland, Ireland, Australia or England.
There is also a clear preference toward super elite, private American clubs. Incredibly, 29 of the Top 50 courses in the World are apparently American – and only 3 of those courses are available for public play. Garden City at #48, for example, is a charming club with a really lovely golf course – a course that, at best, might rank somewhere in the 12–20 bracket in Australia.
Fortunately, the influence of the GOLF Magazine Top 100 has continued to wane over the years, with most astute golfers looking at these results with amusement and a healthy degree of skepticism. Local Australian panels continue to rank Cape Wickham among the Top 3 courses in the country.
I note my own personal bias here, as a designer of Cape Wickham.


You mean the magazine ranking system is inherently flawed and can never approach perfection?


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #82 on: October 26, 2023, 11:36:07 AM »
[quote author=Tim_Weiman link=topic=70565.msg1698647#msg1698647 date=1642299907

I would much rather play Maidstone than Bandon Dunes. BD is a “the first course to play after a long plane ride”. That is, get jet lag out of your system and prepare for the better stuff that is coming next.



private, easier etc... everyone has their flavor man
this topic is about Wickham
It's all about the golf!

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #83 on: October 26, 2023, 08:43:49 PM »
Like the effort that originated this thread, this from Darius does seem ill advised.


In my view he is right about Cape Wickham being severely under appreciated by this list but I’m not sure this is the way to address it.


It was previously at 70 and I think that was underrated. I see it as an equal of Barnbougle so somewhere in the 35-50 range.


Agree. Darius is correct in his assessment, but he should not be the one pointing it out.

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #84 on: October 27, 2023, 07:05:16 AM »
Darius Oliver seems to be something of a piece of work. Personally, I would be more inclined to play a course without him listed as architect. The opposite is true for a course designed by Mike DeVries, which I absolutely would go out of my way to play.


Which begs the question, could Mr. Oliver’s involvement in Cape Wickham have any impact on the course’s ranking? Would the course be ranked higher if someone more respectable (and likeable) were listed as the architect?

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #85 on: October 27, 2023, 10:37:58 AM »
I spent the better part of a day with Darius a while back when he was on a Planet Golf book tour that came through St. Paul.


Personally, I really enjoyed my time with him and found him to be a good person.


If I were his close friend I would of likely advised him not to write these letters.


As Jeff Shelman has said, rankings are like pizza...its all about personal tastes. (Or something like that). Darius takes a shot at Rock Creek Cattle Company being on the list. Personally, I think that golf course is incredible and I could make an argument that it's still underrated. But that's just me.


Cape Wickham looks amazing and I'd love to play it someday. Whether Golf ranks it in the Top 100 or not doesn't change that desire.
H.P.S.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #86 on: October 27, 2023, 11:21:46 AM »
I spent the day with him as well, at Ballyhack. I found him personable, knowledgeable, and insightful. He did not shy away from expressing his thoughts, yet he was able to listen to a variety of opinions. He is one of those people about whom we say, "He is honest to a fault."
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #87 on: October 27, 2023, 03:38:20 PM »
Like the effort that originated this thread, this from Darius does seem ill advised.
Agree. Darius is correct in his assessment, but he should not be the one pointing it out.
Darius Oliver seems to be something of a piece of work.
If I were his close friend I would of likely advised him not to write these letters.
He is one of those people about whom we say, "He is honest to a fault."
I feel like the odd man out here. Right or wrong, I hold people who are willing to (their) truth to power in high esteem. God forbid we respect someone for being willing to speak up when they see something they don't think is right, especially at some risk to their career. There is effectively zero chance this puts Golf Magazine in peril, and has the potential to create positive changes there.
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Jonathan Mallard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #88 on: October 28, 2023, 03:10:01 PM »
I spent the day with him as well, at Ballyhack. I found him personable, knowledgeable, and insightful. He did not shy away from expressing his thoughts, yet he was able to listen to a variety of opinions. He is one of those people about whom we say, "He is honest to a fault."


I had a similar experience when I spoke to him the following day at Willow Oaks.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #89 on: October 28, 2023, 05:10:06 PM »
I wonder how the Kangaroo Island development is progressing?
Atb

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #90 on: October 28, 2023, 07:04:54 PM »
I wonder how the Kangaroo Island development is progressing?
Atb


Their website says 2025.


https://www.thecliffs.com.au/

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #91 on: October 28, 2023, 08:51:47 PM »
Like the effort that originated this thread, this from Darius does seem ill advised.
Agree. Darius is correct in his assessment, but he should not be the one pointing it out.
Darius Oliver seems to be something of a piece of work.
If I were his close friend I would of likely advised him not to write these letters.
He is one of those people about whom we say, "He is honest to a fault."
I feel like the odd man out here. Right or wrong, I hold people who are willing to (their) truth to power in high esteem. God forbid we respect someone for being willing to speak up when they see something they don't think is right, especially at some risk to their career. There is effectively zero chance this puts Golf Magazine in peril, and has the potential to create positive changes there.
If Darius Oliver had said that he could not understand how Cape Wickham could drop so many spots and he called on Golf Magazine to offer some explanation, that would be rational. However, he tries to insinuate motives and disparage Ran M. That approach is childish and irrational. Does anyone think Ran arranged for CW to drop in the rankings since he was (or is) a Cabot investor and somehow he benefits? Or CW dropped because the rankings needed room for 40 Doak and Coore/Crenshaw courses that Ran supposedly likes to promote? (note: lots of people seem to like Doak and C&C courses - maybe they are generally very good?)


Oliver seemed to like the rating process ok when he thought he was gaming it:
we all felt that the course needed an American name for the overseas raters to take seriously. And so it was in 2016 when Golf Digest Magazine, the most influential in the industry, ranked the course #24 in the World. I’m not sure the American raters would have been so quick to rush to a tiny island down under had they known who actually designed it.

What are the "positive changes" you think this rant could lead to? Why such high esteem for someone who criticizes others with no evidence whatsover?

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #92 on: October 29, 2023, 12:48:31 PM »
What are the "positive changes" you think this rant could lead to? Why such high esteem for someone who criticizes others with no evidence whatsover?

Early access to Cabot properties if Ran is an investor should probably raise an eyebrow or two. However, even if the were zero impropriety, and I'm not saying there is, the method of ranking at GOLF is extremely loosey-goosey:

Quote
Because we don’t prescribe a set method to assess courses as other ranks do, no one opinion carries the day — our rank is a democracy. Some panelists believe that enjoyment is the ultimate goal, and thus prioritize design attributes such as width and playing angles, while frowning upon the need to constantly hunt for balls in thick rough. Other panelists value challenge and the demands of hitting every club in the bag. Still others consider a course’s surroundings and overall environment of paramount importance, thereby emphasizing the setting and naturalness of the course. In the end, allowing raters to freely express their tastes is what produces the desired eclecticism in our Top 100 lists.

I'm even confused about how rating happens:

Quote
For the newly released 2023-24 World list, each panelist was provided a ballot that consisted of 504 courses globally. He or she was given seven months to complete it. Beside the list of courses were 11 “buckets,” or groupings. If our panelists considered a course to be among the top three in the world, they ticked that first column. If they believed the course to be among Nos. 4-10 in the world, they checked the next column, followed by 11-25, 26-50, and so on out to 250+ and even a column for remove.

504 course in about 210 days presents obvious issues. It seems entirely unclear if the courses need to actually be played that year to be ranked, and if we are requiring the course to be played, who is keeping track of who is playing what? Supposing all the best intentions, if a course were, say, on a small island off the coast of Tasmania, perhaps only one rater might visit it once that year, which should dramatically increase the variance of it's position (especially if they got a rater that just doesn't like wind). That might just be the way the cookie crumbles, but for someone whose career and well-being is tied to these ratings, it sucks.

As much as they want a diversity of opinion, the folks chosen obviously will have aligned values (why would you choose someone for such a desirable role when you think they're an idiot), so it makes sense that Doak and Cabot properties might punch above their weight on this list. And again, that might just be the breaks for folks with different values, but still, it seems doubly awkward when the people within that handpicked rating circle are rating the properties of the people who picked them.

To put it another way, if would be weird if the W Hotel sponsored the NYT travel and leisure hotel rankings, and chose the expert raters. If the W hotels then were surprisingly highly ranked, and then early access was given to the new W Tokyo, which then was positioned well, I don't think any of us would be out-of-line for rolling our eyes. Lord knows marketing in journalism has been happening for decades:

Marketers Say They Pay for Play in News Media - NYT 2006

Quote
Though product placement in movies and on television shows is a fairly standard practice, it is generally accepted that magazine and newspaper articles, and television and radio news programs, do not accept payment for naming products.

A recent survey, however, challenges that understanding. An annual poll conducted by PR Week magazine and Manning Selvage & Lee, a public relations firm, asked 266 marketing executives if they had ever paid for broadcast or editorial placement. Nearly half said yes. And nearly 46 percent of those who had not paid for placement replied that they would consider doing so in the future.

These lists are supposed to be all in good fun, but they sort of aren't. Rankings are written into contracts. Salaries are dependent on them. We are kidding ourselves if we don't admit that simple access to a place like PV or CP is an extremely valuable commodity that people would want to maintain... so everyone should take these rankings with a grain of salt. Even if absolutely nothing is untoward, I can understand why people with skin in the game might prefer the top ranking institutions have clear, transparent, and strict journalistic standards.

If Oliver is the wrong person to say that, so be it. I don't know him and I don't care. I just think it's a reasonable thing to be said, especially at some cost to his career.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2023, 12:55:16 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #93 on: October 29, 2023, 01:53:06 PM »
Matt,


Good posts, good points. I think the only thing you get noticeably wrong is that there is never a demand for raters to see a course in that particular year. They just have to have played it sometime.


The bottom line is that Top courses rankings were started as just a bit of fun, as recently as the 80’s (aside from the occasional article in years previous). They have turned in to ridiculous big business.


I sometimes wish that they just disappeared completely; and the enjoyment of golf courses came back down to word of mouth and personal preferences. Architects names should slip back in to obscurity.

Tim Gallant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #94 on: October 29, 2023, 03:05:42 PM »
What are the "positive changes" you think this rant could lead to? Why such high esteem for someone who criticizes others with no evidence whatsover?

Early access to Cabot properties if Ran is an investor should probably raise an eyebrow or two. However, even if the were zero impropriety, and I'm not saying there is, the method of ranking at GOLF is extremely loosey-goosey:

Quote
Because we don’t prescribe a set method to assess courses as other ranks do, no one opinion carries the day — our rank is a democracy. Some panelists believe that enjoyment is the ultimate goal, and thus prioritize design attributes such as width and playing angles, while frowning upon the need to constantly hunt for balls in thick rough. Other panelists value challenge and the demands of hitting every club in the bag. Still others consider a course’s surroundings and overall environment of paramount importance, thereby emphasizing the setting and naturalness of the course. In the end, allowing raters to freely express their tastes is what produces the desired eclecticism in our Top 100 lists.

I'm even confused about how rating happens:

Quote
For the newly released 2023-24 World list, each panelist was provided a ballot that consisted of 504 courses globally. He or she was given seven months to complete it. Beside the list of courses were 11 “buckets,” or groupings. If our panelists considered a course to be among the top three in the world, they ticked that first column. If they believed the course to be among Nos. 4-10 in the world, they checked the next column, followed by 11-25, 26-50, and so on out to 250+ and even a column for remove.

504 course in about 210 days presents obvious issues. It seems entirely unclear if the courses need to actually be played that year to be ranked, and if we are requiring the course to be played, who is keeping track of who is playing what? Supposing all the best intentions, if a course were, say, on a small island off the coast of Tasmania, perhaps only one rater might visit it once that year, which should dramatically increase the variance of it's position (especially if they got a rater that just doesn't like wind). That might just be the way the cookie crumbles, but for someone whose career and well-being is tied to these ratings, it sucks.

As much as they want a diversity of opinion, the folks chosen obviously will have aligned values (why would you choose someone for such a desirable role when you think they're an idiot), so it makes sense that Doak and Cabot properties might punch above their weight on this list. And again, that might just be the breaks for folks with different values, but still, it seems doubly awkward when the people within that handpicked rating circle are rating the properties of the people who picked them.

To put it another way, if would be weird if the W Hotel sponsored the NYT travel and leisure hotel rankings, and chose the expert raters. If the W hotels then were surprisingly highly ranked, and then early access was given to the new W Tokyo, which then was positioned well, I don't think any of us would be out-of-line for rolling our eyes. Lord knows marketing in journalism has been happening for decades:

Marketers Say They Pay for Play in News Media - NYT 2006

Quote
Though product placement in movies and on television shows is a fairly standard practice, it is generally accepted that magazine and newspaper articles, and television and radio news programs, do not accept payment for naming products.

A recent survey, however, challenges that understanding. An annual poll conducted by PR Week magazine and Manning Selvage & Lee, a public relations firm, asked 266 marketing executives if they had ever paid for broadcast or editorial placement. Nearly half said yes. And nearly 46 percent of those who had not paid for placement replied that they would consider doing so in the future.

These lists are supposed to be all in good fun, but they sort of aren't. Rankings are written into contracts. Salaries are dependent on them. We are kidding ourselves if we don't admit that simple access to a place like PV or CP is an extremely valuable commodity that people would want to maintain... so everyone should take these rankings with a grain of salt. Even if absolutely nothing is untoward, I can understand why people with skin in the game might prefer the top ranking institutions have clear, transparent, and strict journalistic standards.

If Oliver is the wrong person to say that, so be it. I don't know him and I don't care. I just think it's a reasonable thing to be said, especially at some cost to his career.


Matt,


A couple of answers to your q's. With the quote that you pulled out, I think it is just awkward wording. We have seven months to complete the ballot, but we include all courses that we have played, and feel comfortable ranking. Note: There are some courses that have done work, and there will be an 'After 2018' as an example, meaning, you shouldn't vote on it if you haven't seen the course since work was completed.


With your Cabot comparisons, there is one thing that I keep coming back to: if they handpicked the panel they thought would vote kindly with their courses, then why have the other Cabot properties slipped in the rankings?

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #95 on: October 30, 2023, 09:24:25 AM »

Matt,
Darius Oliver is EXACTLY the wrong person to drive any discussion of Golf Magazine's ratings. Where was his contempt for their process when Cape Wickham was ranked? He even claims to have misled the public about who designed CW in order to get more panelists interest in visiting. I'm not clear on why anyone considers his comments credible.

You also seem to take for granted that Ran has a conflict of interest with respect to Cabot properties, yet are indifferent to Oliver's.

Perhaps the inclusion of Point Hardy knocked Cape Wickham from 100 to 101 on the list, but is that really the true concern? No matter what happened with new courses like that or Lido (very underrated at 68 IMO), Cape Wickham fell out of the top 100 for some other reason - there are simply not that many new courses added. It makes sense to talk about that huge drop, specifically. But when someone has to resort to personal attacks (that they cannot substantiate), they lose credibility with me. Make an adult, logical argument and I'll listen.




Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #96 on: October 30, 2023, 09:53:44 AM »
What are the "positive changes" you think this rant could lead to? Why such high esteem for someone who criticizes others with no evidence whatsover?

Early access to Cabot properties if Ran is an investor should probably raise an eyebrow or two. However, even if the were zero impropriety, and I'm not saying there is, the method of ranking at GOLF is extremely loosey-goosey:

Quote
Because we don’t prescribe a set method to assess courses as other ranks do, no one opinion carries the day — our rank is a democracy. Some panelists believe that enjoyment is the ultimate goal, and thus prioritize design attributes such as width and playing angles, while frowning upon the need to constantly hunt for balls in thick rough. Other panelists value challenge and the demands of hitting every club in the bag. Still others consider a course’s surroundings and overall environment of paramount importance, thereby emphasizing the setting and naturalness of the course. In the end, allowing raters to freely express their tastes is what produces the desired eclecticism in our Top 100 lists.

I'm even confused about how rating happens:

Quote
For the newly released 2023-24 World list, each panelist was provided a ballot that consisted of 504 courses globally. He or she was given seven months to complete it. Beside the list of courses were 11 “buckets,” or groupings. If our panelists considered a course to be among the top three in the world, they ticked that first column. If they believed the course to be among Nos. 4-10 in the world, they checked the next column, followed by 11-25, 26-50, and so on out to 250+ and even a column for remove.

504 course in about 210 days presents obvious issues. It seems entirely unclear if the courses need to actually be played that year to be ranked, and if we are requiring the course to be played, who is keeping track of who is playing what? Supposing all the best intentions, if a course were, say, on a small island off the coast of Tasmania, perhaps only one rater might visit it once that year, which should dramatically increase the variance of it's position (especially if they got a rater that just doesn't like wind). That might just be the way the cookie crumbles, but for someone whose career and well-being is tied to these ratings, it sucks.

As much as they want a diversity of opinion, the folks chosen obviously will have aligned values (why would you choose someone for such a desirable role when you think they're an idiot), so it makes sense that Doak and Cabot properties might punch above their weight on this list. And again, that might just be the breaks for folks with different values, but still, it seems doubly awkward when the people within that handpicked rating circle are rating the properties of the people who picked them.

To put it another way, if would be weird if the W Hotel sponsored the NYT travel and leisure hotel rankings, and chose the expert raters. If the W hotels then were surprisingly highly ranked, and then early access was given to the new W Tokyo, which then was positioned well, I don't think any of us would be out-of-line for rolling our eyes. Lord knows marketing in journalism has been happening for decades:

Marketers Say They Pay for Play in News Media - NYT 2006

Quote
Though product placement in movies and on television shows is a fairly standard practice, it is generally accepted that magazine and newspaper articles, and television and radio news programs, do not accept payment for naming products.

A recent survey, however, challenges that understanding. An annual poll conducted by PR Week magazine and Manning Selvage & Lee, a public relations firm, asked 266 marketing executives if they had ever paid for broadcast or editorial placement. Nearly half said yes. And nearly 46 percent of those who had not paid for placement replied that they would consider doing so in the future.

These lists are supposed to be all in good fun, but they sort of aren't. Rankings are written into contracts. Salaries are dependent on them. We are kidding ourselves if we don't admit that simple access to a place like PV or CP is an extremely valuable commodity that people would want to maintain... so everyone should take these rankings with a grain of salt. Even if absolutely nothing is untoward, I can understand why people with skin in the game might prefer the top ranking institutions have clear, transparent, and strict journalistic standards.

If Oliver is the wrong person to say that, so be it. I don't know him and I don't care. I just think it's a reasonable thing to be said, especially at some cost to his career.


Matt


I agree that in the world of conflict of interests even the possible appearance of such is not good and should be questioned. However, a guy in the business who also has a conflict of interest isn’t a good spokesperson for the cause. Archie’s are best to stay out of the game entirely. Same for course owners or anybody who has a stake in  the rankings. I always take any ranking with a handful of salt because they are easily manipulated.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #97 on: November 01, 2023, 06:59:35 PM »
It seems that with so many really, really good new courses, and so many really good restorations, the Top 100 list is getting too small in size to comfortably fit all the courses that have a claim to being truly great (and all the money and ego backing these courses).


It seems to me that a Top 200 list starts being more and more relevant, and probably within this list, there should be a ton of courses tied at T-101.




Mike Worth

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #98 on: November 01, 2023, 08:19:58 PM »
It seems that with so many really, really good new courses, and so many really good restorations, the Top 100 list is getting too small in size to comfortably fit all the courses that have a claim to being truly great (and all the money and ego backing these courses).


It seems to me that a Top 200 list starts being more and more relevant, and probably within this list, there should be a ton of courses tied at T-101.


I’ve felt for sometime that you should divide the chronology of golf into 3 eras. I realize magazines dont all rate by chronological eras, but consider separate lists for:


1888-1960
1961-1994
1995 -present
« Last Edit: November 01, 2023, 09:48:43 PM by Mike Worth »

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shots Fired - Who designed Cape Wickham
« Reply #99 on: November 01, 2023, 11:36:38 PM »


I’ve felt for sometime that you should divide the chronology of golf into 3 eras. I realize magazines dont all rate by chronological eras, but consider separate lists for:


1888-1960
1961-1994
1995 -present





 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
It's all about the golf!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back