[Charlie Goerges]

I’m not a rater, but years ago I was told that the two categories’ scores do not correlate, i.e. you can’t intermix the lists using their numeric scores.

Did you hear this as a general observation, or was it more of a formal rule within the rating system?

The reason I ask is Golfweek frequently intermixes the rating of classic and modern courses to form all kind of ranked lists. Below are 6 intermixed list they currently have published. All of the rankings in this list are based on the course's rating score.

Top 200 resort courses in the U.S.
Top 100 U.S. public-access courses
Top 200 residential golf courses in the U.S.Top 50 courses in Mexico, Caribbean, Atlantic islands and Central America
Top 50 Casino Golf Courses
Top 40 Campus Courses

It’s possible that it’s different now than it was then, but I was given to believe the two lists were entirely separate, and for statistical reasons it wouldn’t really work to intermingle the lists. At the time I thought I’d be clever and combine the lists using a spreadsheet, but I was disabused of that notion by multiple people. It may have been that the questionnaires were different between the two categories or something to that effect, but I don’t remember.

The criteria are slightly different for the two lists in one of the ten categories they rate, so they shouldn't be directly compared.  But it's such a small difference that the magazine frequently violates its own rule to produce additional lists.


The difference in criteria is also somewhat incoherent:  I can see why 2(a) should apply to classic courses, but not why 2(b) applies only to modern courses.


2A. Integrity of original design (Classic)
   The extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the original design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it.

2B. Quality of feature shaping (Modern)
   The extent to which the land’s features have been enhanced though earthmoving and shaping to form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence

Thanks for clarifying that Tom, I thought it might be something along those lines, but I could not remember. And yes, I don't quite understand why 2B doesn't apply to classic courses except to say that they would have had access to fewer types of earthmoving equipment, but they certainly did feature shaping in their own way.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The criteria are slightly different for the two lists in one of the ten categories they rate, so they shouldn't be directly compared.  But it's such a small difference that the magazine frequently violates its own rule to produce additional lists.


The difference in criteria is also somewhat incoherent:  I can see why 2(a) should apply to classic courses, but not why 2(b) applies only to modern courses.


2A. Integrity of original design (Classic)
   The extent to which subsequent changes are compatible with the original design and enhance the course rather than undermine or weaken it.

2B. Quality of feature shaping (Modern)
   The extent to which the land’s features have been enhanced though earthmoving and shaping to form a landscape that suits the game and has aesthetic/thematic coherence

I understand why Golfweek feels the need to have a 2a and 2b, Even if it would seem that 2A should be used when evaluating a modern course built 60 years ago and 2b should be used when evaluating a classic course that has gone through a restoration.

In the end, I'd expect the magnitude of change from this one question to be relatively insignificant on the overall rating. Especially considering the collection of all raters evaluations for any given course. I'd also anticipate if a course scored poorly or extremely well in either 2a or 2b, the justification for the score in question 2 will also impact the score for multiple other questions in the rating criteria.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()