GolfWeek's ratings, What surprises you ? And why ?

[Matt_Ward]

Ken J:

The pedigree of Riviera may no longer be "pure" George Thomas but if my memory serves me the layout did quite well in the recently concluded LA Open. Did you happen to watch it?

The 16th at Hazeltine is a superb mid-length par-4 -- if you decide to lump it into TPC schlock theater then I know where you're coming from and I simply disagree.

For some reason you don't respond to my comments of Hazeltine versus the merits of Interlachen and White Bear. Please tell me if you've played all three? I can tell you frnkly that Hazeltine may not meet your definition of "classic" but in my book the course is an honest and straightforward test. Does it possess the "charm" and "character" of a number of the revered all time greats. No, it does not, however, in my opinion, I believe you are just unyielding in giving the course any credit whatsoever. The course has been significantly modified and I believe the changes have been quite positive. Interlachen and White Bear are given far too much brownie points because of the Ross connection and in my opinion don't have the necessary depth to merit a top 50 position.

I also think you missed my point on Cypress v Firestone / South. The better and more complete examination rests with Cypress. Read my previous post -- you may have missed it. My point previously was that WF / West and Riviera provide the more complete test and examination than Prairie Dunes and Fisher's Island and should therefore be rated ahead of them although I don't deny that Prairie and Fisher's are wonderful courses in their own right. And, please realize I'm not elevating WF / West and Riviera simply because of the difficulty factor.

[Ken Fujioka]

Matt Ward

* Is there a reason why you will not answer my simple request: what is compelling about Hazeltine's architecture?

* I have no interest in White Bear and Interlachen, but if you prefer to avoid the Hazeltine question by all means fill us in.

* I did not watch the LA Open nor the Torrey Pines tournament. Should a course like Riviera be given a pass for desecrating George Thomas.

* What is your philosophy on protecting the integrity of the architecture; does Golf Week place too much importance on architecture?

* The question was not which course was a more "complete examination."  I used your oft repeated phrase "exposing weaknesses". It is another simple question: which golf course is more thorough in exposing weaknesses, Cypress Point or Firestone? Why?

[Guest]

Ken Fujioka,

* Regarding Riviera the American author Geoff Shackelford said "from an architectural point of view, (the changes) are awful."

Should Geoff Shackelford's opinion be the only opinion on the subject of architecture and accepted without question ?

Brad Klein,

Please stop destroying the conspiracy theories, it makes it so much more difficult for some to come to terms with the ratings when you do that.

[JS]

Brad Klein

The vast majority of the alternative courses you've listed have almost zero chance of making a national top 100 list.  No matter how good the food is, or the free gifts.  All the rankings smack of bribery these days, and Mr Paul is right, it's mainly about magazine sales and access, not education.  We'd be better off without them.  

[John Conley]

I don't like onions.  Therefore, I don't consume them.

If you don't like Brad's Golfweek lists, don't consume them.

That you spend so much energy trying to disparage his work is laughable.  That you do it anonymously indicates something far more serious.

[Robert Harrison]

Could just one of the Golfweek raters tell us how many people need to see a course for it to be eligible? 5, 10, 20, 30?

Surely this is not a secret? It would seem to settle many of the disputes here over excellent courses making and not making the list.

[P. Schall]

Could just one of the Golfweek raters tell us how many people need to see a course for it to be eligible? 5, 10, 20, 30?

First they would have to find out how many people saw Rustic Canyon and then make the number at least one more than that.  

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

As pointed out before (and now deleted?), the great improvement of the rating of Atlantic, Cassique and Kiawah after hosting a Golfweek panelist outing is very fishy!  Shouldn't this question of rater's objectivity at least be discussed?

As I mentioned before, Victoria National hosted a Golfweek outing and actually dropped around 7-9 spots in the next rating.  And, we made a concerted effort to put Turtle Point in front of the panelists to try to boost that course into the tops in the state.  It didn't happen.  There's no quid pro quo on this event.  The Ocean Course moved up because of the renovations Pete Dye did last summer.

Oops...  After I wrote this I see that Brad Klein made many of the same points.  As for the quality of the courses, Golf Digest had Briar's Creek as the top new private course so that blows your theory of the quality of the courses...

[John_Conley]

Could just one of the Golfweek raters tell us how many people need to see a course for it to be eligible? 5, 10, 20, 30?

Surely this is not a secret? It would seem to settle many of the disputes here over excellent courses making and not making the list.

Pretty sure it is now ten.  May have been 5 in the past.  I think more raters were added and more visits required in an effort to stabilize the movement, but I may be wrong.  I am not involved in the methodology, but am happy with the process whenever we talk about it.

Why do you think there is such an elaborate theatrical production behind the scenes?  Brad has in the past replied to a letter to the Editor from Arizona questioning why more Desert Mountain courses weren't ranked in the Top 100, so it is hardly the total secrecy you imply.

I don't know you.  Have we met?  I'm in Orlando by way of Minneapolis.

[Rick_Noyes]

I have a question concerning ratings and their interpretation.
Conspiracy theories and vote tampering aside.

Do you not have to accept the good with the bad?  Can a rater/ratings panel be considered genius for rating course "A" in the top 10 and at the same time idiots for rating course "B" in the bottom 50?  I realize that's everything is open to opinion, but the entire process loses validity if you accept one ranking and not another.  Thoughts?

Rick

[Mrs. Reality]

John Conley

You write “I don't like onions.  Therefore, I don't consume them.  If you don't like Brad's Golfweek lists, don't consume them.”

Easy for you to say since u r a golfweek rater so everyone is clear on this.
How do you think people in the golf business who are affected by these rankings would respond to your “don’t consume them” absurdity?  These rankings may be lots of fun for you and get you access to many courses, but they won’t change your life one bit.  Not the case for many people in the business.  So why don’t you consume that and get real.

[Doug Sobieski]

Mrs. Reality:

You stated:

"These rankings may be lots of fun for you and get you access to many courses, but they won’t change your life one bit.  Not the case for many people in the business."

I'd like to know how you envision someone's life being changed because of the rankings. Personally, I'm a Golfweek panelist as well as having been in the golf business for many years. I've also worked at a club that was perenially on every top 100 list, and it eventually fell off every list. I can't recall anybody ever making a comment about it happening, let alone having my life effected by it. I just wish I could have my life effected every year when the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue comes out

Again, please provide some specifics on how your life is impacted. Just curious.

Regards,

Doug

[John_Conley]

John Conley

You write “I don't like onions.  Therefore, I don't consume them.  If you don't like Brad's Golfweek lists, don't consume them.”

Easy for you to say since u r a golfweek rater so everyone is clear on this.
How do you think people in the golf business who are affected by these rankings would respond to your “don’t consume them” absurdity?  These rankings may be lots of fun for you and get you access to many courses, but they won’t change your life one bit.  Not the case for many people in the business.  So why don’t you consume that and get real.

I'm having a little trouble understanding the problem.  Dick Vitale is not a member, so there cannot be 300 courses on the Top 100 list.  Make a best-efforts attempt to identify the Top 100/200 courses and:

A) Biased toward those that make it
B) Unfair toward those that don't

Don't you realize only 100 courses can make a Top 100?  Some movement has occurred to the point where probably 150-175 courses have made the Top 100 Modern since inception.  This is either:

A) Great, as more courses get to flaunt the recognition
B) Horrible, as it shows how flawed the process is

When you hear complaints from both sides, as Dr. Brad and his panel have, it probably shows that:

A) You will never be able to please everyone (so why try)
b) The end list is pretty good.

As for your reality?  Get a life and post under your real name or call me to discuss.  Everyone hear knows how to get in touch with me, as evidenced by my call last night from Tommyknockers.

[Mrs. Reality]

Doug Sobieski

Good that u were honest about being gw panelist.  Helps understand your perspective.
To help u understand another view, just answer these simple questions.

- do rankings affect selection and hiring of architects?
- do rankings affect selection and hiring of superintendents?
- do rankings affect selection and hiring of golf pros?
- do rankings affect selection and hiring of even gm's?

The honest answer to all of the answers is YES, which is unfortunate, but it’s a fact of the business.

John Conley

Thanks for the spanking.  I needed that.
As for calling u, don’t get too high on yourself.
I have no reason or desire to speak with u directly.
u r not that important, not to me at least .

[John_Conley]

Fine.  Don't call.  It isn't going to affect me one way or another.  I'm just fostering "frank discussion".

As for your questions?  OF COURSE all those are affected by rankings.  That's how business works.  Imagine the plight of the local restaurateur, unable to spend to compete with national, well-funded chains like Cheesecake Factory, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Brio Tuscan Grille, and Houston's.  His food may be better, but he lacks the ad budget and resources to attract as much attention.

Trying to fault Golfweek's, or anyone else's course rankings, for things in a market economy is misguided.

[Jeff_Lewis (Guest)]

I think the idea that one cannot openly differ with the Golfweek ratings is incredibly arrogant. Is this North Korea or Iraq? The fact is that the ratings are supposed to be entertaining and thought provoking, which these are. There is a lot not to like about the Golfweek lists. I don't really like their criteria, and I don't really like the distinction between older and newer courses.

However, I do appreciate having had several courses pointed out to me. Moraine, which came onto my radar screen via the Golfweek ratings is a far better course than its Golf Digest ranked neighbor NCR.

All of these processes are highly imperfect and can be improved. Those of us who are involved in them should take the impact we have on other people extremely seriously.

[Doug Sobieski]

Mrs. Reality:

You skirted my question, which was how are YOU effected by the rankings. That would help me understand your position a bit better. Are you an architect, a super, a PGA Professional, a GM? If you are impacted negatively as you suggest (why would you care if it was positive!), maybe there are some on this board that have similar experiences that could provide insight into overcoming these problems.

Trying to remain mysterious about everything isn't going to do much here.

Regards,

Doug

[John_Conley]

Doug:

Mrs. Reality's disgruntled commentary reminds me of an expression popular in my neighborhood when I was a youth.

Don't hate the playa', hate the game.[/color]

Seems that Golfweek is the wrong target.  Perhaps just any magazine's with rankings?  How does Daytona feel that Grayson is a higher rated beach?  Just wondering.

[Brad Klein]

P. Schall, I'm glad to answer procedural issues. If we ran these every time we did the rankings we would have no room for the actual names of the courses. But the basic rule we follow is that no golf course can make the top-100 list unless it gets a minimum of ten votes. Most of our classical courses have 30-50 votes, which is why that list is so stable. Many of our Modern courses have fewer votes, with the obvious statistical bias that the fewer the number of votes, the more wildly the results fluctatuate with each additional vote. So the baseline is 10 votes.

We take the top-public access couses from the same list, so in most cases, they have ten apiece as well. In a few cases, such as with Alaska, South Dakota or Wyoming, we have to rely on courses with fewer than ten to make our state-by-state list. But that also is taken right off of our Excel spreadsheet of ballot results.

I'm not going to get into debates over this or that individual golf course. But our team of 235 raters cast a total of 26,000 votes on 1,400 courses. If you have problems with the outcome, remember that your view is always more unreliable than the collective wisdom of a massed group.

[John_Conley]

I think the idea that one cannot openly differ with the Golfweek ratings is incredibly arrogant. Is this North Korea or Iraq? The fact is that the ratings are supposed to be entertaining and thought provoking, which these are. There is a lot not to like about the Golfweek lists. I don't really like their criteria, and I don't really like the distinction between older and newer courses.

However, I do appreciate having had several courses pointed out to me. Moraine, which came onto my radar screen via the Golfweek ratings is a far better course than its Golf Digest ranked neighbor NCR.

All of these processes are highly imperfect and can be improved. Those of us who are involved in them should take the impact we have on other people extremely seriously.

Jeff:

We agree.  All the panelists I know take it quite seriously.  

Your comment about Moraine is a good one.  I was talking to a GCA poster this AM who said pretty much the same thing.  If you have played all the courses in New York, you probably know which ones you like and which you don't.  If you've never been to Florida and have a chance to play something on the list, you'd do so with a comfort level knowing that it isn't going to be bad.  Conversely, if you were playing Bay Hill, Isleworth, Lake Nona, or Grand Cypress - NONE of which are ranked by Golfweek - you wouldn't assume that the course is not something you'd like.  

Regarding the process being imperfect?  Absolutely.  When something is imperfect, it often is not possible to be perfect.  Compare this to a ranking of colleges or business schools.  Very similar.

Who ever says people cannot differ with posted rankings?  Certainly no one I've spoken to.  However, there is a right and wrong way to go about it.  We actually had someone say a course in the Top 15 should move up to the Top 10.  We've had people say that two courses in the Bottom 40 should trade spots.  Does it really matter?  (A statistician would say no, when you consider how close the results are.  Example:  15 people have seen a new course and the average grade is 6.894.  52 people have seen another course and the average grade is 6.853.  With a numbered ranking, the new course will finish ahead.  Next year, maybe ten more panelists see it and it drops behind an old standard.  Such are the vagaries of trying to create order from life.)

I suspect your comment about how it can be improved has already been addressed, for I have seen the statistical integrity improve each year.  I have a feeling we keep getting halfway to our goal, with the final destination never being reached.  Most of what can be measured is by people Brad feels are capable of doing the measuring.  Haven't got my 2003 card yet, so I may be one of the booteds.  If so, I'll respect that those remaining are more qualified than I to perform the duties.

I mentioned there is a right way to discuss, debate, and question the work.  I'd love to hear your constructive criticisms.  I don't have any say in how it runs since I am but one humble voter, but I am always curious to see how it can be bettered since we are occasionally asked for feedback.

On the whole, learning experiences with other panelists are good.  The courses we visit while conducting these often do not make the lists.  Harbor Club, Reynolds National, and Melrose are just a few I can name.  You can obviously counter that Bandon Dunes and Cassique did make an appearance.

There is a lot not to like?  Maybe so.  I don't like the "Tradition" criteria Digest uses, so I prefer to look over the "scrubbed" results from Mike Vegis (which I know don't contain unranked courses that may have moved up) for my personal use.  Notice you don't see me bashing Digest because I disagree with the criteria.

It is somewhat important to know who the panelists are.  I won't get into discussion of the others, but I think the Golfweek panel is a bunch of regular guys that like golf and appreciate design.  Playing accomplishments are less important to Brad than one's willingness to travel to see the full spectrum of courses on the ballot - not just "elephant-hunting" to see who can knock out the Top 100 fastest.

[Mrs. Reality]

Jeff Lewis

When u say “those of us who are involved in them” I am led to think that u yourself r a rater.  If so, thanks for being intellectually honest as a rater when u say “should take the impact we have on other people extremely seriously.”  If not, thanks anyway because u r correct.

John Conley

Keep it coming.  u r getting closer to the truth when u state “OF COURSE all those are affected by rankings.  That's how business works.  Imagine the plight of the local restaurateur, unable to spend to compete with national, well-funded chains like Cheesecake Factory, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Brio Tuscan Grille, and Houston's.  His food may be better, but he lacks the ad budget and resources to attract as much attention.”

Analogy:  the golf course may be better, but it lacks the ad budget and resources to atrract as much attention.  Is that really how you want your gw rankings to be perceived?

We r not talking about advertising budgets.  We r speaking of courses that r already known or r getting some attention.  If a course’s resources and ability to advertise is determinate of its ranking, then that’s what people r talking about.   Example.  Golfweek certainly knew about both Rustic Canyon and Hidden Creek long before the rankings deadline.  Maybe they didn’t deserve to be in the modern list, but the accolades from quite a few apparently knowledgeable people certainly lead one to think that they at a minimum deserved enough of somebody’s attention to make sure that the minimum # of raters played and reviewed them?  They aren’t courses that due to locations or advertising budgets fell under everybody’s radar screen.  If you can get 40-80 raters - don’t know how many exactly - to show up at outings at remote places like Bridgehampton and Kiawah, certainly they could have gotten just a few more to play a RC and HC!  Question:  were RC and HC even on the list of courses?  If not, why not?

Also, do you think rankings can affect advertising budgets?

Doug Sobieski

If any magazine wants its ratings to be credible, then it should go to great pains of making the process as non-political as possible and not compromise that process in any way, or the results will be tarnished whether you like it or not, whether justified or not.   If you agree with Jeff Lewis’ words of caution, this should be obvious.  Example.  Another poster wrote that the person running the rankings got paid to write a book about a course that then jumped dramatically in the rankings.  I don’t know this to be true, and certainly hope it’s not, but if it’s correct then the credibility of the entire ranking process gets compromised even if it had zero zilch nada to do with the move.  It’s that type of thing that should be avoided at all costs and u, as a rater, should care just as much about such things if u care about the appearance of integrity of the rankings that u participate in creating.  Remember, perception is just as important as reality!

Answer to your question.  I have not been personally affected by the rankings, not yet at least.  This isn’t a personal vendetta.  It’s just that people in the business r affected both positively and negatively by the rankings, so me feels that the integrity of the process should be preserved to the greatest extent possible.  If u don’t agree with that, then I need not know more!

[John_Conley]

The analogy I was using was along these lines.

The golf ARCHITECT may be better, but it lacks the ad budget and resources to atrract as much attention TO THEIR BODY OF WORK.  More about them landing new jobs than getting recognition for courses already in the ground.  Like the NBA finding Jerome James, Ben Wallace, Devean George, and Mike Penberthy... if you belong there, you eventually find your way there.

There are a good many who could have the same number of named courses at Tom Fazio and Rees Jones if they had the same sites and same budgets.  However, for one reason or another, Jones and Fazio are hired more often than others when it comes to high-profile, high-budget projects.  

I don't fault THEM for that.  To borrow from the late legend Andre Roussimoff in his starring role in the Greatest Movie of All Time - The Princess Bride - It ees not my fault I am thee beegest and the strongest.

[Ran Morrissett]

What I like the most about Golf Week's latest rankings:

1. The positive exposure to Wild Horse - no other ranking does the same
2. The positive exposure to Fenway - no other ranking does the same and Geoffrey Childs deserves a lot of credit for getting raters to this course.
3. The positive exposure to Holston Hills - no other ranking does the same
4. at least Kapalua is in the top 50 now and The Ocean Course at Kiawah is in the top 15 (two years ago, they were way, way WAY out of wack).
5. the fact that the great work at Oakmont has been recognized with a move from #13 ahead of some tough company to #6 over the past several years.


What I like the least about Golf Week's latest effort:

1. as already discussed, the missed opportunity to expose such design gems as Friar's Head, Rustic Canyon and Hidden Creek to the golfing world, as well as some hidden away classics like Eastward Ho!, Charles River and Lookout Mountain.
2. did Hollywood GC in New Jersey really go from #57 to off the list in the span of one year - how can that be?! It's only lacking another 5-8 cross bunkers being restored to be amongst the handful of best in golf rich New Jersey.
3. the significant drops of Victoria National and Forest Creek - perhaps having a group of raters at a course at once isn't a good idea (especially for the club)?
4. the fact that Augusta National never moves from #3 spot - with all the work that has gone on there in the past several years, shouldn't it at least go up OR down?
5. the cut-off should be WWII and let a course like The Dunes in South Carolina and its architect enjoy a ride at the front of the bus as opposed to the back. Also, speaking of The Dunes, why not let 9 holers count? Wouldn't seeing courses like The Dunes in MI and Whitinsville send good messages?

Cheers,

[Mike Hendren]

Not to divert this thread, but Ran's cudos regarding Fenway's ranking lead me to once again read the course review.  I remain mesmerized by the tiny green at the 15th, even adopting it as the wallpaper on my desktop.  

What a treat it must be to play into this green.  It appears that the effective size of the green is substantially smaller than the 2,500 square feet cited.  My question:  Is the front two-thirds of the green even pinable?  

Regards,

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

The question asked by Ran is a good one -- how did Hollywood fall off the GW chart? Is Wykagyl in Westchester, to name just one, truly a better overall course than Hollywood? Not in my book.