[Matt_Ward]

The scope of the terrain and the greater variety / challenge of holes at Rustic Canyon is clearly beyond Tallgrass IMHO. Tallgrass has its moments but they are far less comprehensive than what you see at Rustic Canyon.

I don't doubt that Tallgrass should get more respect (as Tommy initially suggested), however, there are other public courses on Long Island (namely Bethpage Red and Montauk Down, to name just two) that get even less respect and fanfare.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I think that not so long ago, I or someone else suggested that it was not possible to really understand a great course in a one or two plays, but I dont recall any raters agreeing with this premise.  I cant remember where it came up though . . . Maybe it need be brought up again.  

In the meantime, I happily correct myself.  I certainly dont mean 'all raters,' but instead mean 'some raters' . . . or perhaps 'many raters' is a fair assessment?

Unfortunately though, one look is often all they have . . .

One look is all they have?  I didnt know the magazines prohibited raters from seeing a course a second, third, fifth, or hundredth time.  Interesting.  

. . .  courses like this shall continue to be at a disadvantage in the ratings. I'm not sure if anything can be done to fix this, other than have these courses just be content in what they are:  much loved by their regulars, if not fully understood by course raters.

Interesting again.  You admit that the ratings system fails when it comes to identifying quality subtle courses, and your solution is . . . leave the sacred ratings alone and tell the courses to just get used to being constantly overlooked and underappreciated.   Well at least you have your priorities straight.  

And lets not forget how your approach will encourage future architecture.  I can here the subtle architects now:   "Well . . . no matter how good your course, it will likely remain in obsurity, repeatedly overlooked in favor of the latest flash in the pan.  On the positive side, if anyone ever finds your course they are likely to enjoy it-- if they have the brains to ignore what they read and decide for themselves."No wonder the developers are beating down the doors of those who can build a subtle and relatively inexpensive design!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Blasbe1,
If you want Framing, well then I can assure you Gil isn't going to be your man unless its natural framing and he happened to cut it into dunes, trees or something. See Inniscrone if you want SOME (Not alot) of framing. Its very low key in the framing department.

Personally, I think Gil has great vision in capturing the aura of a site, and while many can get there fill of framing and containment and all of that ilk from commercially popular designers like Tom Fabio, Rees Jones, etc. This is what sets them apart from being artistically popular, and this is why I elevate guys like this to the highest plateau--anything else, well it just wouldnt be golf to me.

And yes, it takes a lot more then just one look at a course that is artistically designed compared to one that is like pre-manufactured or packaged with a label on it. They either "get it" or "they don't get it."

[DMoriarty]

They all do? Where do you come by this opinion?

David, I didnt say all, but was rather treating the rater/ratings as a whole.  After all, isnt this what the magazines do.  

I am willing to bet you the ten bucks I owe Gavin that that the majority of ratings are based on one play or less.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

What I was challenging was your premise that (all) raters cannot notice and appreciate subtleties and non-obvious strategies in a one-time visit.

I think it depends on the person, their experience, their eye, and their understanding of the game and its architecture.  I'm not saying that everything will be fully understood, but one will at least understand that there are multiple questions to be answered.

Conversely, there are any number of people who wouldn't get it on a 20th or 5000th visit, raters included.

Not everyone is a Sam Snead who called The Old Course a cow pasture on his first visit.  

I recall a number of us "getting" the 12th hole for instance, on a single visit and vociferously defending it here from those who called it blah and featureless.

I also recall defending the strategy of a tee ball down the left on the 11th, and how it would open up the green to hole locations on either side of that green, which is hardly apparent.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Of course nothing in any rules prevents any course rater from seeing any course multiple times.

But realities of life, and the many courses some either want to see or are assigned to see, dictate that most of the time one look is all they get.

There's just no practical way any course rater is going to see a course like Rustic the multiple times it requires to get even close to full appreciation of it.  Look at yourself - I believe you've said you are still learning the course, and you must have played it 150+ times by now.  At what number of plays would you say you were qualified to "rate" it?

And so what would you expect of course raters:  10 visits?  20?  50?  You must be able to understand the impracticality of this.

In any case, I'm not saying it's RIGHT nor is it MY APPROACH (jeez, if my approach were all that mattered, Rustic would be rated way higher than it is now) - I'm saying that's the way it is.  I've also always concurred with you that the ratings process is flawed and given way too much importance.  But it's there, and seems to be there to stay, and I even though your complaints here have great validity, I'm at a loss as to how it could be done better so that these types of courses get more attention, which they surely do deserve.

Let me repeat that:  I agree with you that courses like Rustic don't get their just due, due to the way the ratings system works.  I'll repeat it again, for emphasis, I agree with you that courses like Rustic don't get their just due, due to the way the ratings system works.  Should I say it one more time?

But it's the way it is, for worse or for better.

Your recommendations to fix it?

TH

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification.  

I agree that there are the very few out there who really have the eye for identifying quality, and recognizing the existence of interesting questions yet to be answered.   Yet on the other end of the spectrum there are raters who primarily keep their focus on their game, and have little peripheral understanding of the subtleties of the course unless their golf ball happens to stumble over one.

The problem, as I see it, is that many raters would place themselves closer to the former extreme than the latter.  Surely you've met your share of raters who overestimate their ability to fully comprehend based on a brief viewing?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
A few months ago, I posted some pictures of the club Mike Golden had joined since he moved down here, and this is a perfect example of how someone (me) can discount something so fast on one visit, yet not see it or understand it without a more thurough look.

This place is on a site that I would call not conducive to golf, yet, it has evolved into a fun course to play--so much that I can hardly wait for a return visit ust to see more of what I missed. I myself discounted this place many times I have stopped by there for a look before, during and after construction some years ago in the 80's and I have to tell you, this guy to me is a unsung hero for what he built there. He knew the site was so bad that he was going to have to rely on Quirk as the deciding factor and there is nothing that one could remotely call anyting like it in Southern California.

In fact, I'm still not sure if I have seen what I saw! (If that makes sense) I'm not sure if I even like it a whole lot, but the thought of it has piqued my interests to see it again because I had a blast playing there.

That being, this course will never ever see the light of any Top 100, 200, 300, 400 rating or ranking and frankly, I don't see that being a problem at all--in fact I see it as only a positive!

Why?

Because the course simply grabs my attention and entertains me! It makes me laugh just how fun this game can really be on any given course if the designer wasn't trying to control YOU the golfer, but more expose the elements of a site that make it fun and exciting, and needs no number to prove itself.

[DMoriarty]

Tom, you are a rater-- and glad to be one-- so it is your approach.

No need to underscore the realities of your approach.  I am aware of them.  

Your response to all the critiques seems to be to accept the status quo, no matter how absurd the results it produces:   At some point, shouldnt we question whether the  'but this is the only practical way of doing it' approach is doing anything positive at all?  If the system is broke, and you cant fix it, then why not scrap the system?   Or at least stop pretending that it is accomplishing something that it isnt.

At what number of plays would I be qualified to rate Rustic?  No number will make me qualified because I lack the sufficient level of expertise and experience to place Rustic on a relative scale of quality.  

But this isnt about Rustic.  For all I know Rustic isnt in the top 500.  It is about why subtle courses might not get the recognition they deserve.  

My recommendations to fix it?  Scrap the system, as is.  Start over with fewer raters.  Maybe as few as one or two who sign their names to the ratings and explain their reasoning.

Even with its lack of breadth and need of an update, is there any rating system out there nearly as helpful as Doak's Confidential Guide?  

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

How did Tom Doak come up with the most "helpful" rating system since almost every review in that book is based on a single visit?  

[corey miller]

Mike C

Inniscrone? "I've heard of raters scores differing by as much as six full points by raters that have seen them".

Not being a rater I find this hard to believe.  Are people really giving Inniscrone 2 & 3's?  

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I guess Tom might be one of those talented few.  


If his book has a flaw, would you say that this is it?  

[THuckaby2]

David:

That all makes great sense to me.  Yep, scrapping it and starting over might be the ideal thing for courses, and golf course architecture. Please understand that once again, I agree with you.

Our difference is that I see very little, if any, chance that your suggestions - as right as they are and as good for golf as they are - have any chance of being put into effect.  Thus since I am very interested in the good of the game I love so much, I am searching for ways to change the system in place now that DO have a chance of happening... and thus my posts here.  My thoughts are all based on this - practical changes.

And I really don't see any.  So maybe you're right, the only real answer is to scrap it and start over.  But if that's not gonna be done, well... what other alternatives are there?

TH

ps - sorry if I hurt your GCA street cred for agreeing with you so much.  Others have chastised me for this!  

pss - I for one have never claimed that ratings do anything other than sell magazines... again, more agreement with you there, friend.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

I guess Tom might be one of those talented few.  


If his book has a flaw, would you say that this is it?  

David;

My point is that any course rating system is only going to be as good as the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters involved.

Even Tom Doak says in his book, "If you agree with 80% of what I say here, chalk up the rest to individual differences in taste and opinion".

So, I would submit to you that yes, it's possibly easy to think on a theoretical level about what an ideal rating system would look like, and suggest changes, but practicality is often much different.  Even Tom Doak readily admits that he can't get around and see courses as he used to and there are only so many Doaks around.

That's why, when we were going back and forth in the interminable thread on ratings, I asked people to displace 20% of the Top 50 of the modern and classic listings.  

If the lists are so wrong, and so fundamentally faulty, that should have been an easy exercise.  

I would also submit that the best thing any publication could do to try to get the most valid list possible is to seek out raters who know and understand and have a passion about what they are looking at.  This is a continual process and although the system isn't perfect by any stretch, it's one that I would contend is pretty accurately representative of what's out there, by and large.

[THuckaby2]

Mike just gave a very valid "improvement" that could be made - perhaps more careful consideration as to who becomes a rater - a suggestion working within the practicalities of today.  Well said.

Of course my issue there is that the only raters I know seem to be the ones who post here... and these sure aren't guys that need to be replaced!  

 

[Holyhead_ferry_1]

Hi guy's long time no comment, I have been reading with interest the comments. As an architect, many of us like Gil have to have a thick skin because of so called golf raters and golf mag lists of top one hundred this and that.
The sad thing is as I have said before is that an architects reputation can be made or destroyed by so called experts.
Case in hand. Donald Ross Soceity. I walked a Ross Course with a Ross expert making coments to the commitee of the said course.
I had obtained copies of Ross's original layout to which 98% of the course was built to his design. The comments that where made where scandlous and raise the question," What to we need such bodies most of whom Self appointed experts, ruining genuine Ross courses because they like the sound of their own voices".
Architects have constraints put on them that the average joe blow does not understand. Closing the barn door after the horse has left is easy. Hinesight is 20/20 gentlemen, my advice is do your homework before you comment.
Think before you write. Gil does some good work I enjoy playing his layouts because I can score well. that's the sign of a good course to score well and be punished if you fail to meet the challenge. That is the mark of a good course, fair to all golfers.
Anyway keep the faith guy's interesting read's.
Regards
Ian
 

[Mike_Sweeney]

One other thing that my partner reminded me of today, is that Tall Grass drains really well, so it is a nice place to play early in the season when it is soupy at other courses.

http://www.tallgrassgolf.com/

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, Great point. When I was out there it as raining and the course was still crowded with a tournament waiting behind it. The course was still playing much faster then expected for a course that had a short two and a half weeks before had been in a foot of snow and had also been rained on quite frequently just after that. The course was still in really GREAT shape.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Also, I thought the food in the clubhouse was quite delictable!

[blasbe1]

Tommy:

"Personally, I think Gil has great vision in capturing the aura of a site, and while many can get there fill of framing and containment and all of that ilk from commercially popular designers like Tom Fabio, Rees Jones, etc."

I don't see how you can conflate framing and containment, as you stated framing can be natural, dunes, brush, trees, hillsides, etc.

Once you turn a sod farm upside down, I think you raise the bar on what "framing" would be considered natural and what would be considered "contained."  ("This is a once flat turf farm, which Gil Hanse dug out a depression and created a feature that is reminiscent of a quarry wall that runs a great length throughout the property.")  

I do not question the merits of the design, on the contrary I find the green sites and fairway bunkering to be outstanding . . . I did, however, find that the tract  underwhelming.  My explanation for that is based in large part on the utter lack of uniqueness to the property itself, it's flat and everything around it is flat.  

So to answer your question, I think that Tallgrass is LI's Rodney Dangerfield b/c the site lacks inherent quality.  Gil  Hanse has created a fantastic course that is fun to play, but you can't simply plop that kind of design in the middle of nothing and expect that it will live up to it's design potential.  Unique topography is what seperates a good sound designed course and a great course.    

Tallgrass is not great for that reason alone (and perhaps only for that reason).

         

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I don't think Bethpage's length has anything to do with Tall Grass.  Few play Bethpage from the tips.  And, the courses are far enough removed from each other that I don't think that Tall Grass lives in Bethpage's comparative shadow.

Mike Sweeney,

I understand that at one town meeting, residents who lived on Sebonic Road felt that they should get free memberships to Sebonic Golf Club.   Others felt that there should be no digging or excavating as they might disturb the bones of buried Indians.  Then someone asked why they didn't object to digging and excavating when their homes were being built, because similarly, they may have been disturbing the bones of Indians buried on their property.  That's the kind of objection that could stop a project dead in its tracks, a hypothetical objection, with no factual support from the objector.

There are many stories regarding local opposition that would probably cause most developers to lose their hair and spirits.  Hopefully, the project will proceed post haste.

I still haven't heard why Tall Grass doesn't get more recognition.

Matt Ward,

Laurel Links should be another golf destination for those interested in Eastern Long Island golf, especially on the North Fork, which is very interesting in many ways.

[islander2]

I believe the name of the club will be Sebonack.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  

I am not suggesting that Mr. Doak get out there and start rating courses.  I dont want to go out on a limb, but he might achieve some success if he instead sticks to his current day job.

What I am suggesting is that the magazines consider the characteristics of useful books like Doaks.  

 

David;

My point is that any course rating system is only going to be as good as the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters involved.

I disagree, but in the opposite direction: I dont think that the magazine ratings are nearly as good as the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters involved.

A problem as I see it is that the current systems lead to 'least common denominator rating.'  The best raters may have a unique perspective and an ability to find greatness where others dont.  But the rest dont.  So you have swings of as many as 5 or six points, to use your description.  And the low ratings more than cancel out the high ratings of the better raters.  In contrast, courses which are decent, unobjectionable ,and within the status quo will probably end up with a tighter spread of decent scores, none of which significantly pull down the average.  
 
Another way to look at it is by reference to the old computer addage:  Garbage in, garbage out.  

Think about it.  The raters have a whole spectrum of views on what makes a golf course good.  Sure they are given criteria, but at least in GW's system they can throw all that out when assigning the final score.  Plus, even within the criteria, there is plenty of room for subjectivity.  

For example, lets say that Rater A and Rater B both rate course X.  Rater A knocks the course because there are very few spots on the course where the golfer has an even lie.  Rater B might rate the course highly for the exact same reason.   Two raters reaching polar opposite conclusions based on the exact same data.  Same thing could happen with wide fairways, penal bunkers, undulating greens, fast greens, trees, water, bunker tyle etc.  Rater A could give a low rating and Rater B a high rating, despite that they might completely agree on the non-subjective characteristics of the raw data.  

So then the magazines average these scores with the others . . .   But what is their justification for so doing?  For an average to mean anything, dont we need like data within the sample?   Rater A and B have entirely different valuation criteria, so arent we trying to average two numbers which shouldnt even be on the same scale?  Arent the ratings necessarily comparing apples and oranges?   Dont we need a tighter grouping of criteria before we can start averaging.

One may agree with Rater A or Rater B, loving it or hating it.  But it makes no sense to assume the course is average and middle of the road, just because the strongly polarized views cancel each other out.   Averaging renders both ratings meaningless.

A real world example, only slightly modified:  A local website invites readers to rate the playing conditions at various courses.   Softness/firmness of the greens is one of their categories, but they dont specify whether soft/firm greens are good or bad.   So two readers could submit dichotomous scores based on the exact same fact.  And the ratings are rendered meaningless.  What good are such ratings?  (In reality, the website likes soft and dislikes hard.  Still useless to me.)

That's why, when we were going back and forth in the interminable thread on ratings, I asked people to displace 20% of the Top 50 of the modern and classic listings.

I thought this is a fair challenge, but I doubt there are many non-raters who have played enough of these courses to do what you suggest.   For example, I've played less than 10 of these courses (8 I think) so it would be difficult for me to displace 20.  

But even with these 8 there are serious flaws.  


A few examples:  Pumpkin Ridge Ghost a top 100 course?  How can this be?  What separates this course from the pack?  What stands out?  Sure it is generally inoffensive and unobjectionable, but what is there of true quality?  I played it three times and hardly remember a hole.  I dont even think it as good a course as that public course in Portland.  What is it, Blue Heron or something?  

Bandon Dunes the third best modern course in the country?  Third best?   Yikes.  

And Friar's Head eight places behind it?   Does anyone who has played both of these courses really think that Bandon Dunes is a better course than Friar's Head?  Inconceivable.   I've looked at GW's criteria and cant imagine giving Bandon a higher or equal score on a single one (I'm not considering conditioning, because as written I think it is stupid and have no idea what to do with it.)

Manele Bay a top 100 course?  Dont get me wrong, I've enjoyed many rounds at Manele Bay.  It has a couple spectacular tee shots (different directions from the same tee) and great views throughout, but it is truly a course which is solely dependant on Ocean location for its recognition.  The course is all holes running on the same axis, terraced up a hillside.  There is some width and potential strategy, but this is neutralized by the built up greens designed to catch balls from anywhere. Generally not all that impressive once you get away from the Ocean.  

Even though this isnt 20% of the entire list, it isnt really a great performance considering how few of these courses I know.  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

It is obvious to me that golf course architectures purpose is to serve the raters.  We have devolved to a point where the merits of architecture are based upon how well it addresses the rating system.  Are we about to embark upon a period where the criteria for golf course architecture will be crafted by the rating systems?  If so, then I think the trend of raters and magazine editors becoming architects and design consultants will definately be in the interest of the owner's whom seek favorable ratings. We will make architecture serve the rating system.  The direction of this thread is sad, and disheatening.  All Hail the Mighty Rater!  

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

I generally agree.  

So, if I can summarize accurately, you're not against ratings per se, but believe that some tweaks need to be made of a statistical nature to create more accurate outcomes.  

Personally, I've always felt that statistical outlier scores should be either thrown out, or a standard of deviation determined and then possibly factored in some way (it's been a LONG time since my stats class).  

However, I'm not sure that's a perfect system either.  For instance, doesn't it say something meaningful if one course gets all votes in a range of 5 to 6, while another gets votes from 8 to 2?  

By definition, the latter course is more controversial on some level, probably takes more chances, is probably more inherently different architecturally than the norm, and someone playing there might love it or hate it.  How would you suggest that type of thing gets factored in?

But, those type of tweaks aside, I still believe that it comes down to the quality, knowledge, and experience of the raters.  

One of the things that has been criticized on here is the Raters Outings, but those are efforts to get raters together in one place to discuss these types of things, and learn about exactly what is meant by some of the criteria you mentioned above.  I've learned things and I think it helps everyone understand more about the process.  For instance, I think people generally tend to rate everything about a point too high (especially when you consider that there can only be 100 courses in the Top 100), so you end up with bulges of scores that are too similar instead of a more stratified sample.  But, like any system, as long as people are working to make it better, and experienced, knowledgeable people are doing the rating, then the system will improve.  

As an aside, I think Bandon Dunes is rated too high, as well and think it probably should be somewhere around 30.  However, I'm only one person and evidently a whole bunch of other raters who've played there think it's better than I do.  

Who's to say that they aren't right and I'm wrong?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()