Are ratings over-rated?

[les_claytor]

I've been marinating this topic for some time.  I find course rankings unproductive, uninteresting, and somewhat obnoxious.  I don't know why it bothers me, maybe because "I never met a course I didn't like."  

I have seen courses critically in need of help, what I consider poor design and construction, and courses so good that your heart quickens from the time you hit the parking lot.  However, I have a hard time putting a number to a course.  I think I like to look harder into the big picture of a course, strategy and details, and just appreciate the course for what it is.  I have tried to formulate a personal top ten, but it is incomplete and I come back to a tier system or a certain class of course as my personal favorites.  I find the best courses have a quality that creates a gut reaction of awe, humility and constant mental stimulous.

The Doak scale is interesting in respect to ranking.  Although he assigns a number or class ranking to individual courses, the absolute ranking of courses against each other is left to the individual.  By the way, that book is selling on e-bay from $150 - 200 bucks, amazing!

So, my question to the group is do we trivialize courses by putting a number on them and spending  more time comparing courses and ranking, instead of concentrating on the intrinsic qualities of a course thereby increasing one's knowlege of golf course architecture?


Les

[THuckaby2]

Les:

Hell of a good question.  Bottom line to me is that it's tough to expect people - even people as passionate and into architecture as those who participate here - not to compare and contrast golf courses.  It's just human nature to want to know which course is "better"... which one is more worth the effort to seek out and play...

It's also a much simpler than to do, and easier to give sound-bite responses to, than detailed architectural discussion.

So in a perfect world, there are no ratings or rankings, and we delve into the nth degree of detail about every course we find worthwhile, and plenty of others we don't.  we all learn a lot.

But the world isn't perfect, people only have so much time to devote to all this, so ratings are a necessary evil.

They also sell a lot of magazines.  

[George Pazin]

Yes - to virtually all of the above.

Les, you've successfully and succintly summarized why many of us dislike the rankings/ratings and the shallow discussions they generate - now you just need to convince the bad guys to come on over to the good side.

[THuckaby2]

George:

As one of the so-called "bad guys", (I think), please do understand that I agree with every word Les says as well.  I'd have to say I am the poster boy for never meeting a course he didn't like.  

I just don't think it's realisitic or practical to think that ratings and rankings will go away, either in discussion here or out in the world of magazines.

So to me it's better to treat it as a necessary evil, one that actually is kinda fun.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Les;

You make good points and I agree that the meat of understanding of any golf course cannot be found in a number.

However, I would also ask those who are against rankings not to participate in the "Five best courses of Architect X" threads.  We can't have it both ways.

I think Huck's right...we can't help but compare and contrast and I think a good example is the thread on Sand Hills vs Friar's Head.  I also think that discussion brings up some really interesting perspectives on both courses.  

Expand that discussion 18,000 times among selected publication groups and you have the current Top 100 lists, however.  

[Matt_Ward]

Les:

Some people dislike ratings because they are forced top decide what is better than something else. I can remember as a kid arguing who was better Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson? It's inevitable when sports is a topic.

I don't doubt ratings sell magazines but show me a 19th hole anywhere in the world where people don't mention what hole / course is better than the one they just played or what deficiencies are there with a particular hole / course. Or at a minimum group favorite holes / courses in some sort of manner.

Ratings incite strong passions because ultimately we identify with those courses we favor or those we dislike. I see nothing wrong in it provided people have some rationale for their selections beyond just personal taste. Some people prefer courses with plenty of quirk -- some simply favor courses with excessive difficulty and some mix and match from a wide range of criteria.

Many people abhor ratings because they don't like to see courses graded -- but such a situation is not going away and if people were really honest they would say so rather than taking the high and mighty approach that all such ratings are really pointless. If they didn't matter to somebody then no magazines would run them. Plain and simple.

[A.G._Crockett]

I can't find anything to object to in ratings, even when I disagree with a particular list.  Ratings cause us to think about and identify and defend what we like (or don't) when discussed in a forum like this.  For the more mentally healthy than those who populate GCA, ratings serve as orienting points for future travels and rounds.

What's the downside?

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

Great points and I'll go with Bob Gibson!

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Take Sandy's five top years and no one else comes close although has any pitcher ever had a better year than Gibson's 1968 year when he had the 1.12 ERA?

I really liked Bob Gibson but let's not forget that he did lose game #7 against the Tigers! Did Sandy ever lose a game of consequence?

P.S. Though the fly ball that Curt Flood misjudged for the Cards v Tigers should have been kept in front of him!

[Jim Franklin]

I agree Sandy's first five were as good as anyone, but if I needed one pitcher for one game, I would still want Gibby. That season of 1968 was truly remarkable. I do think Koufax was the best lefty of all-time.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim,
Sandy WAS the best of all-time.

Matt, The only game I can think of that may have had some meaning that Sandy lost was Game 1 or 2 against the Twins, where he came back winning the next game and then pitched like on 2 days rest and beat them again.

Just recently, I started but then lost time and haven't had the time to continue, last years Sandy Koufax biography and what I read of it, it was outstanding.

I recommend it even to Yankee fans. (Somehow 1963 comes to mind! )

[THuckaby2]

Good man, Tommy.  Preach the truth, bruthah!

Gibson was a fine pitcher.  Sandy is a god.

 

[SL_Solow]

Jim;  Really off topic but how do you measure a career in deciding all time best.  Koufax is the best I ever saw for 1 game or 1 season or even 6 seasons.  However his career lasted only 10 seasons and he won less than 200 games in his career.  Better than Lefty Grove (300-140)?  How do you rate Steve Carleton?  Some phenomenal years with the lowly Phils and the Cards.  Randy Johnson had a similar path (wild young, dominating later) and while I think Koufax was better, Johnson has lasted longer.  This does not even consider differences in eras, styles of play etc.

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

If memory serves Sandy's loss was tied to the fact that he sat out because of Jewish observances during Yom Kipur.

One other note -- I would not be soooooo fast to declare Sandy the all-time lefty because you have man by the name of Steve Carlton who was quite good. Let's not forget that Lefty won 27 games one year on a team that didn't win 60!

Great physique and durability.

That's the lone rub on Koufaz -- his career boils down to a few great seasons compacted together -- Carlton was simply awesome over a longer period of time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

....which all really leads back to the discussion of ratings. Even when presented with the hard statistics it is still a subjective matter when deciding who was the better pitcher and it boils down to the criteria used, i.e. Gibson's ERA, Groves 300 wins, Koufaxs' solid seasons.  
Same goes for golf ratings.

[TEPaul]

"So, my question to the group is do we trivialize courses by putting a number on them and spending  more time comparing courses and ranking, instead of concentrating on the intrinsic qualities of a course thereby increasing one's knowlege of golf course architecture?"

I see it as a positive that golfers sit around at the 19th hole and discuss what the best courses, or holes are or what the neatest architecture is and why. I see it as a postive that the same discussions go on on this website.

What I think isn't positive are those magazine rankings, and state magazine rankings by the number. I've never seen any of those magazines say anything particularly eductational architecturally regarding any course they rank or about why the courses they rank are ranked as they are in any real architectural sense. These magazines seem to talk about (and become confused by) their own mysterious CRITERIA far more than they talk about the particulars of architecture in any educational way.

Look at PVGC, a course that's been a regular #1 in the country and the world. What has any magazine that ranks it ever said that's architecturally educational about the course? How many different ways and times can you say it's hard?

Look at some of Matt Ward's critiques of courses by state or whatever. What I come away with is one has more juice than another or you can smell the coffee better on one than another. As far as I'm concerned those are better descriptions and better ways to rank breakfasts than golf courses and their architecture!  

I think Doak's scale numbers are pretty interesting but any comparative discussion of courses should get into the details of golf architecture during the discussion and that generally doesn't happen much that I know of except on here.

Magazine rankings by the number are for the birds, in my opinion, and even the biggest supporters of the magazines rankings don't even try to deny that the real intent of them is basically to sell magazines.

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

I'd concur that the only real reason for magazine ratings is to sell magazines.

But please do explain something else to me:  why is ARCHITECTURE all that matters, in any discussion of a golf course or certain golf courses?  Are we studying design or playing golf?

To me architecture matters exclusively in the former, but so many other things go into the latter... that I've never understood why any discussion about a golf course should be limited to architecture alone.  For people who build golf courses, sure - that's how they can judge themselves.  But for people who play the game?

I don't get it.  Never have.  Educate me, oh great one.

TH

[George Pazin]

I'd concur that the only real reason for magazine ratings is to sell magazines.

Not if I understood Brad correctly at Baltusrol. He implied/stated that the rankings are more of a marketing tool and don't really help sell any particular issue.

We've had this argument a million times, but I think Tom Paul post sums it up best. Ratings/rankings discussions are always about the number, and never about the details. Sorry if that is sufficient to you, Huck, but a lot of us ilke those details. If any of the rankers gathered up that wasted time, they could actually contribute something of value.

[Joe Hancock]

Les,

Good topic. I am one who could care less about "Top # Whatever/ whoever". I might care if the lists had anything substantial about the "why" of the list, but to just make lists often amounts to bragging, IMHO.

But, I can chose to not click on threads that look like lists that'll do nothing but make me feel like I have no money or ability to travel to all ends of the earth to enjoy golf architecture.

Joe

EDIT: I assume you were talking outside of GCA.com, but we have way too many lists.........

[THuckaby2]

George:

There are plenty of places to get these details you seek.  Why rely on the magazines?  And as for these numbers being a marketing tool - sure they are, in the eyes of certain courses.  If they magazines treat them this way, well then, what is that then besides just using them to sell more magazines?

In any case, the magazines do what they do and yep, that's good enough for me.  I really don't read them much, any of them!  They're pop fodder for the masses, and that's fine and dandy by me.  Why do they need to be more?

Care to take a stab at the question I asked Tom though?  I don't think this has been beaten to death - yet.

TH

[George Pazin]

Huck -

I'd never claim that it's all about the architecture. I frankly don't even care if people want to discuss rankings, if they'd enlighten us with some actual detail as to the thinking behind the rankings. I've been on this site for 5 years and haven't seen it yet. That's what I hate about the rankings.

[ChasLawler]

Personally I could care less what any magazine puts out. It's up to the individual golfer to decide whether or not he wants to give a list any credence, and if he does...well - it's up to him to evaluate what that list really means. I think everyone is capable of that. It's not as if there are millions of people out there who take one look at the GD Top 100 list and accept it as gospel.

And reiterating what I think Joe was getting at….I'm still relatively new here, but it seems as if too many  "list your top 5..." type threads are popping up on here, and even worse - the majority of the responses to these and other threads offer no explanation as to why that poster may have listed their top whatever in that order.

It's all well and good that many of you have played this course and that course, but no one (well at least not me) really cares that much what your top whatever might be – if you’re not going to explain yourself.

[Matt_Ward]

George P:

Sorry partner but I disagree with your stance that you "have not seen" any thinking that goes in with the ratings that people constantly talk about.

With all due respect George -- where have you been and what have you been missing. I know plenty of times I will state why I liked a respective course and how it might compare / contrast to others through a range of criteria. If people disagree so be it -- I would just like them to base their disagreement on more than just an aerial or the like.

Dave S:

Ferguson Jenkins is underrated but puhleeeeeze help me stop laughing if you're saying Jenkins is ahead of Koufax and Gibson!

Just check out ERA stats and Jenkins is above them by a considerable amout. Let me also mention that Steve Carlton pitched for some dog teams and was still dominant in the league.  

TEPaul:

You truly need to wake up and smell the coffee because I have provided on more than a few occasions detailing what aspects of architecture are present and missing from the courses I have played. How quickly they forget. Must be because of your age!

One other thing -- magazines can sell anything unless somebody wants to buy it -- the average Joe and Jane do read such things although I know your majesty frowns on such trivial pursuits.

[T_MacWood]

"So, my question to the group is do we trivialize courses by putting a number on them and spending more time comparing courses and ranking, instead of concentrating on the intrinsic qualities of a course thereby increasing one's knowlege of golf course architecture?"

I agree with you rhetorical question, rating for the sake of rating is useless. But on the other hand, if as a bi-product they stimulate an increase in knowledge that is a good thing IMO. My initial interest in golf architecture was sparked by the rankings, but as my interest in golf architecture has grown my interest in the rankings has demished.

I gain more from reading Ran's profiles of the many unranked courses than I do from Golf Digest's 100 Greatest. I gain more from reading an old article written by Tillinghast or MacKenzie than I do from GD's ranking. I gain more from a heated discussion or disagreement with TE Paul or KB Moran than I do from the rankings. I gain more from Paul Turner's photo essays than I do from the rankings. I gain more from Rich Goodale or Pat Mucci questioning my unorthodox theories than I do from the rankings.

How much do the rankings have to do with golf architecture?

[Tim_Weiman]

Les,

I would say that the existence of GCA probably does mean the ratings are over-rated.

Why?

Because GCA serves to enhance communication amongst people who have an interest in golf architecture and helps one sort out how one will spend one's precious time and money checking out golf architecture venues.

Years ago I used the magazine rankings to help me decide where to go. No more. Today I'm more likely to rely on the opinion of people I've met and trust.

So, yes, the ratings ARE over-rated. Thanks in part to GCA, we have something better today.

Tim