Complaints about Rustic Canyon's fans

[HamiltonBHearst]

If the differences are so "TINY", why rate them in this manner?  Wouldn't it make more sense to do a more thourough analysis of the courses.  I mean top 100 can make or break some courses financially.  It should not come down to housing behind the fourth hole, a laid back clubhouse, and no freebies for raters.

[THuckaby2]

Sounds good to me, Hamilton.

Not that I have any idea why some very few raters preferred WH to RC by some tiny amount, which is the reality.

But the financial import of all this does suck, given such reality.  That being said, I don't think RC is hurting.  Winning "Best New Affordable" a few years ago from GD is a nice feather in the cap.

TH

[JakaB]

Come on Tom,

It is not a tiny amount when you see Brad Klein gave Hidden Creek an 8.5 and you know that Rustic is at least two points lower......I don't know what Wild Horse is at 19...but I do know two points ain't tiny....and speaking of ain't tiny....I wonder where Rustic would have ended up if a certain raters ballot had not gone missing.....

Now that the lemings know where to jump watch Hidden Creek climb like Kingsley on crack...

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

The differences in all of sports can be extremely small -- ask Serena Williams that the other night -- but those differneces DO matter when people line up courses in a numerical order. The reality is that Wild Horse is 19th in the country and ahead of the likes of such places as The Kingsley Club, Arcadia Bluffs, Karsten Creek, etc, etc. That's VERY HIGH company indeed. Frankly, I don't see Wild Horse being ahead of any of the ones I just mentioned.

Rustic Canyon is looking from the outside in -- yet -- I have yet to hear one person say that Wild Horse is thaaaaaaaaaaaat much better to merit such a lofty position. Guys, let's get with the program -- 19th is in the upper reaches of the atmosphere in my book.

I don't doubt Wild Horse is a fun course to play and has a number of interesting holes and I enjoyed my time there. It is not, however, IMHO, the 19th best modern course in the States.

Huck -- given my "limited" travels I see the layout somewhere in the 50-100 range and RC being included in that mixture as well.

People may hate ratings but they illuminate preferences and certainly outline specific outcomes. Yes, the gap in terms of rating points may be small, but the line in front of Rustic Canyon contains a number of courses clearly lacking what the gem in Moorpark provides.

[THuckaby2]

John, that is not my axe to grind.  You might be right.  My point is more that when you're talking 500,000 courses (or whatever the large number would be - all courses built since 1960), the difference between 19 and 101 is pretty insignificant statistically.

They're both great.  That should be enough.  But I know it's not, thus this web site exists.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

That all sounds good to me.

I still think this is much ado about nothing, because I too look at this and put WH and RC in the same high company, even when I see one at 19 and one at 101.

TH

[JakaB]

Tom,

Stop it with this 101 line of crap....what did Geoff get for his booby prize....a free case of wine.....or was that someone else who got the free wine.......damn it gets confusing.   Is the 101 rating documented and if so...does Rustic have a plaque behind the counter.

[THuckaby2]

John, I'm just reporting what I read here.  I thought Brad or someone else familiar with the ratings said Rustic was #101.  I have no idea whether that's true or not, nor do I much care really.  I'm just taking people at their word, and assuming it is true, well... you know the rest.

Good lord do I have no dog in this fight, as I first heard the great John Bernhardt say.  So I guess I'll get the hell out now.

BTW, if Rustic doesn't have a plaque behind the counter for Best New Affordable, then they need new marketing folks. That does speak rather loudly.  Louder than #19 built since some arbitrary date that someone picked, methinks.  

TH

[JakaB]

Tom,

Where is my dog....the dog of rightiousness that humps my leg every morning before I log in....or maybe that is the dog of spelling errors...it's so hard to tell..

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

How do we know RC came in at 101st? Let me also mention the fact that when people say just look at all the courses since 1960 that have opened it's really a false comparison because of that total only an "X' percentage are really worht a damn to even merit being considered.

Huck -- I'll glue you in on something you SHOULD know -- ratings do matter. The people who say they don't are lying through their teeth -- BIG TIME. It's not just about pride or ego but it's about identifying the quintessential golf experiences that exist.

If rating didn't matter then why be a panelist for Digest? Why even post on GCA? Ditto for me and all the others.

Ratings matter because it reflects what people consider to be the best of a certain category.

I'd like someone to explain to me how Wild Horse can be 19th in the nation and beat out the likes of the courses I mentioned. Whether it's .0000000000000001 behind  is really irrelevant. The key operative word is BEHIND.

Let me reiterate -- I am not knocking Wild Horse for what it provides but I do believe some sort of perspective needs to take hold because just getting into any top 100 is a major statement -- getting into the top 20-25 says loud and clear that you are playing a course that is simply peerless.

[THuckaby2]

Those are both good dogs.

I don't often answer to either, myself.

 

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I've said several times I understand the real world in which ratings matter.  I'm trying to point out that if people knew the tiny statistical differences involved, then if people had brains, they wouldn't matter as much.

As for all the rest, this is your fight, not mine.  I stop at what I say above and that's truly all that matters.

So Rustic and Wild Horse are both great courses.  I'd go out of my way to play either and guess what, I have!  I enjoyed the hell out of both of them.  Which one is better?  I could give a rat's ass.  Neither is peerless - both reside among the same small set of peers, at the very top.

TH

[THuckaby2]

I thought I explained this a few days ago.  WH is overrated because of what it stands for.  It's a posterchild.  In fact, THE posterchild for the cause.  And it came first.  THAT is why it's rated so much higher.  Being in the middle of nowhere Nebraska, it underpromises and overdelivers.  It exceeds expectations by a huge degree.  Plus, people have to rationalize their trip out there, so they will tend to overrate it.  It's that simple.  There is no way that WH is the 19th best modern course in the country on sheer merit.  Because they like what it stands for, and because they want to "wow" their friends with their knowledge of some cheap, awesome course in the middle of nowhere that nobody else knows about, people WANT it to be the 19th best, so it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.  

If Donald Trump had developed it, or if Rees did it, it wouldn't be anywhere near top 100, let alone top 20.    

Well now that's rather cynical.  Likely very true, but still cynical.

 

This does explain why some people rate it higher than they otherwise might.

Still, it is a damn good golf course, all of this aside. 19th best modern?  Doesn't bother me.  Only a wussyass rating system makes distinctions based on when courses were built, anyway.

 

[Andy Hughes]

Still, it is a damn good golf course, all of this aside. 19th best modern?  Doesn't bother me.  Only a wussyass rating system makes distinctions based on when courses were built, anyway.

I am no ratings expert, but after looking at some lists, it almost seems necessary to divide them them by era.  The top tiers always seem to be heavily weighted with the oldest courses, and the newer seem to suffer for no reason other than age.  Matt W and I went round and round about #2 and where it would reside in the rankings if it opened today (Matt was, of course, wrong )
Full points for proper use of 'wussyass'    

[Tom_Doak]

Dave S:

I think your explanation applies to Pinon Hills more than Wild Horse ... and certainly it could be extended to some other courses as well.

Matt:

One of the main reasons the Doak scale is the way it is, is because splitting hairs over two very good courses is a waste of time.  Both courses are a 7 or an 8 on the Doak scale, depending on my mood.

I will defend Wild Horse.  It's an alternative view of golf, and not such a popular one here, that you don't HAVE to give people acres and acres of fairway to present a good and interesting test of golf.  The fact that it's not as flashy as The Kingsley Club or Arcadia Bluffs is a GOOD thing, as far as the fans of Wild Horse are concerned.

It works for Winged Foot in your book, why can't it work for Wild Horse?

[George Pazin]

I thought I explained this a few days ago.  WH is overrated because of what it stands for.  It's a posterchild.  In fact, THE posterchild for the cause.  And it came first.  THAT is why it's rated so much higher.  Being in the middle of nowhere Nebraska, it underpromises and overdelivers.  It exceeds expectations by a huge degree.  Plus, people have to rationalize their trip out there, so they will tend to overrate it.  It's that simple.  There is no way that WH is the 19th best modern course in the country on sheer merit.  Because they like what it stands for, and because they want to "wow" their friends with their knowledge of some cheap, awesome course in the middle of nowhere that nobody else knows about, people WANT it to be the 19th best, so it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.  

If Donald Trump had developed it, or if Rees did it, it wouldn't be anywhere near top 100, let alone top 20.    

You certainly explained it well - usually your own (fallacious, IMO) criteria. Just as you explained the "superiority" of Kemper Lakes over RC - using your own (again fallacious, IMO) criteria.

Perhaps you should read Tom D's post about comparing Medinah and Kemper against TOC and RC again and think about what he's trying to say.

Huck -

My recollection from the February meeting was not that RC finished 101st, but that it was somewhere around 110. Doesn't change your point, however. Brad Klein did say something to the effect of "the difference between 1 and 5 is greater than the difference between 20 and 100," or something like that.

[THuckaby2]

Andy: muchas gracias.  One doesn't get to use such a classy term very often, and it is easy to screw up.  

But of course, this was just a dig at my friends who are on that panel.  It is a nice trump card to drop every so often.  Just ask them to decide which course is better between Sand Hills and Merion or Pacific Dunes and Winged Foot and you can positively smell the smoke as the gears grind in their heads.

 

[THuckaby2]

Huck -

My recollection from the February meeting was not that RC finished 101st, but that it was somewhere around 110. Doesn't change your point, however. Brad Klein did say something to the effect of "the difference between 1 and 5 is greater than the difference between 20 and 100," or something like that.

That sounds right to me, George.  My recollections are often faulty.  And keeping with my attitude in this thread, hey, what's a digit or two amongst friends?

 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Hold the phone partner -- I never said Wild Horse is some sort of dumpy golf course. I'm a big fan of what it represents but I also think there's such a word as perspective.

In simple terms -- where does the course fit. I don't know how many people have played Wild Horse, Arcadia Bluffs, The Kingsley Club and Karsten Creek -- the course I mentioned that are ahead of Wild Horse. I know I have and I don't see Wild Horse -- with all that it certainly offers -- being in that kind of elite company. When you say Arcadia Bluffs and The Kingsley Club are flashy (your word) I have to say that's not the kind of word I would use to describe either of them.

Ratings are tough no doubt because people MUST decide. Tom you had to make decisions when you wrote "Confidential Guide." I don't doubt that can be demanding because the differences are narrow in a number of instances. But remember this -- giving courses a Doak # is a bit different than having a complete numerical listing and having to place them in sort of definitive order.

Tom -- you say such an exercise is a "waste of time" my counter to that is why wimp out and simply say that "a" and "b" course are effectively tied? Clearly, there are ranges of different styles within golf architecture and it may be necessary for future ratings of all types to further refine what it is they are celebrating because throwing into the pot a wide array of courses without some sort of additional clarification may be difficult for the unaided person to understand what makes each unique and special in their own way.

Last item -- you mention Winged Foot and I simply refer you to your own words in describing the layout there -- particularly the more noted West Course. I believe the architecture that comprises the West is among the best we have in America -- although some people wince at the intensity meter when playing there.

[Lou_Duran]

Donald Trump nor Rees Jones would have done Wild Horse.  The course's simplicity and low cost are not what they are all about.

I agree that WH is overrated, just like I think that RC is unduly revered on this site.  Yet, both are excellent courses which I would go way out of my way to go play.  In the a category of "Best Affordable Courses" or "Best Value for the Buck", both are superstars.

Including Barona and Kemper Lakes with the two, I think that WH is a bit ahead of the pack, Barona and RC are toss ups, and KL is down a few spots.  Of the four, KL is the only one that I don't care if I ever play again, though I acknowledge that it is a very good course.

BTW, I would also include Doak's Rawls course with this group.
All outstanding and in the top 99 percentile of modern courses.    

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

The rankings are not built on how YOU [or any other single panelist] split hairs between Arcadia Bluffs and Wild Horse.  The rankings are built on how the CONSENSUS of panelists places the two relative to each other.  One course ranks ahead of another because ten people like A better, five like B better, and thirty put them about equal.  To make those thirty people decide between A and B [and A and C, and A and D, and B and C, and B and D, and C and D] is not going to add much to the conversation, is it?

It's not "wimping out" to suggest that two courses are of about the same quality.  On the contrary, to suggest that one can always correctly judge between two courses of similar quality is hubris.  You're putting too much emphasis on the rankings.  As is this whole thread.

Furthermore, not everyone is going to agree with you that Arcadia Bluffs and The Kingsley Club are better than Wild Horse, or Rustic Canyon.  My criteria are likely somewhat different than yours.  Is that okay?

[Tom_Doak]

So, is the Shivas / Dave thing a split personality disorder?  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

To paraphrase Tom Paul -- architecture is a big place and there's room for everyone. You can use whatever criteria you wish -- ditto for me or any other person for that matter. If people see my opinion on Wild Horse when compared to the other three courses I mentioned as being out in the deep left field seats more power to them -- I'd love to hear the arguments they can muster. Frankly Tom -- I think we likely agree more than we disagree.

Regarding hubris -- Tom let's be a bit more forthright -- when you wrote your book on quality golf courses throughout the world there are many people within the industry who lobbed the same term at you for your desire to critique their work in such stark terms -- sometimes without even playing the courses and from just simply driving around a number of the courses you chose to include within "Confidential Guide." I commend you for the book because I believe having ONE SET OF KEEN EYES is necessary to apply some sort of assessment and consistent analysis. Tom -- I can respect the view of the Wall Street Journal although I disagree with their viewpoint on a large percentage of times. Nonetheless, I know it is THEIR view and not some sort of watered down consensus involving a cast of who knows how many people.

You see Tom I may not agree with all of your comments in the book -- you in fact even say that if agreement happens around 80% then chalk up the rest as being personal differences -- all of that I agree with.

I fully understand the word "consensus" and how it plays a role in ratings. In all mind -- that's what's so wrong with the ratings to start with because the issue of consistency and individual analysis is trumped for some broad based numbers game that really doesn't prove much to me given my own personal travels over the many years.

Too many people play course "A" and an entirely different group play course "B". Without some sort of overlap one is forced to rely upon an INDEPENDENT merging of numbers that magically produce consensus.

A consensus is nothing more than a merging of different numbers -- it's like throwing all the food items into one big pot and out of it comes some product from all the MIXTURE. I have found from countless travels that such a merger while mathematically important to some fails to unearth for me the real gems that are there.  

I would much rather have people who are well traveled and can provide some sort of meaningful individual analysis -- even if I disagree with it after playing there -- then some sort of crock pot approach. I learn from those folks about aspects that I likely may have missed and can later include with future visits that I make. Of course, there are some people on this site who believe Ward only favors courses that are 7,500 yards long and CR's of 75+ and slopes 145+. I guess stereotypes die hard!

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I agree with everything you said above.  The rankings are a poor substitute for someone with a good eye who has actually seen all the courses in question.  The defense of "statistical accuracy" is ridiculous when it's different people rating different places.

I don't cubbyhole your viewpoint in the "long and hard" way you think.  In my mind the difference between Wild Horse and Rustic Canyon is one of style, and by bringing in the other courses you did, which are more like Rustic, you seemed to be favoring one style over the other.  My apologies if I misrepresented you.  I know you admire Wild Horse generally.

To me Wild Horse [ironically, because of the links conditions] is more comparable to the parkland courses which are rated highly ... anything from Inverness to Olympic to Winged Foot.  They don't make you choose from a lot of "options" off the tee, but good driving is required, and there is plenty of interest on the approaches and on and around the greens, so the whole game is tested.  I know you love Winged Foot so I brought that up as an example.

Rustic Canyon is the opposite extreme ... they give you five options on every tee, to the point that one starts to wonder if all those options are really distinct in play, or if some of them are really just worthwhile in theory.  The fact that someone like Tommy was around all through the design process tends to taint his view of the place ... he's in love with the ideas, and possibly a little biased that he knows it better than we do.

Which is how this whole thread got started, and not as another thread on rankings.

[THuckaby2]

Tom, no, the shift back to my name was apparently because some whiner was complaining to Ran

Was it Doug or Wendy?  My guess is Doug.  He really hates Rye GC.