New Golfweek Rankings

[mike_malone]

 In the rater's handbook this phrase is used to describe the how to evaluate a classic course.

     "The extent to which the existing holes ... conform to the original design intent" (sorry forgot the word "intent")

  Now that sounds staightforward, but do these raters know the original design intent of these classic courses? What do they do if there is no evidence of this intent?

  Is it a mistake for those of us who critique our own courses for swaying from this intent to let these  raters in on the discussion? Could this put us at a disadvantage versus other courses where the raters don't know about the mistakes made?

[Mike_Sweeney]

I'm glad that the Superintedent is getting the place spruced up, but it's the architecture that needs the face-lift, as well.

Mike,

I think a little Rowlinson-Turner School of Architecture class is needed by the Golf Week raters. The pictures that are posted by Paul and Mark almost always feature courses with rolling and sometimes wild terrain. You guys are way too obsessed with bunkering. Some places such as Carne, Fishers, Plainfield, Eastward Ho! and Yale are unique as they are given natural rolling terrain that absolutely overshadow whatever artificial bunkering that was placed by any Macdonald/Raynor/YaleSuperinthe50's/Rulewich architect.

You don't need an architect to clear out trees, recut fairway lines and extend greens, all of which has been done by Scott. He stated to me last August that he was 15% of the way there, and I am pretty sure that he has been chopping wood all winter.  

Should the Rulewich work be rewarded, no. Rewarding bad work would place it in the Top 25, which is where Dr Childs has often stated that it could be. However, if anyone can tell me with a straight face that it is not a better piece of architecture than Mountain Lake, #69 on the Golfweek list, then I will treat them to a round at both.

At least my bias is equal towards both.    By the way, I really need to see Eastward Ho! to prove my theory!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

I agree with you, there isn't a better way to break the tie...

But until there is more data, it means nothing other than as being a way to put things in order.

That's all John was saying. It's a way of changing things to ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd 3rd, et al), but other than that, there is no value to them.


But, that's their SOLE purpose.[/color]

[Kyle Harris]

Mea culpa, then...

It seemed that a number of people on here were injecting more to them than that.

"Hey, my course averaged 6.45368834 which makes it that much better than your couse which averaged 6.45368831!"

[Mike_Sweeney]

In my small unscientific survey of friends, I have yet to speak to anyone who has played both the new MPCC and Spyglass and liked Spyglass better (And GW has Spyglass #16).

 

Add me to your statistical database.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm glad that the Superintedent is getting the place spruced up, but it's the architecture that needs the face-lift, as well.

Mike,

I think a little Rowlinson-Turner School of Architecture class is needed by the Golf Week raters. The pictures that are posted by Paul and Mark almost always feature courses with rolling and sometimes wild terrain. You guys are way too obsessed with bunkering. Some places such as Carne, Fishers, Plainfield, Eastward Ho! and Yale are unique as they are given natural rolling terrain that absolutely overshadow whatever artificial bunkering that was placed by any Macdonald/Raynor/YaleSuperinthe50's/Rulewich architect.

You don't need an architect to clear out trees, recut fairway lines and extend greens, all of which has been done by Scott. He stated to me last August that he was 15% of the way there, and I am pretty sure that he has been chopping wood all winter.  

Should the Rulewich work be rewarded, no. Rewarding bad work would place it in the Top 25, which is where Dr Childs has often stated that it could be. However, if anyone can tell me with a straight face that it is not a better piece of architecture that Mountain Lake, #69 on the Golfweek list, then I will treat them to a round at both.

At least my bias is equal towards both.    By the way, I really need to see Eastward Ho! to prove my theory!

Mike,

I'm not looking for spectacular bunkering at Yale.  

I'm looking for original bunkering at Yale.  

When the Short hole bunkering has been raised about 5 feet, or the wild bunker on the right of 7 is turned into a sandy shallow, squiggly footpath, or when I see 6 inch deep circular disks masquerading as bunkers, then it's pretty self evident that this detracts from Raynor's original design intent.  

I'm also heartened to hear that Scott has been making such a clear difference.  I just wanted to point out that my chief objections to the course were almost all around the botched "restoration", not much to do with maintenance practices.

[Ted Kramer]

Kyle,

I agree with you, there isn't a better way to break the tie...

But until there is more data, it means nothing other than as being a way to put things in order.

That's all John was saying. It's a way of changing things to ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd 3rd, et al), but other than that, there is no value to them.


But, that's their SOLE purpose.[/color]

I thought that their SOLE purpose was to rank the courses in a meaningful fashion. If the figures that are used to rank the courses are not statistically valid, than how are the rankings meaningful?

-Ted

[Kyle Harris]

Ted,

It's an ordinal system: only thing that matters is the rank.

If you and I were to have a race, and you finish before me, it doesn't matter if you finished a tenth of a second in front of me or two hours in front of me...

You're in first, I'm in second.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike,

I'm not looking for spectacular bunkering at Yale.  

I'm looking for original bunkering at Yale.  

When the Short hole bunkering has been raised about 5 feet, or the wild bunker on the right of 7 is turned into a sandy shallow, squiggly footpath, or when I see 6 inch deep circular disks masquerading as bunkers, then it's pretty self evident that this detracts from Raynor's original design intent.  

Mike,

Based on my Mucci-like bolding of your quote, I am feeling pretty good about my comment that GW raters are "too obsessed with bunkering".  

Paul and Mark,

Time to start class !

[Kyle Harris]

Shivas, exactly...

I know this may raise some ire, but how much difference is there between #1 and 100.... really....

[Ted Kramer]

Shivas, exactly...

I know this may raise some ire, but how much difference is there between #1 and 100.... really....

Thats kind of what I said a few pages back . . .
How much relevance is there to ranking the top 1.43% or 1% of anything?

-Ted

[Brian_Gracely]

So am I reading those lists right....neither of the MPCC courses are on the lists?  How would MPCC Shore (Strantz) have been listed, Classic or Modern?  I really hope the MPCC Shore issue was because of lack of votes, because otherwise I'm going to have to seriously wonder why there is an anti-Strantz bias!?!?

[JohnV]

Brian,

The MPCC Shore course and the work done on it is praised in one of the articles accompanying the list.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Based on my Mucci-like bolding of your quote, I am feeling pretty good about my comment that GW raters are "too obsessed with bunkering".  

Mike;

It directly relates to scale, or lack thereof.

Here you have this marvelous, vast, rolling, rugged canvas and the original artist's touches created artificial features to complement that scale, such as the 25 foot deep bunker on #2, or the deep pot fronting #4, or the 12 foot deep circle of sand surrounding the "Short" hole, or the deep swale in the 9th green, or the unbelievable contour on the 10th green.

THAT is why Rulewich's flaccid, sterile features stand out so horribly.  Because they are totally out of scale and incongruously incompatible with the rest of the palette.  

[erichunter]

A classic example:  the par 3's at Medinah.  The criteria is "variety and memorability of par 3's".  Well, 3 of them are basically the same -- do or die over Lake Kadijah.  But they are memorable as hell precisely because of that fact!! If the category was merely variety, I'd rate them a helluva lot lower than I do, but the category factors in memorability, and frankly, they're among the most memorable sets of par 3s I've ever played!

Doesn't the memorability wane if 3 of the 4 are nearly the same?  If you face the same shot 3x in 1 round how do you differentiate it?  Also, I haven't played any of Jim Engh's courses but isn't he accused of overusing the drop shot par 3?

I really like Medinah but the repetitive nature of the par 3s is a shortcoming.

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way...

Sometimes, in the camaraderie and sometimes emotional debate that is this discussion group, it's easy to forget that we really "aren't" some type of fraternity, and that our audience is wider than just a bunch of guys shooting the crap on the corner.

Similarly, I've seen threads in the past that for whatever reason I thought needed lightening, or conversely, needed some dash of spice and I've tried to interject some humor at times.

This was one of them...I saw it as yet another thread where we'd battle back and forth over issues that have grown old here.

In any case, I think it was wrong of me to let it degrade into locker-room discussion and I've since removed any of my posts that others may find offensive, or unsuitable for family or workplace display.

My sincere apologies to anyone I've offended.  

Mike

[David Wigler]

So am I reading those lists right....neither of the MPCC courses are on the lists?  How would MPCC Shore (Strantz) have been listed, Classic or Modern?  I really hope the MPCC Shore issue was because of lack of votes, because otherwise I'm going to have to seriously wonder why there is an anti-Strantz bias!?!?

Brian - I think MPCC Shore was moved to Modern.  I do not know if the old ratings were thrown out (In which case it probably did not make the list because it did not have enough raters) or if the old ratings were kept (In which case it did not make the list because it had to many 5's and 6's to offset the 8's and 9's it is getting now).  

It would be the single most egregious error my GW brethren have made IMO, if it moved to modern, got a brand new slate and the average rating was below the 6.5 needed to make the list.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Sweeney and Patrick;

All of us agree that Yale is a great course.  To further portray how the architectural changes detract from that I offer the following picture of the 2nd hole.



Here you have a rather dramatic, world-class greenside bunkering situation, with the green falling 25 feet to a bunker below.  The recent thread on "Deepest bunkers" mentioned this one.

Does the bunker created by Rulewich have any scale at all to what was clearly there originally?  Does it even have the same circumference, or is it two cat litter boxes at the bottom of a hill?  I'm amazed that a professional did this work, frankly, and it's that type of head-shaking architectural half-assed thing that one sees repeatedly through the round.

Minimally, over the course of a course, it's at least a full point deduction in several categories, not the least of which is "intergrity of original design".

It's also not just "all about the bunkers".  I'd say much the same thing about the loss of green contour, or tree plantings, or fairway cuts to remove blindness, etc., on any course.  It's about removing the fun and integrity of the course in the name of modern notions of "fairness" and "consistency" and I've yet to come across an example I liked.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You can't rate the course on the basis of what it was or what it might be.  You have to rate it as it is.

With all of the changes and all of the complaints, ANGC continues to enjoy lofty ratings.

There's a fine line between original design integrity and nit picking over specific features.

How does ANGC fare in the original design integrity ?

You can't apply a standard differently to two golf courses.

What's been changed more over the years, ANGC or Yale ?

Now, if you want to create a penalty box category for courses that have been altered or disfigured, and the club is aware of their original design integrity, then, I'm all for that.

I think it's a great idea, because it would force more clubs to think about what has been done to their golf course over the years, and give them the incentive to FIX it, if a fix is in order.

I'm not suggesting that the original 7th, 10th and 16th holes be restored at ANGC.

You also have to realize that most raters don't have the historical backround regarding Yale that you, Noel, Geoff and others possess.

Should raters be required to take history lessons prior to rating a golf course ?  If not, how can they evaluate that category ?

Or, should a level of rater, above the field level, be the judge of adherence to the original design integrity ?

I would prefer to see Brad Klein, Ron Whitten or their designates in charge of that evaluation, taking it out of the hands of the field rater because it requires knowledge in advance of their evaluation.

I think most are seeking to build a better mouse trap while others would just as soon see the ratings disappear, which they won't.

[THuckaby2]

I would prefer to see Brad Klein, Ron Whitten or their designates in charge of that evaluation, taking it out of the hands of the field rater because it requires knowledge in advance of their evaluation.

Patrick - FYI - not that Mr. Whitten runs the GD panel - he doesn't - but your wish has been granted by GD.  There is no criterion for this evaluated.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

That's unfortunate, there should be one.

[THuckaby2]

Tom,

That's unfortunate, there should be one.

Well, I suppose GD comes close this in the TRADITION criterion.  But I shudder to bring it up, given the entire population here seems to think it's just a fudge factor for the editors.  I trust they do what the criterion says, which I don't have in front of me right now... but it could cover what you wish, as I recall.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Mike,

Do you have a picture of the same with the bunker that Raynor built?

Could it be that the revised hole plays to the same or higher level of difficulty with perhaps a bit more variety (various lies in heavy rough in addition to the sand at the bottom)?

Might this be a case where the old was very pleasing to the eye (form), but perhaps not as demanding (shot plugging into a steep upslope or rolling back all the way down to the bottom of the bunker)?

I have never set foot at Yale, so I am just asking.  But if the old bunker was most of the way up to the green, wouldn't it just tend to play easier for the better players while penalizing the rest?  How about maintenance?  I was under the impression that Yale was heavy on academic endowments, but very light when it came to athletics.  Am I wrong?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Minimally, over the course of a course, it's at least a full point deduction in several categories, not the least of which is "intergrity of original design".

"Cat Litter Boxes"

Mike,

Did Golfweek get copyright protection on Cat Litter Boxes.   You guys are brainwashed ! (See Patrick's post)

Mike, this is a rater bashing thread, not a Yale bashing thread ! We are all pretty much in agreement that individual features at Yale could/should have been done better. Instead of looking at The Child's File and picking out specific problems, let's look at the bigger picture.

If you do a hole by hole Ran Morrisett-like comparison of Yale versus Mountain Lake #69, Yale comes up +4 on my scale. I recognize that you probably have not seen Mountain Lake, but I am still waiting for a Golfweek Rater to take The Sweeney Challege of Yale versus Mountain Lake and keep a straight face. Brad Klein where are you ?

If you do the Tom Doak trick where you can only only replace a course that you have played on the Golfweek list with a course that you have also played. I would replace Mountain Lake with Yale. There are some others that I would also replace, but I rather keep it in my own family.

Now let's say that Yale was redone by a GCA favorite architect, Dr Childs and myself are right and it is a Top 25 Classic sitting at 25(a) between Southern Hills 7.82 and Camargo at 7.74. Now let's put in the Rulewich factor since it gets a full Cirba across the board 1.0 deduction. It would still fall around 80 on the Golfweek Classic list. You can go to a 1.25 deduction and it ties with Beverly !

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

There are various rating criteria where a situation like the one I pictured above can apply as far as deductions from ideal.  

Do you think those bunkers are well integrated into their surrounds, for instance?

One doesn't have to know much about what was there before to see pretty clearly that it wasn't them.    

Lou,

The incredulous thing is that Yale has TONS of great "before" pictures in the clubhouse, and no, the bunker in question didn't have sand flashed up the bank.  Instead, had a steep vertical bank as it does in the picture, but the bunkers in question were typical Raynor-style, with sandy bottoms that encompassed the entire floor of the pit, not just some convenient spot away from the bottom of the wall.  

Beyond that, a single bunker originally has been split in two, the fronting wall of the bunker has been "ledged" to provide a terraced step for access and for fairness, and it's a shell of its former self.  

Mike Sweeney,

I agree that Yale should be a top 25 course, but that the present architectural problems should place it somewhere between 80 and 100.  You've pretty much expressed my personal ranking exactly.