New Golfweek Rankings

[Lou_Duran]

Mike,

To what do you attribute the Rulewich change?  Maintenance?  It would seem to me that a flat floor of sand would be easier for the better players and harder for average guy.  I have no doubt that the new bunkers aren't as aesthetically pleasing, but do they cheapen the way the hole plays?

I also can't see the ledging you describe except to the right of the steps.  But rather than introducing fairness, wouldn't it not add an element of chance and quirk (that it may get hung-up in a variety of lies as opposed to being repelled back into a flat bunker)?  Perhaps the ledging is also a compromise to ease of maintenance.

BTW, does Yale have a large enough student body to support a university course?  Or does it rely on the community and outside play to make the numbers work?  I am just wondering if the course would do better as a private club, and whether a group of well-heeled, concerned alumni couldn't build a student course and exchange it for the Raynor gem.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

To what do you attribute the Rulewich change?  Maintenance?  It would seem to me that a flat floor of sand would be easier for the better players and harder for average guy.  I have no doubt that the new bunkers aren't as aesthetically pleasing, but do they cheapen the way the hole plays?

I also can't see the ledging you describe except to the right of the steps.  But rather than introducing fairness, wouldn't it not add an element of chance and quirk (that it may get hung-up in a variety of lies as opposed to being repelled back into a flat bunker)?  Perhaps the ledging is also a compromise to ease of maintenance.

BTW, does Yale have a large enough student body to support a university course?  Or does it rely on the community and outside play to make the numbers work?  I am just wondering if the course would do better as a private club, and whether a group of well-heeled, concerned alumni couldn't build a student course and exchange it for the Raynor gem.  

Lou,

I'm not a member at Yale and I don't know their reasons although I've heard knowledgeable folks cite ease of maintenance and...get this...making the course play "easier" as the reasons for their changes.  Evidently, they think it would be too difficult for the modern golfer if it was maintained as it was in Seth's 1928 day.  Sheesh...

As far as maintenance practices, the floor of the bunker used to be right at the bottom of a steeper (not ledged) grassy wall.  At 25 feet below green surface, I'm not sure this was easier for any level of golfer.

[Dan_Callahan]

BTW, does Yale have a large enough student body to support a university course?  Or does it rely on the community and outside play to make the numbers work?  I am just wondering if the course would do better as a private club, and whether a group of well-heeled, concerned alumni couldn't build a student course and exchange it for the Raynor gem.  

Yale's endowment is about $12.7 billion. Plenty of money to support a golf course, I would think.

[DMoriarty]

Brad Klein Said:  

"Rustic Canyon was extremely close in last year's baloting to the top-100. The ballot season closed Dec. 1, 2004, before the course was hit by Biblical plagues. If you take a close look at the numbers, the difference between 100th and 63rd is pretty small, statistically. We explain the story of Rustic's recovery in this week's issue of Super News, cover dated March 11, 2005."

Thanks for the response.  I look forward to reading the story in Super News.  

I understand what you are saying about the narrow range of scores between Nos. 63 and 100+.   But given the bulk of courses receiving scores between 6.99 (No. 46 on Modern list) and 6.00 (No. 100 is 6.5,)  I have to ask whether the list means much of anything at all.   Isn't Golfweek doing both the courses and its readers a disservice by ignoring the statistical shortcomings of the list as it approaches 100 and beyond?  

As for Rustic, thanks again for the explanation, but I've got to say that I still have a couple of lingering questions.   GW posts the scores, so obviously GW understands the relationship between transparency and legitimacy, so perhaps you will take a moment to clear up this ugly innuendo business once and for all.  I've asked both these questions in the past, but have yet to get a straight answer:  

Has GW ever encouraged or pressured any of its raters to change his/her rating for a particular course?   Has GW ever adjusted or thrown out scores it considers to be too high or too low?  If so for either, then Why?

Sorry to be a pest Brad, but it distrurbs me that you guys have avoided answering these questions for a few years now.   There may be perfectly good reasons for GW to adjust, but when GW fails to address these questions/ reasons, it leaves open the possibility that indeed something funny has gone on, either by accident or on purpose.  What is the harm in explaining the process?

[DMoriarty]

David Wigler said:

"Dave - To your first point, I do not believe Brad rigged the rankings.  More raters came to see Rustic and clearly agreed with you instead of me on it.  The points between 101 and 63 are fairly small, so a few 7's and it makes the top 100. "

I dont believe Brad "rigged" the ratings either, but I am disturbed that GW has never directly addressed whether or not they have pressured raters and/or adjusted or dropped outlier scores.   Seems simple enough to clear up to me.  

Your second point is silly.  If the Chile Relleno is better, it is better.  Rankings do not have cost as a category.  RC IMO simply is not in the same class as Cascata, SouthShore, Southern Highlands, Old Memorial, or the others I mentioned.

As for my "silly" second point, I am quite surprised that you see it that way.   Sure we ought to rate the chile relleno better if it is, but do we. . . .?

Let me tell you about a conversation I had with a rater on the way to play Rustic Canyon.   The rater was in Los Angeles on business but was taking time out of his busy schedule to get a second look at Rustic Canyon and also to play some high-end Fazio course, Shady Canyon I think.   We were talking about rating, Rustic, etc. when this gentleman described what he believed was a fundamental flaw in the GW rating system.   He did not think that there was any way a low budget, low green fee, bare bones operation like Rustic could compete in the ratings with a well financed first class operation like Shady Canyon.  As courses go, they just werent in the same class.    

Needless to say, I was a little shocked--  He was telling me this before he had played Shady Canyon.   Can you honestly tell me that this rater was not unduly influenced by the ultra-expensive, ultra-exclusive nature of the high end course?  

No question in my mind that this guy would not be dining on rellenos.

To your final question about Manele Bay, my answer would be about 12 tee shots that I have to think and visualize before I execute.  

Wow, 12 tee shots.   And here I thought that the bulk of Manele was rice-pattied into the side of a hill, so that many of the drives look and feel the same, or the mirror image of the same.    

What were you thinking about on these 12 tee shots?  Surely not hitting the fairway, as the fairways are huge.  Surely not the best angle into the green, as the angle rarely makes a huge difference.

Dont get me wrong--  I like Manele, but as mental challenges go it is right up there with napping on the beach-- stay out of the direct sun and enjoy the day.  

[Lou_Duran]

Mike C,

I recall from previous posts that Yale in the earlier times was kept very natural and rough-edged.  Typically, this hurts the guy who sprays the ball disproportionally more than the low-handicap player.

Perhaps the move to make the course easier is in reponse to customer demand.  The picture you posted suggests that some shots will be held up short of the bunker.  For higher handicappers, a shot from the high rough is generally easier than from a 25' deep bunker.  Even at my age, I would prefer the original bunker complex because I have enough strength and control of the ball to get it up and somewhere on the green.  With the inability to spin a shot from the rough, it is more of a potluck for the better player.

While Yale is a private university, I would think that the golf course would be operated for the benefit of the students.  If the majority of the customers want a more playable course that is easier to maintain, are the powers-that-be wrong for moving in that direction?  Not that I am suggesting that we should be democratic when it comes to something so special, but don't you think that if most players are supportive of the changes, that perhaps the course administrators and Rulewich may not be as bad as they've been portrayed here?

While you, Geoffrey, Ran, and I may greatly prefer the "old" Yale, should the few be allowed to dictate to the many?  Taking it as a given that Yale is a course fully worthy of protecting and conserving, wouldn't the most equitable way of achieving the desired result be to take Yale private and provide a more "playable"/low-maintenance course for the students?  I doubt that the endowment fund as rich as it is can be tapped.  But certainly, there must be an alumn like Jerry Rawls (Texas Tech) who has a few extra million burning in his pocket and a cause to pursue.

The Beverly CC model is rather unique.  I doubt that it would work at most clubs which have considerable diversity among its customers.

DaveM,

You already know the answer to some of your questions.  I've never been asked to change a single rating.

I don't know how GW handles the outliers (like a 1 where the next lowest score is a 5, or a 10 when the vast majority are below 7), but the Dallas Morning News copied a method this year from another major magazine (not GW) which adjusts the top and bottom 5% of the ballots to the next highest and lowest, respectively.  In other words, if a course has received 40 ballots, the highest two (5%) are lowered to the next highest, and the lowest two are increased to the next lowest.  I forget the name of this process, but apparently it has a substantial statistical basis.

I am curious of your view on transperancy and legitimacy.  I understand how that is very important, maybe even mandatory in government.  But for a simple list of preferences, aren't you getting enough information?  Are you going to require a resume from each panelist, the date (s) of the visit, weather conditions, and whether the round was comped?  Just curious.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

There are various rating criteria where a situation like the one I pictured above can apply as far as deductions from ideal.
Okay, but then you have to apply them universally, not selectively.[/color]  

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

They're not that disconnected that the course should be significantly debited.

You're talking about a matter of degrees, the foot pads or foundations are there, they only need to be recaptured.[/color]

One doesn't have to know much about what was there before to see pretty clearly that it wasn't them.    
Once again, the disparity between the two is more form and less function.

Since YOU chose to picture the 2nd green, what are the debits you would assign for the loss of the dramatic internal features in that green, the humps and bumps ?

What's more important on # 2 the purity of the greenside bunkering or the purity of the putting surface ?

The bunkering is mostly there, the contouring is totally lost.

The same applies to # 1 green and # 3 green, features/locations have been lost which is more significant then the bunkering you pine over.

Snap out of it.

Now, as to ANGC, unlike Yale, it remains highly rated despite and/or because of changes.  Has the bunkering you love so much been changed over the years ?

The design of the 7th hole ?
The design of the 10th hole ?
The design of the 16th hole ?

Despite these changes that you and other purists abhor, the golf course's inherent architectural strengths earn it lofty ratings.  Why doesn't Yale benefit from the same thinking ? [/color]

[Paul Richards]

Shivas

I agree with you about Medinah.

It is VASTLY improved.

However, a bit of work still needs to be done there to complete the good job.

Tree removal around the tees and greens was excellent.  The new bunkering is superb.  The course is a great test of golf.  The last remaining piece of the puzzle is that tree management needs to be completed FROM TEE TO GREEN.

It seemed to me that not a single tree or even branch was removed from tee to green.  This means, time after time, and hole after hole, a fairway lie is blocked by a forest of trees.

With the same type of tree management they performed around the tees and greens done between those areas, and Medinah is right up there.

Until then, it is just a forest with a few golf holes sprinkled throughout.

My two cents.

[Paul Richards]

Shivas

Also,  me'thinks you underrate Black Sheep.  

It's a pretty strong course and considering the Modern list, it deserves its ranking.

Let's play there again this summer!!!

[Ian Dalzell]

To your final question about Manele Bay, my answer would be about 12 tee shots that I have to think and visualize before I execute.
DMoriarty,

In an earlier post, you said of the Cahellenge at Manele,

"Wow, 12 tee shots.  And here I thought that the bulk of Manele was rice-pattied into the side of a hill, so that many of the drives look and feel the same, or the mirror image of the same.   What were you thinking about on these 12 tee shots?  Surely not hitting the fairway, as the fairways are huge.  Surely not the best angle into the green, as the angle rarely makes a huge difference.  Dont get me wrong--  I like Manele, but as mental challenges go it is right up there with napping on the beach-- stay out of the direct sun and enjoy the day. "

I have to disagree with your assessment, and I do believe it belongs on the top-100 modern course list.  The golf course offers generous landing areas, I agree, but I played it 4 days ago and with cross winds of 15 - 20 mph, the landing areas became smaller, and with doglegs set at appropriate distances it made club selection difficult.  

Without boring all here on GCA with a hole-by-hole summary, I felt that there were many thought-provoking shots at the aptly named Challenge, including #4,5,6,9,10,12,13,15 and 17.  The course was solid, though #18 was a disappointing end to a dramatic venue.

While on the subject of top-100 rankings, I must agree with some on here who have questioned Spyglass at #16.  Apart from the first 5 holes and a few others in the middle, I was disappointed with Spyglass - the par-5's seemed ill-yardaged (I think I just created a new GCA term).  By that I mean, as I played in a tournament there, to go for them in 2 shots was 300 or so (clearly not in my realm) and the lay-up option was 120 yards.  There was no bight off as much as you can chew option, at least not a viable one.  And don't get me started on the teee on hole #10 - I piped a drive down the middle, only to be left with a bend-it-left or bend-it-right option for my second.  As I surveyed the fairway for where the OPTIMUM SPOT was, I found it - in the right fairway trap  .  A fair course, but not top-100 IMHO.

Laslty, I see a debate on Oakmont vs. Pebble.  I have had the honor of playing both in the last 5 months, and while Pebble is absolutely brilliant, I must say Oakmont is one of the top-5 I have ever played.  The test, the layout, the routing, the putting complexes, the variety, the memorability - it has it ALL.

Sorry to the CA boys, but PA has the edge!

[DMoriarty]

I have to disagree with your assessment, and I do believe it belongs on the top-100 modern course list.  The golf course offers generous landing areas, I agree, but I played it 4 days ago and with cross winds of 15 - 20 mph, the landing areas became smaller, and with doglegs set at appropriate distances it made club selection difficult.  

Without boring all here on GCA with a hole-by-hole summary, I felt that there were many thought-provoking shots at the aptly named Challenge, including #4,5,6,9,10,12,13,15 and 17.  The course was solid, though #18 was a disappointing end to a dramatic venue.

You may be right about Manele being a top 100 course.  Frankly I dont know enough about most of the others so I certainly cannot contradict you.  It is probably hard to tell from the post above, but I have played Manele many times and have usually enjoyed it.  

My comments were part of a conversation with David Wigler, based on his quick comparison of Manele with Rustic Canyon.  David finds Manele (and a number of high priced courses and/or exclusive clubs) to be "in a different class" than lowly Rustic.  Having played both courses numerous times, I disagree with his assessment.  

As for your specific comments, I agree that the wide fairways are necessary because of the winds.  (Query whether or not David W. considers this an acceptable explanation for wide fairways.)   But with a few exceptions I just dont think the width has much to do with providing interesting angles of approach into the greens.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Please bear with me as I try to respond appropriately below.  The whole color scheme thing is new to me and I hope to be able to type in a way that answers your really good questions.

Mike,

There are various rating criteria where a situation like the one I pictured above can apply as far as deductions from ideal.
Okay, but then you have to apply them universally, not selectively.[/color]  

Completely agreed and it's pretty obvious on a lot of older courses where changes have taken place inconsistently with the original intent...green mowing patterns shrinking, bunkers out in the rough, or even behind tree lines, fairways narrowing, bunker shapes shrinking.  I look at that stuff, Patrick, even if other's don't.

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

They're not that disconnected that the course should be significantly debited.

You're talking about a matter of degrees, the foot pads or foundations are there, they only need to be recaptured.[/color]

Patrick, not only has the part of the bunker that is filled with sand been split in two and shrunken to about half its size, but the bunker front wall has been altered in shape.  It's aesthetically a nightmare.  Functionally, at 25 feet below the green surface it's pretty hard to f* up the contextual functional aspects, but they seem to be trying their best anyway.    

One doesn't have to know much about what was there before to see pretty clearly that it wasn't them.    
Once again, the disparity between the two is more form and less function.

Since YOU chose to picture the 2nd green, what are the debits you would assign for the loss of the dramatic internal features in that green, the humps and bumps ?

What's more important on # 2 the purity of the greenside bunkering or the purity of the putting surface ?

The bunkering is mostly there, the contouring is totally lost.

Patrick, I completely agree...the loss of contours in a green is often a permanent and irrevocable loss, generally because those type of things don't show up really well on old pics, while a lost bunker can presumably be recovered.  I understand that the former Super at Yale decided unilaterally to tame a few greens and it's a damn shame that happened.  Still, overall, there are some splendid greens out there like 8, 9 and 10, etc. that reduce the overall negative impact.  If all of the greens had been neutered similar to those you mentioned, Yale wouldn't be top 200 in my estimation.  

The same applies to # 1 green and # 3 green, features/locations have been lost which is more significant then the bunkering you pine over.

Snap out of it.

I'm pretty much snapped out of it.  I'm even working on my chipping this winter.  

Now, as to ANGC, unlike Yale, it remains highly rated despite and/or because of changes.  Has the bunkering you love so much been changed over the years ?

The design of the 7th hole ?
The design of the 10th hole ?
The design of the 16th hole ?

Despite these changes that you and other purists abhor, the golf course's inherent architectural strengths earn it lofty ratings.  Why doesn't Yale benefit from the same thinking ? [/color]
Patrick...that's a great question and one I've been asking as well.  In fact, I've so perplexed that I've managed to get tickets for the practice rounds of this year's Masters and I intend to get down there to see for myself.  

In recent years, I've decried the changes to the course that I've heard about, but I promise to report back my honest, unbiased opinion.  I'll look forward to discussing it with you in the spring, hopefully in person.

Best Regards,
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Take a close look at the tilt/slope of the putting surfaces, even the ones you thought were flat.

Look at the pitch of the fairways in the DZ

Try to get behind every tee and view the tee shots,  note the size of the fairway bunkers and the illusion of their distance.  Note the awkwardness of some of the tee shots.

Also, try to get behind every green, to examine it and look back at the approach and recoveries.

Hopefully, you'll enjoy good weather, have fun, and learn a lot.

[Jeff Fortson]

Last year I got involved in this thread about ratings and raters and I am so happy that this year I have stayed out of it until now.  Look at this..... 16 pages!  I may have lost my wife to this computer had I gotten involved earlier.

Within the first 24 hours this thread had already reached 11 pages.  Does anyone here think that is ridiculous?  I do.  I like to debate and discuss ratings as much as the next guy but this thread has made one thing clear to me.  There are more people on GCA that care about ratings then there are people that care about architecture.


Jeff F.

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:

Go read the thread before you damn us all here.  You'll find that 75% of the conversation in here had NOTHING to do with ratings and raters.  And before a lot of pictures got removed yesterday, you also might have gotten some nice eye-candy surprises...

16 pages of talk about rating and raters is ridiculous.  16 pages of  friends having fun hurts no one but Ran's bandwith.

You're a good guy, my friend.  But before one condemns one ought to know the facts.

See ya soon!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Take a close look at the tilt/slope of the putting surfaces, even the ones you thought were flat.

Look at the pitch of the fairways in the DZ

Try to get behind every tee and view the tee shots,  note the size of the fairway bunkers and the illusion of their distance.  Note the awkwardness of some of the tee shots.

Also, try to get behind every green, to examine it and look back at the approach and recoveries.

Hopefully, you'll enjoy good weather, have fun, and learn a lot.

Patrick;

I'm going there with my brother, his wife, and my dad, who is pushing 80 and is like a kid at Christmas.  My plan is to try to leave them at a convenient spot for an hour or two and walk the course forwards and then backwards, and your points will definitely be noted.  

I'll let you know my thoughts when I return.  

Thanks,
Mike

[David Wigler]

David Wigler said:

"Dave - To your first point, I do not believe Brad rigged the rankings.  More raters came to see Rustic and clearly agreed with you instead of me on it.  The points between 101 and 63 are fairly small, so a few 7's and it makes the top 100. "

I dont believe Brad "rigged" the ratings either, but I am disturbed that GW has never directly addressed whether or not they have pressured raters and/or adjusted or dropped outlier scores.   Seems simple enough to clear up to me.  

Your second point is silly.  If the Chile Relleno is better, it is better.  Rankings do not have cost as a category.  RC IMO simply is not in the same class as Cascata, SouthShore, Southern Highlands, Old Memorial, or the others I mentioned.

As for my "silly" second point, I am quite surprised that you see it that way.   Sure we ought to rate the chile relleno better if it is, but do we. . . .?

Let me tell you about a conversation I had with a rater on the way to play Rustic Canyon.   The rater was in Los Angeles on business but was taking time out of his busy schedule to get a second look at Rustic Canyon and also to play some high-end Fazio course, Shady Canyon I think.   We were talking about rating, Rustic, etc. when this gentleman described what he believed was a fundamental flaw in the GW rating system.   He did not think that there was any way a low budget, low green fee, bare bones operation like Rustic could compete in the ratings with a well financed first class operation like Shady Canyon.  As courses go, they just werent in the same class.    

Needless to say, I was a little shocked--  He was telling me this before he had played Shady Canyon.   Can you honestly tell me that this rater was not unduly influenced by the ultra-expensive, ultra-exclusive nature of the high end course?  

No question in my mind that this guy would not be dining on rellenos.

Dave - Brad can answer for himself but I would think I am proof of no vote fixing.  I have made my opinion of RC public on GCA for several years.  If Brad wanted to get it into the top 100, I would have suspected that I would have been one of the first people he would have pressured into changing my rating.  He certainly did not and RC made it with my opinion notwithstanding.

Again your broad paintbrush on the second point is silly.  I like what I like and have seen enough golf courses, read enough books and studied enough to have a valid opinion.  RC is too easily overpowered.  I seem to remember that same rater you refer to shooting even or 1-under, driving 2 par 4's (1 with a 3-wood), hitting 3 par fives in 2 and making one eagle and five birdies total - as a 5-handicap.  He also rendered most of the strategy irrelevant because every second shot was with a wedge.  The next day he shot 12 strokes higher and significantly more challenged at Shady Canyon (Which is a better course and another that all things being equal, I would play 7:3 over RC if they were neighbors).  

Don't get me wrong, RC is worthy of being a 150 - 350 course in the country because of how good its green complexes are and given that the LA area may be the worst major metropolitan area in the country for good public golf (Let alone good public golf at less than $100 per round) RC should be commended.  I just know that I am screwed with Huckaby because when I go to taunt him of GD's egregious oversight of Kingsley, he is going to reply with RC being in our top 100 and MPCC Shore not being, and I will have no reply.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
Right, and Shadow Creek #17 is an excellent golf hole.

I think this all proves one thing: we all see things very differently--leave it at that.

[David Wigler]

Tommy,

Actually, my first thought when I saw RC make our ratings was how happy I was for you.  I know it is your baby and you should be very proud that the panel saw it that way.  You are right that we see some courses very differently (Like RC and SC - ironically we see many more the same) but I know you really care about RC and I am thrilled for you.  I imagine I would feel the same way if Plum ever found its way into a top 100.  Congratulations!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

That leads to an interesting question.

Should ratings be strictly confined to shot value, strategy and options ?

Forget the waterfalls, the grasses, the mounds the cubic yards moved, should a course be judged solely on the merits of it's play rather then the merits or demerits of its trimmings or lack of them ?

I think I'll start another thread, just on rating on those three criteria.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
No, I don't think they should be, and my feelings are that the entire Golfweek ratings try to avoid that. They really go after every aspect of the entire spectrum--playability, strength, quirkiness, memorability, routing, adherance to the original design intentions, etc.

David,
I'm more happy for Gil, Geoff & Jim and Jeff Hicks who are the deserving stars for making the Top 100 Modern. I think they built not only a great golf course out here, its one that breaks all of the modern ideals of how a golf course should, "toe the line." It's certainly one that has sparked great debate, and that's a good thing. Just like exposing Shadow Creek for its weaknesses after years of promoting the course while over-looking them.

Some of you might get me wrong with my assessment of Shadow Creek. I liked the course. I just think it has a lot more weaknesses that people want to over look because of its pedigree. The same can probably be said of me with Rustic Canyon. I'll take it as a fair trade-off.  I know which of the two courses I would love playing everyday for the rest of my life.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Is that like my choice regarding Shinnecock-NGLA  ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Yes, exactly.

You know which of those two courses I would rather be playing, and that isn't a slam to Shinnecock either. Its just personal taste.

(And maybe a few Southsides)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

That's why my tastes gravitate to "sporty" layouts.

While I appreciate challenging tests, day in and day out, I prefer sporty layouts.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
This would exactly the difference between Shady Canyon and Rustic Canyon for David. I'm sure he would agree too.