News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #350 on: March 06, 2005, 08:12:14 PM »
Moriarity,

I answered all of this stuff and exactly your same questions last year with Rustic Canyon - both on this Web site and in public at Baltusrol. We don't change votes, we don't ask people to change specific votes. Occasionally in the past if there was systematic bias in someone's rankings (all Modern courses way low or something) I might have asked them to go back and reassess their approach generally, but that's it. This year I didn't even bother looking at how anyone voted. It's all on an Excel spread sheet and logged in automatically and monitored by an in-house computer guy who is far more technical than I will ever hope to be.. So we have six Coore and Crenshaw courses and 17 Fazio courses on our top-100 and that's how our 350 raters vote and if you or someone thinks the difference between 6.5 and 6.6 isn't significant enough, I don't worry about it. I'm glad we have such diverse courses as Black Sheep, Southern Highlands, Rustic Canyon and the Preserve on the list.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #351 on: March 06, 2005, 08:54:29 PM »

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 ?


Now Brad don't be all pissy when you read this. It was a fun exchange between Mike C and I. It is the Ran game not Golfweek related, and I would be interested. All disclaimers are in place, it is silly, not relevent ........

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #352 on: March 06, 2005, 08:57:48 PM »
Brad,

Your response above is very solid, in terms of the credibility of Golfweek's ranking. But, what it suggests is, the onus is on you (and whoever else?) to select an "intelligent" panel.

I agree, let 'em "do their thing" without review... but every one of the panelists should have a sincere interest in golf course architecture. That's the bottom line; which I'm sure you ensure.

Personally, I enjoy the Golfweek rankings most of all. I find the split (pre/post 1960) very interesting; and, I sincerely feel Brad's criteria is the most intelligently directive of all the panel's guidelines.

My .02.
jeffmingay.com

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #353 on: March 06, 2005, 08:59:45 PM »
Jeff,
What would the appropriate set of qualifications be for an "intelligent" panelist?

Is a sincere interest enough?

« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 09:00:36 PM by W.H. Cosgrove »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #354 on: March 06, 2005, 09:36:42 PM »


Jeff Mingay, thanks for the supportive advice. You know, for years, I thought my job was to pick a stupid panel. Excellent suggestion on your part! Maybe I'll try finding smarter raters for a change -and get rid of the 350 we now have.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2005, 05:16:09 AM by Brad Klein »

DMoriarty

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #355 on: March 07, 2005, 03:53:04 AM »
Moriarity,

I answered all of this stuff and exactly your same questions last year with Rustic Canyon - both on this Web site and in public at Baltusrol. We don't change votes, we don't ask people to change specific votes. Occasionally in the past if there was systematic bias in someone's rankings (all Modern courses way low or something) I might have asked them to go back and reassess their approach generally, but that's it. This year I didn't even bother looking at how anyone voted. It's all on an Excel spread sheet and logged in automatically and monitored by an in-house computer guy who is far more technical than I will ever hope to be.. So we have six Coore and Crenshaw courses and 17 Fazio courses on our top-100 and that's how our 350 raters vote and if you or someone thinks the difference between 6.5 and 6.6 isn't significant enough, I don't worry about it. I'm glad we have such diverse courses as Black Sheep, Southern Highlands, Rustic Canyon and the Preserve on the list.

Brad,

While I am a bit taken aback by your tone, I do appreciate you finally answering my questions.   If you have answered them before, I can assure that I was not privy to those discussions.   Regardless, thanks for taking the time to answer.  

I wouldnt worry much about lay opinions regarding GW’s methodology either.   Yet this isn’t about lay opinions but whether GW’s methodology is sound according to accepted statistical principles.  If the accepted statistical principles do not support the differentiations between courses in the GW Ratings, then GW is misleading its readers at the very least.   But then as a trained Political Scientist you are likely familiar with the importance of proper methodology.  

I agree that GW’s list seems more diverse than the others, and I am glad for this as well.   But this is beside the point.  A desirable outcome does not validate the methodology.  
« Last Edit: March 07, 2005, 03:55:20 AM by DMoriarty »

DMoriarty

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #356 on: March 07, 2005, 04:45:07 AM »
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.

Thank you for your testimonial, and thanks to Lou for his as well. I doubt Brad (or anyone) would try to influence you, David, for he must be aware that as a rater you are a paragon of integrity and propriety.

Quote
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.

Frankly I am at a loss for what to say.  You've puffed about your performance at Rustic before, and since your round is the basis for your conclusions about  the course, I think we ought to set the record straight.  You played very well, made an incredible eagle on No. 9, and made three or maybe four birdies.   As for the rest, suffice it to say that your score is off by a deuce or two, and your listed accomplishments are a bit bolder than I recall.   Believe it or not I usually find this sort of discussion unseemingly, and I wouldn’t go down this road if I didn’t feel pretty confident in my recollection. Feel free ot set the record straight so we can avoid the gory details.  

Even if we take your mistaken recollection at face value, I think I may still be missing your point.  You say you were seven under for five holes (an eagle and five birdies) so you’ve got some serious big numbers to make up on the other thirteen.   But there isn’t much place for bogeys when you have five (5!) eagle putts, plus a bunch of birdie chances from wedge approaches..  Plus you say you had birdie putts on  Nos. 17 (189)  and 18, where you did not  hit wedge seconds.  All this and still failed to finish below Par.   It doesn’t seem to me that the course was “easily overpowered.”  In fact it hardly seems you “rendered most of the strategy meaningless” at all.  

Don’t get me wrong,.  Red numbers are there for the picking at Rustic.  A huge hitter on his game could conceivably have seven eagle putts.  Throw in all the wide fairways and three par threes under 170 yards, and by appearances quality golfers ought to be able to go very low.  Yet the course has held its own.  One thing I really like about Rustic is that players like you always think they scored much better than they did, even when they played very well.    

Quote
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).

Well then it must be a much better course if you shot 12 stokes higher !   My problem is that you had already decided  that Shady Canyon was a much higher class of course before you even played there!

Quote
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.

Let's see, Rustic Canyon is within a few miles of three other newer other public access courses, all of which have been honored by the national magazines.  And Neal Meagher and Todd Eckenrode might disagree with you, at least with regard to their courses in the area.   As might Curley and Schmidt.  But dont let these things stop you, you are on a roll . . . tell me more about LA's public golf.  

And dont worry about the Yuckster razzing you.  He would never taunt you about RC making the GW list.  TomH thinks Rustic Canyon is an outstanding course and is well deserving of the accolades it receives.   At least that is what he has told me . . . .

As for RC being top 150 to 300 modern, you may well be correct.   I cant say because I havent seen enough of the courses.  I leave that to the experts.  

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #357 on: March 07, 2005, 04:47:05 AM »
DM,

we go through this every year -  and I answer this every year, seemingly on the longest thread of the season (if there is a season).

This year isn't nearly as angry as last year's, believe me, neither in the tone of the accusations nor in my responses, but after nine years it does get a little repetitive. I much prefer witnessing arguments on the merits of this or that course rather than the process by how we arrived at it.

I understand there is inherent scrutiny. But we have our method clearly available on the Golfweek website in the Rater's Handbook, and no matter what we do, as Jonathan Cummings can explain better than I can, any statistical attempt to convert human judgment into quantitative form is subject to questioning and limitation. I'm not thrilled that we end up with small marginal distinctions beteween courses, but then in the case of a 500-mile car race, I'm amazed that there's often less than .10 second between the lead cars. All I can tell you is that we watch the process closely, and we've come up with a process that does the job pretty well. The bias we have ultimately comes down to the choices made by our raters. I don't alway agree with their choices, but my job is to define a system that allows those choices and not my own selections to come through.

If I am a bit defensive (see above) it's because the concerns expressed here on GCA are only a very small part of the mail, email and phone calls I get - including from those knowledgeable in California who think that Rustic Canyon is wildly and irresponsibly overrated and who question whether I've really seen it or how anyone could so badly misjudge it. Hey, that's the nature of lists and rankings. I know that.

And when someone (not you, DM) asks whether I've seen this or that course, or if I've seen the newly revised bunker on the 4th hole at Cedar Swamp CC, all I can think about is that for ten years running now I've been traveling 120 days a year looking at this stuff and that my wife, daughter (now grown up) three cats, dog and I would rather I were home much more than accounting for all sorts of perceived injustices or making up for alleged sins by raters. The great part of these discussions is discussing and debating the relative merits of courses. The tougher part is when questions about judgment and issues of aesthetic difference are assumed to be the product of manipulation, conspiracy or incompetence.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2005, 08:54:02 AM by Brad Klein »

A_Clay_Man

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #358 on: March 07, 2005, 07:23:32 AM »
The tougher part is when questions about judgment and issues of aesthetic difference are assumed to be the product of manipulation, conspiracy or incompetence.

Are these aesthetic differences quantifiable?

I golfed Pinon yesterday and I noticed some serious evolving of one of the bunker edges. I really liked the craggy look it was affording, but knew that others, with a different perspective in aesthetics (and how it relates to GCA) would be appauled and be the first thing they would fix, calling it sheit.

Are we ever going to convince people that Thomas Kincaid is NOT fine art?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2005, 07:28:35 AM by Adam Clayman »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #359 on: March 07, 2005, 07:52:55 AM »
Careful, Adam. I have a velvet moose in a Yukon sunset over my desk that I'd rate a solid 10.

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #360 on: March 07, 2005, 09:07:18 AM »
DaveM,

That is the fun of being a lawyer who is not in court.  If what I say does not suit your needs, you can just make it up and explain my thoughts for me – no oath or cross.  You think I was 1-over, I think I was 1-under.  We both agree that I played at least five of the holes 6-under, which means I made a lot of bogey's and one really dumb double.  So what?  

I have played the course twice and shot well below my handicap both times (Neither time feeling like I played my best golf).  I clearly can drive with impunity and it translates for me into an opinion that the course does not offer enough challenge for a long hitter off the tee.  I am not a scratch, nor a pro, so I expect bogeys.

As for my decision that I liked Shady better before I saw it.  That is simply a fabrication and something you could not possibly know.  Actually, given that Tommy is one of my favorite people on the planet, I desperately wanted to love RC.  I wish I could gloss over the flaws I saw because of how I feel about Tommy.  It would be a lot easier than knowing that I do not hold his home course in as much esteem as he does (Or Golfweek in general).  So you go ahead and make up whatever else you want about my preconceived notions.  I am done with this discussion.
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #361 on: March 07, 2005, 09:40:55 AM »
And dont worry about the Yuckster razzing you.  He would never taunt you about RC making the GW list.  TomH thinks Rustic Canyon is an outstanding course and is well deserving of the accolades it receives.   At least that is what he has told me . . . .

And I do continue to believe that.  I'd play Rustic Canyon any time and in fact DO damn near every time I come to SoCal.  The main accolade it's received before the recent GW rating was "Best New Affordable" last year by GD, and it deserved that BIG TIME.  No question about it.  And I'd say the #63 Modern rating is also right on by GW.  

All that being said, I would still find a way to razz Dave W. about SOMETHING, because no list is foolproof, and it's too fun not to do.  As he will do back to me.  It's fun.

Your light-hearted yuckster (that really ought not to be a name),

Tom Huckaby

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #362 on: March 07, 2005, 10:01:03 AM »
Your light-hearted yuckster (that really ought not to be a name)

I disagree.  Your "audible yuks" phrase on a few occasions should be trademarked!  It made an impression on me and I now use it, while adding the "TM Tom Huckaby" to give you full credit.

 ;D ;)

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #363 on: March 07, 2005, 10:11:19 AM »
Scott - OK, fair enough.  I certainly have been called worse things and will wear this moniker with honor.

Y

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #364 on: March 07, 2005, 10:33:07 AM »
Been away 99.44% of the past month.

Good to see, upon returning, that some things never change!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #365 on: March 07, 2005, 10:40:42 AM »
Dan - I told this to Fortson, I shall tell it to you:  don't judge this book by its cover.  At least 13 of these 17 pages have nothing to do with ratings.  In fact many pages were devoted to feminine pulchritude until most of the pics were deleted...

TH

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #366 on: March 07, 2005, 10:43:56 AM »
Dan - I told this to Fortson, I shall tell it to you:  don't judge this book by its cover.  At least 13 of these 17 pages have nothing to do with ratings.  In fact many pages were devoted to feminine pulchritude until most of the pics were deleted...

TH

As I said: Good to see, upon returning, that some things never change.

What percentage of the female-pulchritude (is there any other kind?) pictures did Mr. Cirba post? (Obligatory smiley of your choosing.)
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #367 on: March 07, 2005, 10:46:08 AM »
DK:

Aha!  Gotcha.  Jeff F. took us to task for such a huge conversation about ratings.  I should have known better re your perspective.  My bad.  

And you are right on re Mr. Cirba, one of my life heroes.  He did contribute at least 33%, maybe 50%.

 ;D ;D

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #368 on: March 07, 2005, 10:50:23 AM »
Just don't forget that I posted all the good ones! ;)

Well, maybe not ALL.  Cirba did give us Eva Langoria.   ;D

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #369 on: March 07, 2005, 10:52:13 AM »
Brad,

One thing that sucks about internet discussion groups is, a point can easily be misconstrued. I said I'm sure you do ensure that the Golfweek panel is made up of golf architecture enthusaists.

I wasn't insinuating that you've compiled a panel of idiots. Re-read my post... I gave you a vote of confidence in that regard; then complimented your ranking as the best out there!

Geez...  ::)
jeffmingay.com

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #370 on: March 07, 2005, 10:54:53 AM »
W.H. Cosgrove,

I do feel that a sincere interest in golf course architecture is enough of a qualification to be a panelist.
jeffmingay.com

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #371 on: March 07, 2005, 10:55:38 AM »
Jeff, hey I knew that and tried to convey it! I did thank you for your vote of approval.

I just don't know how to do those smart-ass smileys and as a writer, not a graphics guy, I'd prefer not to use them anyway. If that means my tone gets misconstrued once in a while, that's a risk worth taking.

THuckaby2

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #372 on: March 07, 2005, 10:59:29 AM »
Brad - are you SURE about that?  ;D ;D ;D

As a crappy writer, and one who does tend to care about the relationships he has with folks in here, well... I'll let graphics help me any time, thank you very much.

See, if I hadn't added those smileys up there, wouldn't you think I was being an idiot and/or trying to pick a fight with you?

As it is, I hope the smileys there - and those here:

 ;D ;D ;D

tell you that I am being an idiot, but in good fun, just needling you, as it were.

TH

Mike_Cirba

Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #373 on: March 07, 2005, 11:02:17 AM »
Actually, fellas;

I believe I posted 43.3782224% of the pictures.

I have a number of excuses.

10. It's been a long, cold winter.
9. Shivas called Teri Hatcher "average", or "routine", or some other blasphemy.
8. Huckaby was on his annual diatribe about Golfweek not blending their classic and modern ratings.
7. The thread was getting stale quickly because nobody was really disputing the relative rankings of the courses, nor their merits.
6. Shivas started talking about the merits of "Persian" women.  After he posted a pic or two, I see why Burka's are needed in the middle east, lest the entire male population lose their collective minds (oh wait, haven't they done that already?)
5. This was starting to turn into the 1,943rd thread about Rustic Canyon.
4. I was egged on by some of the perverts in here.
3. Ted Kramer started discussing the disappointments of his sex life with beautiful women.
2. Huckaby would rather play Cypress Point than know Teri Hatcher, Salma Hayek and/or Angelina Jolie in a Biblical sense.
1. The picture I found of Eva Longoria had her quoted in a most intriguing way.


Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:New Golfweek Rankings
« Reply #374 on: March 07, 2005, 11:04:44 AM »
Actually, fellas;

I believe I posted 43.3782224% of the pictures.

I have a number of excuses.

10. It's been a long, cold winter.
9. Shivas called Teri Hatcher "average", or "routine", or some other blasphemy.
8. Huckaby was on his annual diatribe about Golfweek not blending their classic and modern ratings.
7. The thread was getting stale quickly because nobody was really disputing the relative rankings of the courses, nor their merits.
6. Shivas started talking about the merits of "Persian" women.  After he posted a pic or two, I see why Burka's are needed in the middle east, lest the entire male population lose their collective minds (oh wait, haven't they done that already?)
5. This was starting to turn into the 1,943rd thread about Rustic Canyon.
4. I was egged on by some of the perverts in here.
3. Ted Kramer started discussing the disappointments of his sex life with beautiful women.
2. Huckaby would rather play Cypress Point than know Teri Hatcher, Salma Hayek and/or Angelina Jolie in a Biblical sense.
1. The picture I found of Eva Longoria had her quoted in a most intriguing way.



 ;D

-Ted