Sand Hills 38th best?

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

You were offered a big fat curve ball and guess what -- you simply fouled it off. Geeze, I was hoping for so much more from you.

Here's the reality Tom -- Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are weighted down with some sort of 19th hole adjustment strategy by the folks at Digest. The Shadow Creek incident has caused a massive overreaction and as a result you get this silly "tradition" category thrown into the picture.

Greatness doesn't need to wait if it's present. All the elements tied to the "time" argument are about protecting the status quo. Frankly, if something is great it need not dance through such silly arcane non-course related architecture criteria.

Huck -- the Digest ratings are slowly losing any semblance of credibility and your defense of what is clearly a direct manipulation is surely misdirected. You have been seduced by the dark side -- it is time for you to accept the force and repent your misguided and sadly misinformed ways.

P.S. There is hope my dear man -- but the time left on the clock for you is slipping away sooooooo quickly.

[THuckaby2]

Yawn.  Same ole, same ole.  So tell me, how do you know:

a) the editors don't add these points at the beginning and/or outside of their knowledge of the points they've received from the raters?  and

b) that thus this isn't honest assessment, rather than late manipulation?

It certainly can be looked at both ways.

The dark side?  Pshaw.  If anything I am a combination of Luke Skywalker and Don Quixote... a pure believer in the good of things.  'Tis you who is the Vader seeing evil all over, even where it does not exist.

And I will not be seduced.  For while there is power in the dark side, well... you see what good it did for Vader.

 

In all seriousness Matt, we both have our axes to grind here and I make no bones about mine.  I have a great loyalty to GD and that makes me give them HUGE benefits of doubt. How about coming clean and admitting you go the opposite way (likely with very good reason) and we can quit this dance once and for all?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Sadly you are in error -- I have no axe to grind.

The process of rating courses needs to examine the merits of what the respective courses have. Inserting at the 23rd hour so sort of "make-up" category to provide some sort of protection for dubious classic courses when held up against the likes of Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes is really a big time stretch in terms of overall credibility.

You don't fix a small issue with a larger problem.

Huck -- I have fully disclosed my situation many times ad naseum. Here's the deal BLIND LOYALTY on your part is not commemndable -- it is simply BLIND. No disrespect intended partner.

When you say "how do you know," my answer is a simple one -- simply check the process employed by Digest immediately following the Shadow Creek-Gate fiasco. Clearly, there was an attempt to "adjust" the rating numbers after they came in from the panel. That's a heavy hand approach to get a desired outcome.

Huck -- if it quacks like a duck -- flies like a duck -- waddles like a duck ... guess what ...

It's a duck -- ergo the Digest ratings process. All in all, it's a slap in the face to you and other fellow raters that such information you provide is then manipulated to provide for a desired outcome. End of story.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

That sound you heard was a large sigh, as my olive branch was thrown back at me with flaming shit on it.

Oh well, I tried.

OK, I'm blind.  GD is evil.  They need to be utterly cryit downe.  The ratings exist for the sole purpose of screwing modern courses.

That is one odd duck.

One I remain happy to be affiliated with.

Cheers.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

I actually agreed with you (a scary thought indeed! ) on your last post until you got the part where you erroneously believe that having more people weigh in as raters is a good thing. It's not frankly.

Too many raters are simply regionalistic and not national. Many have little wherewithal to make the kind of cross comparisons necessary in order for the ratings to be of much value. In addition, too many raters have clear conflicts of interest tied to their connection to home clubs and the like.

More people doesn't ipso facto mean a greater semblance of insightful information. The key is having individual people capable in truly being national in scope and not simply hunkering down in their little corner of the universe.

Shivas, the metro NYC area is rightly tagged as the finest collection of golf courses in America. However, there are those in my "neck of the woods" who are also raters and some take this situation to the nth degree and simply assume that everything in the metro NYC area is the best no matter what happens elsewhere. That is sheer hubris on their part and clearly speaks to the issue of self-isolation that many raters unfortunately follow.

The problem with raters / ratings is that you need people with the wherewithal to travel frequently beyond their little corner of the neighborhood so that cross comparisons and number application has some real meaning. The GolfWeek system certainly has issues they can address as you mentioned but truly Digest is the one that needs some clear upating. It was Digest through Bill Davis that kicked-off this entire fascination with the topic roughly 40 years ago. The whole notion of adding such 23rd hour course corrections speaks to the nature of how the key folks at Digest view the process now.

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

I can buy all of that, and agree with your assessments of the pluses and minuses.  And you do assess me well.  I do firmly believe that GD has the best system, and thus there is no way in hell I am ever going to admit that this alleged manipulation occurs.  (BTW, the correct word is gerrymandering, but what's a botched odd term among friends.    Jury-rig would refer to what Macgyver does. )

In any case, I will also continue to defend GD in here as best I can.  It is difficult being a Christian in this Mecca, however.

 

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Huck:

It sure does and I hear you.

There is also something to be said for not jumping on the "Best New" band wagon, sometimes it's better judgment to reserve high praise for a period of time.  Perhaps a 3 or 5 year period, but then a course should be eligible for full ambiance points.  This would actually track the progress of a great newcomer well and ensure that if they are going to be near the top of the heap they prove themselves without the ambiance number for a few years first.  

In this way you'd have a course like Sand Hills in the 30s -50s for its first few years and then hit the top ten.  It would ensure that a course doesn't debut too high and stay there because of inertia, I just think the current wait period is too much time and favors the old guard too much.

Jason
   

I believe that Golf Digest already has a waiting period of 5 years before courses can get on its top 100 list...  The Ocean Course opened in 1991 and wasn't rated until 1997...

Golf Magazine has no wait.  Pac Dunes was on the list when their raters only had a chance to see an unfinished course...

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Mike V - that does seem low, and likely is another outlier.  But how do you know the points came down as they did?  Might it be you got zero for walkablity, zero for ambiance, then 1.67 out of a possible 4 for Tournament History?  I still think that's all too low (judging from afar) but at least that makes a certain sense.

So perhaps you are not lacking in anything other than walkability, and some crazy raters just didn't dig the ambience, for whatever reason?

I have a feeling your course will get sorted out in 2005 as well.  Let's hope so.  But we shall see.

TH

Walkabiliity is a totally separate rating from Tradition.  Tradition gets 10 points.   Walkability gets its own 2 points...  And 82 of the top 100 courses ranked higher than The Ocean Course in walkability which has me scratching my head...

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Gotcha.  As for your course and walkability, well I haven't been there so I don't know... but don't you shuttle people from 9 to 10 or something?  That tends to hurt the walking factor.  82nd out of 100 does seem low though even factoring that in.

Your scores do seem low.  Must have had some angry raters out there.

 

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Through all these discussions, keep in mind the overall goal of why course ratings were developed and why these rating panels were formed --- TO SELL MAGAZINES!  There's no other purpose.  From what I'm told by the people at Golf Digest, their biennial rating issue is they top selling issue.  Mission accomplished...

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

No one doubts the purpose is to sell magazines.

But the foundation of Digest by William Davis was to be a golf magazine with a particular voice. Credibility is the heart of any magazine's voice. Lose that and you lose plenty.

Digest constantly asserts itself as T-H-E leading voice in golf journalism. Frankly, the manipulation / adjustment of bonus points speaks to another motive and with that the whole notion of credibility is sacrificed on the altar of internal control.

I'm not naive to believe a subjective process can ever be 100% foolproof but it should be based on criteria that actually measures what is truly being defined.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom,

Question for you regarding GD raters.  Does everyone get to rate for "walkability", or does the rater have to walk the majority of their rounds including at least one round on the course being rated?  Or does a guy who hasn't walked in a decade get to rate for walkability just because its on the questionaire?

Allowing cart jockeys to rate for walkability would be like having a nonsmoker like me rate the selection of cigars available in the clubhouse.

[THuckaby2]

Tom,

Question for you regarding GD raters.  Does everyone get to rate for "walkability", or does the rater have to walk the majority of their rounds including at least one round on the course being rated?  Or does a guy who hasn't walked in a decade get to rate for walkability just because its on the questionaire?

Allowing cart jockeys to rate for walkability would be like having a nonsmoker like me rate the selection of cigars available in the clubhouse.

Doug:

"Walking" is a criteria that all of us are asked to give a value to.  As far as I know they don't inquire of one's walking or riding history before they let one become a panelist.

So yes, it's possible that some folks who ride all the time give a value to this.  I'd hope that they could use their imagination, as it's not the toughest thing in the world to assess, but you're right, chalk this up as an imperfection.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags: