[Tom_Doak]

Brad:

To your point at the top of the thread, Jim Finegan was an excellent player also ... he and his son won the father/son event at Pine Valley more than once.  And I saw him shoot 76 at Black Forest a few years ago even though he couldn't reach some of the par-4's in regulation.

I hadn't known Mr. Wind was such a good player, though.

[JakaB]

I wonder how many of the GD raters are regular or even occasional visitors to this site. Based upon the ratings results, not many. Maybe these guys are so busy honing their golf games they don't have time for Web indulgence.

Brad,

Do you really believe the group think mentality of this site leads to accurate critical evaluation....thanks to this site you have raters not even turning in ratings of courses they believe will not fit into the Golfweek mold...they go into a course having read so many regurgitated glowing reviews they don't turn in their score because they are afraid that you will think they can't dance with the clones.....that can't be a good thing.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I would agree with you.  But GOLF DIGEST's definition and culture over the past twenty years has led to a similar group-think mentality, even if they don't get together 2-4 times a year.  In that way Brad has just been trying to speed up the process of establishing his own panel's "culture."

[JakaB]

Tom Doak,

Explain to me the group think mentality of Golf Digest when they celebrate Fishers Island and Trump International at the same time....Fishers Island by including it in the top 20 and TI for having the balls to include it at all.

[JakaB]

There's a big difference between being told what to think and being taught how to think, IMO.  

Shivas,

Next time you comp up at a counter ask yourself if it was really worth handing your balls to a skinny ass professor.....congrats on your education..

[Brad Klein]

My point about GCA and internet culture has less to do with cultivating (or advocating) a single way of thinking, and more about the habits, values and familarity of GD raters with certain kinds of debates and emphases on restoration. I don't think they necessarily should participate here; I think that the likelihood they don't and the likelihood that they are less internet and Web fixated helps explain their very different perceptions of good (and not-so-good) design.

I have to laugh at this assumption that Golfweek inculcates  a way of thinking. Far more people read Whitten's reviews than read mine. The vast majority of our raters don't attend a single one of our outings. We have raters (some of them regulars on this site) who are avid fans of Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Pete Dye and Jim Engh's work, just as we have some who are equally predisposed towards Doak, Coore & Crenshaw and Hanse. I think that diversity is great. I don't get the sense that the GD results reflect a group of raters with the same diversity and open-mindedness. That's my only point.

[Jim Franklin]

I am a GD guy and I think like the rest of you "tree house" members (for the most part ). I loved Friars Head, Sand Hills, Plainfield, but also Victoria National and Sage Valley. I can't explain what happened on our new top 100, but I would expect the rankings to settle down some in 2007. Why? Just a thought, nothing specific so no need to ask why.

I love frequenting this site and have learned a great deal from a lot of posters. I wish more GD guys would frequent this site too. Fortunately I don't need to practice to keep my 2 handicap .

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak,

Explain to me the group think mentality of Golf Digest when they celebrate Fishers Island and Trump International at the same time....Fishers Island by including it in the top 20 and TI for having the balls to include it at all.

John,

Within GD, it seems that only one thing valued higher than "toughness" and "conditioning", and that's exclusivity.

Also, you're being very hypocritical shedding alligator tears that some of us are blasting the GD listing(s).  

When the Golfweek rankings came out, you took great pains to twist every seeming contradiction into some type of dark conspiracy of groupthink (i.e. "why is Friars Head only number 11 modern?"), while you are now asking us to play nice.  Ironically, Friars Head is ranked by GD as the 14th best course in the state!  , yet you make no mention of that anomaly.

John...when you decry this battle, it seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy.  I have to surmise that with VN ranked so highly by GD, you just don't like the direction the bullets are now flying.

[JakaB]

Mike,

Go to the most recent Golfweek rating tread....I did not make even one comment ever...seems like Friars Head was 11th a long time ago and I was right about that one..

note:  Victoria National has always been ranked very, very highly despite the now common knowledge that I am a member....

[David_Madison]

I've been a GD rater rater for two years. During that time, I've submitted roughly 70 course ratings yet met only five other raters. When I play and rate a course, I don't really care what its standing or lack thereof is.  How can I fall under a GD group think spell?  

I frequently read this site and agree with much of what I see here. But that's only a part of my personal viewpoint. I believe that Fazio and Nicklaus actually have done some excellent work and not everything that their organizations have done should be trashed simply because of the author. But I also am very much of a traditionalist and appreciate the older values and aesthetics. For example, I prefer Baltusrol Upper to the Lower, especially after the changes there. Cuscowilla is one of my favorites, but I also thought highly of Great Waters at Reynolds Plantation (a Nicklaus design practically across the street from Cuscowilla), especially its back nine.

And my course just got knocked out of my state's (NC) top 25, and I hate it because I think that my course is better than at least a few on the list that remained or even moved up. But I also believe that there are some other courses in the state that deserve to be on the list, probably higher than mine. So on balance, the list is probably a pretty fair representation of the courses here, and that a typical GD reader trying to play a representative sampling of the best courses in my state will certainly get to do so if they stick to that list.

Now back to chipping practice...

[Paul Richards]

Jaka

Sometimes you make sense, most times you don't.

When you say something like:
>Fishers Island by including it in the top 20 and TI for having the balls to include it at all.

Fishers Island has always been underrated in my book.  Kudos for moving them up.

TI - are you high or what?  How on earth can anyone think this course deserves to be on any list?  Ambiance - let's see, we have a prison next door (you can hear the inmates from the course), an International airport next door with their flight patterns right overhead, a 'wall' of palm trees surrounding the place - looks pretty natural, right?

Oh, and one of the WORST holes I have ever seen - might be the 5th, a 90-degree dogleg right with OB all along the left edge of the hole and water all along the right and in front of the green.  

There is only one really excellent hole, the 15th(?), a par 5 from on top of the (un)natural mound that plays through and around an (un)natural creek.  

Please explain what part of this course makes it a top 100 course?

I certainly missed it.

 

[Paul Richards]

Brad

>Paul, if you could develop more evidence along these lines it would be very helpful. My sense is that the Golf Digest raters show little regard for restoration; in fact, it seems to go the opposite way!

>Evidence: Baltimore CC, Beverly, Desert Forest, Fenway, Plainfield, Salem, Shoreacres.


My plan is to do this.  May take a few days, what with the Masters on and all, but I think it an excellent exercise to show what has occurred here.

Beverly and Franklin Hills, I'm afraid, are not the only ones who have fallen 'victim' to GD.

[JakaB]

Paul,

The Masters is on TV and I am finally happy again.  I have never played TI...never seen it on TV...and the web site was sparcer than the top of Trumps dome.   No matter what you think about the course you have to admit it took balls to include it in the top 100 of any list....I can only begin to defend 98 courses on the list as you are more aware than me of RHL which may be worse than TI but easier to understand..

[Paul Richards]

Tom Huckaby

Earlier in this thread, you said:
>GD represents the masses.

This is true, as far as the magazine itself goes.

However, when all of the panelists are 3-handicaps or less, in what way does this represent 'the masses'?  How can scratch players appreciate a course like Johnny Six-Pack?  Doesn't the fact that only low-handicappers rate for GD skew the rankings AWAY from the magazine's audience in some way?

Am curious to hear your take on this.

[Paul Richards]

John

RHL is only slightly less hard to defend on this list than TI.

I'd love to hear what makes this course so 'great' - tees that are made of astroturf because no grass can grow there, at least three holes with trees dead smack in the middle of the landing area (there's even a plaque on one where Sam Snead 'nestled' his tee shot!) and a par three that plays OVER a tree from the back tees.  Oh, and a par three that shares a tee with a four par so that you need to play two tee shots before you putt out on the par three.

That's great golf architecture?

Or is it the fact that you are wined and dined and so taken care of by your hosts there that makes it a 'great course'?

Just wondering.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby

Earlier in this thread, you said:
>GD represents the masses.

This is true, as far as the magazine itself goes.

However, when all of the panelists are 3-handicaps or less, in what way does this represent 'the masses'?  How can scratch players appreciate a course like Johnny Six-Pack?  Doesn't the fact that only low-handicappers rate for GD skew the rankings AWAY from the magazine's audience in some way?

Am curious to hear your take on this.

Paul,

That's a great question, but I think that despite his courageous and valiant defense of GD's rankings to date, Huck pretty much left this thread after I questioned why only some infinitessimal amount of GD raters actually have enough interest in golf course architecture to find and participate on this site.

[David_Madison]

david

From your standpoint do you think the In-state ratings at GD are hindered by a suggested play list?

Redanman:

We are asked to play all of the Best New Course candidates in our state, and to my knowledge that's about the extent of what we are "required" to play. The latest listing of new and renovated courses included about 200 courses, and we have been advised that it would be added to, so I'd guess that the list likely reflects the great majority of projects completed over the past year. As for the book of candidate courses from which we are play and rate, the latest book was over 120 pages and had about 15 courses per page. I'd be very surprised if there were many courses that participants on this site would think were worthy not contained within this 1800+ course compilation. To my knowledge, courses are added all of the time, nominated by raters and architects, or called in directly by the course ownership/management to GD.

When I try to figure out where I want to play, I'll typically start with the list of the highest rated courses wherever I'm going to be and then work from there. Please note that not only are the current ratings indicated in the list of courses, but also any past ratings, either state or national. A course formerly rated highly but not currently listed will still fall within the group that I seek out first. I also work from GW's lists, and if a course is rated highly by GW but not by GD I'll often seek that one out (and use that fact when speaking with the head pro or director of golf about requesting access to their course.) If what I do is typical, the obvious downside is that courses that never have been recognized are going to see fewer raters. But I try to balance that out by my desire to play courses that I've never seen before, and I'd hope that other raters do the same.

[THuckaby2]

I left this thread because:

a) it was getting very tiresome;
b) I was out actually playing the game; and
c) because I had already answered Mike as to why not many more GD raters participate here.  But to rephrase that, it's because it takes an odd duck indeed to WANT to take on the world and face daily ridicule.  

But Paul, as for your question, it's simple.

Yes, making this all 3 handicappers makes for a rating panel that surely doesn't represent the abilities of Joe Sixpack - or Thurston Country Club for that matter.  But that being said, how do you know Joe Sixpack can't play the game?  I'd have to guess that with 800 raters, at least some portion are gonna be basic Joe Muni guys like ME.  Or I'd be willing to bet that numerically there are more public courses players in our panel than on any other....

But that's not the most important point, anyway.  What's most important is the CRITERIA used by GD.  That comes closer to what really matters to real world golfers than does the criteria/formula/methodology used by any other magazine... Why?  Because all these things people in here give crap to GD for evaluating - conditions, ambience, etc. - they DO matter in the real world... It's actually comical how people here deny that, and how that's seemingly what it's all about to real world golfers.

TH

[blasbe1]

Barney, I will grant you this:  if $1000 was magically, automatically wired into my bank account every time a GW rater uttered the words "too many trees" I would retire TODAY with a fabulous annuity stream.

My dislike for trees started about 15 years ago, while my GCA education had just begun, and it was primarily based upon my hitting them often.  Then I began to like big old trees with some space underneath, thus a poor shot most often lead to the opportunity to hit a creative recovery . . . okay . . . trees are good again . . .

Then, however, five years ago we began our renovation/restoration project at Seawane and I saw an unveiling of a real links course before my eyes by removing about 2-3k trees.  I also saw all new angles of play open up off the tee and, more importantly, on approach shots, a much more exciting course to play now.  So I'm back to thinking that most trees are bad, but big tall ones with room to play creative recovery shots do still add a lot to a game.  I still dislike the corridor effect, however, of dense rows of trees that say simply "Don't hit it here!"  

I much prefer a tall tree on the inside corner of a dog leg that says "Challenge me successfully and you shall be rewarded!"

Gosh, this post reads like the name of a grunge rock band from the 90s.  
 

     

[Paul Richards]

Tom

Thanks for your answer.

However, you said:
> What's most important is the CRITERIA used by GD.  That comes closer to what really matters to real world golfers than does the criteria/formula/methodology used by any other magazine...


How does criteria #2 "Resistance to Scoring.  How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees?", fit in with Joe Six-Pack and other 'real world golfers' and how is that 'closer to what really matters' to him and his 'style' of golf?

[THuckaby2]

Paul:

You have to take it as a whole, not just pull out parts you seemingly don't like.

My take is that we're trying to assess the GREATEST courses.  I've always thought the very greatest courses can test the pros in a championship while still being fun for a hack, from different tees.  So that GD criteria is assessing the first part of that equation... which does matter.  So this doesn't apply to Joe Sixpack particularly, or Thurston Country Club, or Sammy Scratch (though it is most important for Sammy)... it's just one way of evaluating the course's greatness for everyone.

Think of it this way also:  a course could score very high in that but very low in other criteria... and thus wouldn't be "great" nor at the top of any ranking.

TH

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

I understand that :

>You have to take it as a whole, not just pull out parts you seemingly don't like.


However, my problem with this set of rankings is that by removing tradition, and not inserting 'something else', the new rankings are somehow 'skewed.'   A chunk of information was removed and now the sum is not the same as it was before.

My thesis, as mentioned above, in response to Brad Klein's post:
 
>Paul, if you could develop more evidence along these lines it would be very helpful. My sense is that the Golf Digest raters show little regard for restoration; in fact, it seems to go the opposite way!

>Evidence: Baltimore CC, Beverly, Desert Forest, Fenway, Plainfield, Salem, Shoreacres.


My following post will begin to explore this thesis.

[JakaB]

Paul,

When Beverly finished their restoration did Brad throw out all the old scores and only count the new......I am sure Golf Digest doesn't do that..

[THuckaby2]

Paul:

My guess is that they just figured "tradition" was somehow folded into people's assessments already, as many here have asserted over the years.  So I too think things are oddly skewed in the recently-released rankings, but I also trust the editors to have thought this through.  Perhaps I am naive.

Re the rest, well... I'll back out re the discussion of how this relates, or not, to restorations.  It's not my bag; that is to say, I really don't care - I'm just not interested.  I also think arguing the results is fruitless, as such are always going to come down to how people see things, and it's silly to expect the world to ever see things exactly like you do.

But re the criteria and methodology, well... my continued take, as it always has been, is that GD's is not perfect for sure - see my posts in Doak's thread about how to weight all this regarding that.  I do just think it is the best of the three magazines doing this, that's all.  But that's just my take and I fully understand that damn near everyone in this forum disagrees with me.  

TH

[Paul Richards]

The following are from the state lists, and represent the courses that have fallen the most, in-state, from 2003 to 2005.

12 places -
Torrey Pines (S) from 16th to 28th - recently renovated
PGA West (Stadium) - 18th to 30th
Bay Hill - 7th to 19th
Somerset - 6th to 18th
The Dunes Beach and Golf Club - 4th to 16th (still ranked #89 in US on GW Classic)

11 places -
Treyburn CC - from 9th to 20th

10 places -
Franklin Hills - from 11th to 21st - (#79 GW Classic) - about to be restored
Meadowbrook - 12th to 22nd
Crag Burn - 14th to 24th
Preston Trail - 7th to 17th

9 places -
Desert Highlands - 7th to 16th
Bob O'Link  - 16th to 25th

8 places -
Indianwood (Old) - 17th to 25th
Manufacturers - 13th to 21st - (#88 GW Classic) - undergoing restoration

7 places -
Pasatiempo - 9th to 16th - (#50 GW Classic)
Beverly CC - 10th to 17th - (#100 GW Classic)
Charlotte CC - 5th to 12th
NCR - 8th to 15th - (#63 GW Classic)
Kirtland CC - 9th to 16th
Firestone (South) - 11th to 18th (#90 GW Classic)
Austin CC - 15th to 22nd

6 places -
Desert Mountain (Cochise) - 16th to 22nd
Rancho Santa Fe - 20th to 26th - recent restoration
Hiwan GC - 6th to 12th
Minneapolis - 7th to 13th
Pine Needles - 15th to 22nd - (#85 GW Classic)
Brook Hollow - 2nd to 8th - (#92 GW Classic)
Barton Creek (Foothills) - 13th to 19th



My observations are that some type of dichotomy has befallen the GD list with this substantial change in their assessment program, removing Tradition points.

For some reason, and I hope someone can tell me why, this seems to have 'skewed' many of the results - and they become glaring and obvious when compared to the GW lists.

Many of these have undergone recent restorations or renovations - are these being viewed in negative light, for some reason, by Golf Digest's raters?  Or is there some other explanation here?


The other thing that is noticeable is that many of these are Ross courses.  

If someone can help me identify any of these that are about to or have undergone restoration/renovation and which are Ross courses, I'd be much obliged (all my books are in storage awaiting my move).
 


 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()