[Paul Richards]

John

Don't know the answer to your question:
>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:

The obvious take without looking too far into this is that each of those benefited a lot from bonus tradition points, and thus with those removed, they fall in the rankings... just as others rise, who heretofore had no bonus tradition points.  Thus it has nothing to do with restorations or not... it's just older courses that got these tradition points.

But that might oversimplify things.

In any case, the biggest detractors of the GD system - or should I make that singular, Mr. Ward   - have been clamoring for years for tradition to be removed.  Well, remove it and here's what happens.

GD constantly tweaks.  I'd bet anything they will tweak again before ratings for the 2007 list start to happen.

TH

[Paul Richards]

Tom;

> I'd bet anything they will tweak again before ratings for the 2007 list start to happen.


That would be welcome indeed.

When a Trump International, when a Rich Harvest Farms, when a Sand Ridge, when an Old Waverly, when Quarry at La Quinta and the like take spots in the top 100 from Desert Forest, from Wannamoisett, from Mauna Kea, from Jupiter Hills, from Five Farms and even from Cog Hill #4, then I know something is 'rotten in Denmark' with what is left with the system after removing Tradition as a category.


The deterioration in the 2005 list from the 2003 edition is just awful and obvious.  

[THuckaby2]

Paul:

Your "awful and obvious" could be another man's honest opinion as great.  Just do bear that in mind.

Because I look at all of that, and taking the entirety of the rest of the ratings as a whole, find nothing either awful or obvious.  This is a big world of golf and there certainly isn't any one "right" or "wrong" way to look at golf courses.

These courses you deem unworthy just may be looked at as truly great by others.  Why are they necessarily wrong?

That's what I don't get, and why I appreciate JakaB's take here... not that this should ever be considered "racisim" as that would be incorrect usage of that word, but well... there sure is a "we're smart, GD and the rest of the world is stupid" culture in here.

TH

[JakaB]

Huck,

Golf is a great big ole world and we are all part of it divided up by races, tribes or whatever.   When one race think they are better than another it is racism plain and simple.

[Paul Richards]

tom

> well... there sure is a "we're smart, GD and the rest of the world is stupid" culture in here.


You seem to be missing my point.

A lot of really excellent courses got dropped, 'big-time', with the only possible explanation being the drop of the category of tradition.

IMHO, a lot of 'next-tier' courses got bumped way up because of the breakdown of the system.

As you earlier stated, I sure hope that this process gets 'tweaked' again in time for the 2007 list.


Jaka

Man, once again, you've lost me on this one:
>Golf is a great big ole world and we are all part of it divided up by races, tribes or whatever.  When one race think they are better than another it is racism plain and simple.


 

[wsmorrison]

Paul,

I'm not playing the part of a homer here, but how the heck does removing tradition out of the equation affect Rolling Green GC?  They held the 1976 Women's Open and that's it save a number of state tournaments.  The course went from 6 or 7th in the state to out of the top 25.  What gives?  I'm trying to be objective, but looking at the courses in the top 25 in PA has me scratching my head quite a bit.

I know there's a lot of strange things going on with the list a number of courses have weird rankings, but I have a hard time figuring the RGGC omission.

[Paul Richards]

Wayne

I totally agree with you.

Rolling Green would lose nothing with the reduction in Tradition points, and, of course, since it dropped off of the state list completely  (as I am sure others have), it was missed by my survey above.

So this is another one for the list.

Any others?



PS  I've played many PA courses now - 18 and I am completely at a loss as to how Rolling Green could fall off the state list completely - especially when it had been 6 or 7 before!!   My rating would put it in the top 100 Classics.
 

Are you and I the only clueless ones?

[JakaB]

Kings North fell out of the South Carolina rankings...thats not right..I call for an investigation.



Best in State Rankings: 2003-2004

Golf Digest's exclusive state-by-state rankings

Golf Digest


Key
* walking permitted anytime
« public-access course
[2001 ranking shown in brackets]
America's 100 Greatest Golf Courses in bold


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Carolina
1. Harbour Town G. Links, Hilton Head Island [1] *«
2. The Ocean Cse., Kiawah Is. [2] *«
3. Long Cove C., Hilton Head Island [3]*
4. The Dunes G. & Beach C., Myrtle Beach [5] *«
5. Greenville C.C. (Chanticleer) [4]*
6. The G.C. at Briar's Creek, John's Island.
7. Sage Valley G.C., Graniteville *
8. The Cliffs at Keowee Vineyards G.C., Sunset [6]*
9. Haig Point C. (Calibogue), Daufuskie Island [9]*
10. Kiawah Island C. (River) [8] *
11. Kiawah Island C. (Cassique) *
12. Musgrove Mill G.C., Clinton [16]*
13. Barefoot Resort & Golf, (Love), North Myrtle Beach [14] *«
14. Yeamans Hall C., Hanahan [12] *
15. C.C. of Charleston *
16. Wild Dunes Resort (Links), Isle of Palms [7] *«
17. Colleton River Plantation G.C. (Nicklaus), Bluffton [19] *
18. King's North at Myrtle Beach National, Myrtle Beach [22] *«
19. Secession G.C., Gibbes I. [17]*
20. Tidewater G.C., N.M.B. [20]*
21. True Blue Plantation, Paw. Is. [13] *«
22. Caledonia G. & Fish C., Pawleys Island [23]*
23. The Reserve G.C., Pawleys Island [10]*
24. Belfair G.C. (E.), Bluffton [11]*
25. Belfair G.C. (W.), Bluffton [15]*

May 2003

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne, Paul, et al:

It's quite simple -- Digest has gone the route of having an "inclusive rater" -- that means in simple speak -- Joe Sixpack is now having a disproportinate effect on what constitutes the superior golf architecture in America. When you go to the Yellow Pages for more raters you get what you see. I do feel bad for a number of long time Digest raters I know who have to be tarred with this particular brush.

Paul -- you are 1000% correct -- there is no way the clubs that dropped out this year were somehow someway inferior in any measurable way to the clubs that replaced them IMHO.

What's amazing is how Digest inserted "tradition" into the argument to protect the status quo and now all of a sudden they remove the category and still proclaim to know what is the best of the best here in the USA. Huck -- backpedals and calls this a "tweaking" of the process. The sad reality is that there are remedies which would certainly improve things.

Having a split panel -- one at the state / regional level and one at the national level would work much better than this idea that Joe "I only play in Mississippi" has the same weight in terms of vote compared to Tom "I play across the country" from Illinois. Votes need to be weighed according to the territory covered because in the final analysis the guy / gal who covers more terrain is in a better position to make the kind of cross comparisons that make ratings credible instead of isolated vote totals.

Digest previously had a split system -- albeit the national panel simply contained the names of heavyweight types who were more honorary than active raters.

The funny thing is the guys who moan against having a system like this would likely be classified as regional / local raters instead of national ones. But then again -- who cares about improving the system when the self interest is at stake.

P.S. Wayne -- the omission of a number of the key Philadelphia area courses is truly amazing amnesia. Think of it this way Olde Stonewall -- just outside of Pittsburgh -- is the 10th best overall club in the Keystone Club. When I saw that I had to help myself off the floor with laughter given the clear ignorance of such gems from your "neck of the woods."

In the final analysis -- ratings need to have credibility in order to have standing.

[JakaB]

Matt,

Explain to me how the great Kings North fell out from the SC top 25 under your logic....

[Matt_Ward]

John:

I'm not in position to explain the "wisdom" of the Digest ratings.

For every one example you can come up with as a testament to the sheer "magical" elements of this year's ratings -- I can give you a ton of others the other way.

Speaking of the Palmetto State -- why isn't Musgrove Mill a serious candidate for top 100 status? It's one helluva layout but is rarely mentioned.

Ditto what happened to Bull's Bay -- the Mike Strantz layout just outside of Charleston -- it didn't even get in the top 25?

Shall I go on

[JakaB]

Musgrove Mill has shitty range balls...

[Matt_Ward]

John --

I threw you a deliberate curve ball and you knocked it out of the park.

P.S. What's the excuse for the other lame omissions and inclusions?

[JakaB]

Matt,

Honestly I don't know because I have not played a large enough sample to have a valid opinion....I would have bet huge dollars that Victoria National would have came in ahead of Shadow Creek this year but besides that I don't really care about how the list came out..

[wsmorrison]

Paul/Matt

I am at a complete loss to figure out a lot on the list.  I guess I'll just chalk it up to a flawed process and flawed results.  Oh well, maybe now the MorrPaul bunker has a chance    I won't lose any sleep over it, but the club is in a funk...not that it wasn't before hand  

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Then why the need to participate on any discussion of ratings?

The simple fact is that people sense some kind of disconnect with how this whole thing has sorted itself out. I can see certain tendencies (the total # of TF designed layouts in the top 100) and the general pushing out of old time classic layouts as Paul previously alluded to. However, I can't explain the logic that stands behind it.

What's even more amazing is the lack of consistency and sense at the state level.

Help me with this -- you believed VN would finish ahead of SC. Was that just speculation on your part or home town pride from being a member. For what it's worth -- I do see VN being ahead of SC.

[JakaB]

Matt,

I simply think Shadow Creek is an overgrown piece of plastic crap....It had started a fall down the list and I thought it would never stop...I was wrong.

I'm more into the ratings methods than the results....and from what I garner from this site the methodology is the real key to accurate results.

[Matt_Ward]

John --

What methodology ?

John -- it's not the so-called "criteria" but the application by the people entrusted to do it.

The issue with Digest is tied to its army of raters. Clearly, they must have missed something and I have pointed out several times how this fantasy in adding more people automatically means you add more knowledge / insight.

Shadow Creek gets plenty of mileage because of the hype from whence it was created. Being in Vegas doesn't hurt either. The course is not about architecture elements of note but about the civil engineering enterprise -- along with Wynn's money -- to create the so-called nth Wonder of the Modern World.

Wayne:

The people at Rolling Green and several of the more noted Phillie courses have every reason to wonder what happened. Just study the state listing for Pennsylvania. It is replete with serious lapses. Olde Stonewall is the most glaring but there are others.

If you look at The Empire State there is no Fenway among the top 25 courses. There are numerous other examples.

Too many Digest raters -- likely the new kids on the block -- don't take the time to see the courses that have been around for quite some time. Much of the focus is on the "flavor of the month" variety. Very little is really examined and you get this penchant for whatever is "new" to be thought of in such a high context.

Digest made a mistake in going with "tradition" as a prop. Taking it away only exposes the systemic weaknesses of its panel. A shame indeed.

[Matt_Ward]

One suggestion that could help future Digest ratings is to have a split panel that would only have those at the state / regional level voting upon those courses in their "neck of the woods."

What happens now is that Joe from Denver can visit New Jersey and on a one-time visit can make an impact on what is rated among the best courses in the Garden State. Likely, this situation repeats itself over and over again. Those who are most familiar with a state / regional area should be the only ones voting upon what's best in that section. Having one time visits only boosts the value of those courses that are high on the list (e.g. new candidates and those with architectural pedigree are often favored).

When I see Olde Stonewall make the top ten in Pennsy it proves my point because those familiar with the Keystone State would have not allowed that to happen when other courses of high stature like Rolling Green are left on the sidelines.

On the flip side it would be beneficial to have a truly national panel that would be the final word on what courses make the national listing. Only the folks at the national level could decide what courses make the top 100. They are the ones with the wherewithal to play a wide number of courses from throughout the land and best of all are likely to be the ones who can provide the kind of cross-comparsions analysis that is so essential to the determination of such an elite grouping.

Digest formerly had a split panel -- but the former one was more honorary based at the national level. I think such a solution is better than continuing with the Yellow Pages systems of raters they have now. No doubt existing raters have a self interest in these matters and I dare say it would be no slap in their face to be classified as regional / state raters instead of national. I truly believe having improved state ratings would go a long way in maximizing the credibility of the process.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I've spent a few days looking at this and I've come to the firm conviction that these are the absolute worst rankings that GD has done in the past 20 years.

I'd been a critic of the Tradition points as double dipping, but there is something much more at work here than just that.  I simply think you have way too many GD raters, and way too many GD raters who don't have a clue what their looking at, or enough course playing experience to make reasonable comparisons.  

This stuff is all over the place, and confounding and frustrating in its illogic and obvious lack of perspective.

I feel sorry for some of the really good and knowledgeable Golf Digest raters I know...they can't feel real proud of the results and I'm imagining that many of them are as perplexed and confused as I am.

[John_Lovito]

Mike C,

I have not taken a close look at the new rankings, but as it has been pointed out here many of the courses that have dropped dramatiaclly are courses that have undergone restotations in the last couple of years.  For these courses has the maintanance points taken a hit?  You have to figure with all the work being done at these courses that conditioning suffered from usual standards and that may have pulled down scores.  

[Paul Richards]

John

> it has been pointed out here many of the courses that have dropped dramatiaclly are courses that have undergone restotations in the last couple of years.  For these courses has the maintanance points taken a hit?  You have to figure with all the work being done at these courses that conditioning suffered from usual standards and that may have pulled down scores.



This is an interesting premise.

On my other thread,   (Which of the following courses ... ?),   I ask for help in identifying which courses on the list were restorations/renovations etc.  Once these are identified, it will be an interesting study to figure out if what you say is also true.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I haven't waded through every post here but have finally found time to answer T.Doaks question about what particular criteria leads to the GD rankings appearing to be inadequate.  

The resistance to scoring criteria is ridiculous.  Very few of the GD raters can possibly give an honest appraisal of the newer 7500 yard monsters.  They are simply not good enough to do so.  Pacific Dunes which is a pussy cat in calm conditions, suffers while others are placed higher.  Yeaman's, Desert Forest and others would certainly be dropped simply because they aren't tough enough, while some others are ranked higher because they are difficult if not boring.  

[JakaB]

It is almost as stupid as when Brad Klein gave Sutton Bay a 10 for their tree management....because there were no trees, thanks for the laughs on that one Brad.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()