[Jeff Goldman]

The second best course in Illinois (and number 35(?) nationally) is NLE.  Butler National closed last June or so for a makeover (I'm told Mr. Fazio was on site), so whatever the raters voted for, it wasn't what will be there this year.

Jeff Goldman

[Brad Klein]

Doak,

the clubhouse thing is a factor or element, not a deciding criterion. With more than a shack for a clubhouse, your beloved Pacific Dunes would probably have finished even higher, so don't think it isn't handicapped. And if Bandon Trails comes on board ahead of it on the GD, we'll know why -the clubhouse!

Seriously, there are some interesting biases towards glitz and towards conditioning-defined-as-lush-green here. Desert Forest (I know I'm biased, having written a book about the place) gets droped out of the top-100. I wonder, as do the members, whether their "no overseeding" policy has something to do with it. Or could it be the most clubhouse without the pool and spa?

[astavrides]

The new catagory 'ambiance' makes no sense to me. It's defined as 'How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?'.  I ask a)what are those traditional values?  b)  is it really important to uphold them, and c)  why could an inanimate object like a golf course uphold these values more than another golf course?

I think 'tradition', "What impact has the course had on the history and lore of the game?", was a perfectly reasonable category.  I enjoyed Pebble Beach and St. Andrews much more than I would have if they had been built last year for that very reason.  Does 'more enjoyable' mean 'greater'?  It's part of the equation.  Of course, this makes it harder for newer courses to compete, which is a good reason to also include separate rankings for new and old courses a la Golfweek.

Anytime you take 8 arbitrary categories, give them equal weighting and a ninth (with 1/5 of that weighting), and add them together, any resemblance to the 'best' courses is coincidental.  Could you judge the best paintings by rating them on 8 factors and adding up the scores?      

Also, the difference between #50 and #100 is about 2 points with a maximum of 82.  How many people rated these courses?  Are the differences statistically significant?  

Still if they provide a starting point for discussion, the ratings are useful...

[astavrides]

It's interesting that Rustic was GD's Best New Affordable course a year ago, but didn't even crack the state's top 30.  Maybe if they doubled or tripled the fees, it might rank higher.  

Scott (and others),
Which courses would you put it (or Barona) ahead of on the CA list?  I've only played the public ones and Sherwood on the list, but I like all of them better than those two (not sure about Spanish Bay- i'd need to play it again to decide).  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Alex,

I've only played Pasa and Shady Canyon below the top 6 on the list, and I liked it quite a bit, one of the best Fazio's I've played, but I still liked BC and RC better.  I'll letter others weigh in on the merits of the likes of Torrey (South), Spanish Bay, Bighorn, Bridges at RSF, and a few others.

[Paul Richards]

Someone very smart once said,

"The older I get, the more I realize that the less they know"

Sounds like words to live by for Golf Digest and its rating system.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Matt - I completely agree.  Bull's Bay not in the top 25 in S Carolina?!  Did the club affiliate itself with the Union or something?  

JC

[Eric_Dorsey]

I must chime in on this one.  After spending almost all of last year playing ABQ courses, not having Black Mesa in the top-50 of public tracks is a absolute BS.  Paa-ko is great, but not as great as Black Mesa for sure, and especially not top-20!   And Twin Warriors in the top-50 and Black Mesa not even in the top-100  what the hell!?

I'm blown away at the ridiculous marks some of these course have recieved this year.  I can't for the life of see why Medinah and Butler National get such scores.  What about Cherry Hills?  Vaquero Club?  Dallas National ahead of Colonial?

And what about Jeff Brauer's new course Quarry @ Giant's Ridge?  too new I suppose?  

[Brad Klein]

You can argue all you want with the particulars of these ratings - they are, in fact, extremely questionable, I think more so than ever. But their reputation and the seriousness with which your average golfer/owner/developer takes them has little to do with their intrinsic merit and everything to do, instead, with the power and presence of Golf Digest as a media giant.

[Tom_Doak]

Absolutely, Brad.

If we're going to argue about their rankings the key thing is not to argue about the results ... everyone has their own opinion of what courses should be higher, and Ran has a separate thread for that.

The key thing to discuss is what part of their system is flawed -- the selection of the panel itself, or the point-system definition of a great course which determines the results.

What say all of you?

[THuckaby2]

Concur with Brad and Tom.  Arguing the results is pretty silly.  And ALL magazine rating results are always going to be questionable.  It's just a matter of taste as to whose one prefers.

As for the system/methodology, well that is fair game.  Re GD, I tend to like it myself.  Most here hate it.  But this forum continues to be it's own little world, so no biggie there.

I'd be interested in a round-table between Doak, Whitten/Siderowf, Klein and whoever handles the GM ratings on this... All the rest of us are just guessing from the peanut gallery, with our own obvious biases.  Oh, each of them would have biases also... but they also truly do know what goes in in compiling these things.

Now that would be something.

All the rest is basically pissing in the wind....

[Jonathan Cummings]

I have been trying to build a more scientific case for some time (using correlations) that the category method is inherently flawed.  Based on a rather sterile population of one sample - me, I see mixed results.  Some categories are highly correlated with the overall rating while others are not.  The problem is I need a large database to do this with any accuracy and meaning.

Intuitively, using a category method to determine rankings seems to me to further obfuscate the results by injecting an unnecessary step in the process.

JC  

[THuckaby2]

JC:

Perhaps surprisingly, that does make sense to me.  I too am uncertain whether compilation of results from categories, with equal value to each category, is the best way to do this.

I just can't think of a better way, though.  To me this way is the best of all evils, so to speak.

Do it based totally on one subjective overall assessment and it relies far too much on individual tastes and biases... and also doesn't give enough data to make differences meaningful.. (that is, you'd need a LOT of raters to make that really work, to overcome the personal biases and inevitable groupspeak and lockstep thinking).

Doing it the category way has its obvious problems also...

So what's the best way?  

[PThomas]

Tom D -- I think that probably both components have flaws that need to be addressed!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jon's discussion of correlations and catagories at the GOLF CLUB ATLAS WINTER GATHERING (tm) was quite informative.

I'll go with fewer catagories to start:
Shot values and resistance to scoring get's the lion's share of the points.

So I'll go with 2.5 catagories:

Test = 1 (think shinecock)
Variety = 1 (think NGLA)
Walking = .1
Conditioning = .2
aesthetics = .2

The cats will value Gib's bias equally - should it be a test or a game.  If it appeals to both, like pine valley, it will reign supreme.

The rater selection process should be tweeked probably, but I don't know much about that... let BarneyF handle that one.

[Jonathan McCord]

    Well the most recent GD ratings might be a little messed up. But, someone got it right, putting Crystal Downs ahead of Oakland Hills. CDCC should have been put ahead of Oakland a while ago, but I didn't think it would be this year, especially due to the Ryder Cup.  Maybe another for the Doctor in the top 10 next time!!!!

    However, the fact that the Kingsley Club is so low blows my mind.  Oh well, there just rankings.

    Mr. Siebert, you also have it right about the rankings in Iowa.  I compare them to the Golfweek ratings and besides Harvester, there is not much in common.  Being from Spencer, I love to see the Spencer Golf and Country Club so high on Golfweek's list.  However, I think Golf Digest may have included some better public courses.

[Mike Nuzzo]

p.s.
The walking .1 would be either .1 or 0 no .00235.

Why does the walking catagory have scales?

I thought the walking score was to promote new courses to get back to the original values of golf.
You either allow walking or you don't.

cheers

[Matthew MacKay]

Jonathan, the world list as far as Canada is concerned is off base.  While I agree that St. George's, Hamilton, Highlands Links, and to a lesser extent, The National are deserving of a high ranking, some of the other Canadian courses listed are laughable.  Why do they bother trying to compare North Berwick to Angus Glen?

The Canadian list compiled by Ben et al for GCA is the only credible one I've seen.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike N:

You really want to give esthetics just two-tenths of a point to a full point for test of golf?  If so, Carnoustie and Medinah and Butler National are going to rate above Cypress Point.

But I like your idea ... or is it Jon's ... the inherent problem with the ratings is assuming that the various categories should be weighted equally.  I'll start a new thread on that.

[Matt_Ward]

Magazines that proclaim they are THE golf publication of record need to consistently demonstrate their standing through the output of materials they produce. The existing ratings from Digest demonstrate how far the mighty Emperor has indeed fallen.

Tom Doak:

The issue with Digest is that they have rapidly expanded their panel in a Zagat's Guide to Dining approach. More people have simply not produced the kind of insightful results that a publication of the stature that Digest should be producing.

In real terms the Digest panel could easily be reduced by 75% and from those remaining they would have the kind of folks who can rapidly travel to any point in the nation as need be for unearthing the courses of real stature. I have talked to a number of long time Digest raters and they don't see the value in adding Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass to their panel. All they get now is the "flavor of the month" outputs that lower the stature of what it means to be rated among the best in the USA.

If you don't spend the time in getting the right raters the discussion of criteria and its application is simply pulling the cart in front of the lame horse.

Huck:

You miss the points being made by a COUNTRY MILE.

Let's be clear -- Digest is the one that's "pissing in the wind." No one says Digest needs to have a ratings feature in its magazine. Digest proudly proclaims it is THE magazine of record in the golfing world. Frankly, the sheer totality of what Digest missed is evident. When a publication has the hubris to say it is THE magazine it needs to demonstrate in its finished results a credibility that can be plausibly defended.

Huck -- I travel the country plenty of times to see how many mistakes, omissions and inclusions that Digest has now attained. I didn't think things could go thaaaaaat far south in such a short time but from the many conversations I have had with other Digest raters they agree to a man that this year's results are simply non-believable in so many instances.

Brad:

"The power and presence of Golf Digest as a media giant" is one that is slowly sliding into the "what are you kidding" belief by a growing number of people within the industry. I speak to plenty of people who travel as much as any panelist can and they are laughing at what the magazine claims to be the "best" courses in the nation and in the various 50 states.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I don't have any idea who is on the GOLF DIGEST panel anymore, although I'm told it's full of Joe one-handicappers who are not the only audience I'm building for.

However, it's their critieria which I don't agree with, and that is reflected in the results ... Pacific Dunes is the only course I've built which scores well with GOLF DIGEST, precisely because I don't agree with their criteria and I don't build my courses to conform to them.

I just wish that, if they are going to be the magazine of record,  they would rewrite their system into something that I could really agree with.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The criteria is not the heart of the issue -- it's the people who vote upon the final selections. Digest went the route of adding more people (now over 800) and the net gain from that approach can easily be seen by what is now being stated as America's best.

Tom -- you can have the perfect criteria for me to pick the best wines, however, I don't have the internal expertise to make such calls. It's no different than with golf courses.

I don't expect people to have 100% agreement becaue ratings are subjective. However, when the output becomes seriously flawed through numerous examples across the country then one needs to really do some internal re-examinations.

Digest offers itself like the NY Times -- the magazine / newspaper of RECORD. It's time that Digest do -- no less than what the Times did -- reform what's happening because there is more shaking of heads -- bordering on laughter -- in the industry on what they are proclaiming to be the best golf courses in America.

Criteria -- no matter how well defined -- doesn't make choices. Raters do. Start there and the process will correct itself.

[Alex_Wyatt]

Matt,

Why were you kicked off the GD panel anyway? You have to admit that the process is a problem.  The questions, as Tom points out, lead to predictable answers.   I played around with their criteria once and realized that courses that I liked a lot more than others didn't come out that differently if I answered the GD questions. So, its unquestionably about both the people and the process. Try to get away from your personal experience at Digest and I think you'll see that's pretty obvious.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Riviera at 47 sums it all up for me...

[Matt_Ward]

Alex:

The issue is not about me -- it's about the nature of how Digest has allowed the current system to go far beyond what it should be doing. My situation with Digest has been explained several times beforehand on GCA. If you wish to me to rehash I'll be glad to forward to you offline.

Alex -- forgive me -- but wake up and smell the coffee. When you say the "process" you really mean the people who make the final judgements -- that's the raters. How does one begin to explain the far reaching errors / omissions / inclusions you see with this year's ratings? The criteria is nothing more than the subject matter to be applied. The key ingredient is WHO DOES THE APPLYING ?  

I know plenty of Digest raters who are fully able to make competent judgements -- THEY are no less appalled at the results than I and so many others. The bigger question is does Digest hear what's being said.

Nothing more -- nothing less.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()