[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I think the ratings/rankings can create positive changes at clubs.  I've seen it first hand.

It is beneficial when a club is provided the rating criteria and their resultant scores in each category.

I've seen clubs institute a caddy program, perimeter planting program and other positive maintainance programs in an attempt to better themselves.  All this was brought about by the rating/ranking system of golf magazines.

I'm just trying to understand one of the categories, and the process for how points are awarded in this category and sub-categories.

[Steve Lang]

,

Definitely best sculpture would be of ol' Sylvanus P. Jermain, Mr. Inverness who brought the first US Amateur Public Links Championship in 1922 to Ottawa Park in Toledo, Ohio..for "the people".   Talk about TRADITION, half of the 140 entrants didn't have golf shoes and there was one reported death of a filandering husband.. The winner couldn't defend in 1923 because he had joined a private club.. WOW!  JUDGE THAT!



p.s. They take Sylvanus off his perch near the Ottawa Park putting green and let him stir the crowds at Inverness for the big tourneys there.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I'm thrilled someone said something positive about the ratings/rankings.  To bad it was you because Tom Paul still won't buy in  

If I can find an answer out for you on your question I will.  
Mark

Note:  If I had the actual numbers in front of me I'd state them but when Golf Digest started awarding "bonus" points for courses that allowed walking, guess what happened?  Many more courses starting allowing walking    Then GD changed the points awarded again because courses that were unwalkable were stating if you want to walk you can (just so they could get the extra points).  So then guess what happened, more new courses started pushing for designs that were truly walkable so they could again get those bonus points.  

The nerve of GD, trying to encourage walking in golf.  What are they thinking  

[Mr. KISS]

Pat
History can't end!  It's etched in stone forever.  And of course Atlantic's history is just beginning!!
So when you ask....."Has one's history ended, with the other's just begining?"......are you trying to compete with George Bush as the master of mis-statement?  Or perhaps you are just doing your best Yogi Berra imitation?  :-)

In any event, since "With respect to the relative value of one recent USGA SR Amateur versus a Walker Cup 50 years ago, [you] don't know the answer" I thought the info below might just help you decide.  And remember, we are not talking about architectural merit, just tournament history for tradition purposes.

History of Walker Cup Venues:
              
UNITED STATES:
The National Golf Links of America       1922
The Garden City Golf Club             1924
Chicago Golf Club                          1928
The Country Club                 1932 & 1973
Pine Valley Golf Club             1936 & 1985
Winged Foot Golf Club              1949
The Kittansett Club             1953
The Minikahda Club              1957
Seattle Golf Club                 1961
Baltimore Country Club, Five Farms      1965
Milwaukee Country Club             1969
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club             1977
The Cypress Point Club             1981
Peachtree Golf Club             1989
Interlachen Country Club             1993
Quaker Ridge Golf Club              1997
Ocean Forest Golf Club             2001

Great Britain & Ireland             
              
The Old Course, St. Andrews                                            1923,1926,1934,1938,1947,1955,1971&1975
Royal St. George's Golf Club             1930&1967
Royal Birkdale Golf Club             1951
Muirfield                             1959&1979
Turnberry Golf Club              1963
Royal Liverpool Golf Club             1983
Sunningdale Golf Club (Old Course)       1987
Portmarnock Golf Club             1991
Royal Porthcawl Golf Club             1995
The Nairn Golf Club              1999

Now are you going to make me list the US Sr. Amateur venues to get a truthful answer from you as to whether as a member of GCGC you would like to trade your hosting of the Walker Cup almost 80 years ago for a recent US Sr. Amateur?  :-)

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

The thing about you is it seems you probably take what I say and have said about the magazine rating world as some great affront directed at the whole idea of rating and ranking golf courses and probably some attempt at a personal insult towards you as a panelist.

Nothing of the kind, I guarantee it. All I'm talking about is trying to get the magazines to explain to anyone (and hopefully regarding architecture) why one course is better than another and to do it in detail. Is that really too much to ask? That's positive information that courses, golfers, members can benefit from to improve themselves properly.

I have no doubt what Pat says may have happened (some positive results). But explain to me how a list of 1-100 with nothing more than a list explains anything to anyone if there's no architectural explanation or detail included!

If they only included that I would be all for the magazine rating and ranking lists.

But until that happens you're definitlely not getting me to "buy into" it!

[THuckaby2]

TH
With all due respect, I feel confident Thomas Paul could take you behind the wood shed on the golf course.  

Have you always been a fan of the GD method? I recall you being critical in the past.....what gives?  

You misunderstand me, GAP member.  Hell yes Mr. Paul could wipe the floor with my sorry ass - IF HE DEEMED WORTHY TO PLAY THE GAME.  He's said himself he's more into the study and prefers to walk great courses rather than play them, though.  Perhaps recently he's gotten back into playing the game, which would be great... Hell I admire the study of it - my only point was that when one is that into the study, of course he's going to favor the "gca as art" viewpoint that Dave S. put forth.

As for me being a fan of the GD method, hell I never knew what it was until this year... now that I do know a bit about it, I find it does jive very well with how I feel about golf courses... and I understand fully that it puts me in the minority in this august discussion group.

TH

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom Paul

Take a look at issues of Golfweek from this past year.  In them you will find individual course reviews by Brad Klein.  These are courses that he has played and the review includes EACH of the ten criteria used by GW panelists along with Brad's individual score and a summary of the reasons he used to arrive at that score.  The reader can learn why Brad believes a course routing is good or bad; what Brad thinks of the par 3's 4's and 5's and WHY and so on with each of the ten criteria.  In the end he gives a final score along with the reasons for it.

Look at his recent review of Aronomink, a course you are familiar with, and ask yourself if that review was educational to the reader regarding the architecture, restoration and general playing characteristics of the course. This is a regular feature that Brad has introduced and I think its a great example of educating the public/GW readership about golf course architecture and what the rating process is all about.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
The reviews Geoffrey points out that Brad does are great.  I always find them informative.  But I can't imagine him doing one for every course on their two Top 100 lists.  GD is the same way.  Ron Whitten does course reviews as well.  Unfortunately he gets less press space than Brad  

Look forward to seeing you on Saturday!
Mark

[GeoffreyChilds]

Mark

Brad's reviews are not always taken from the two GW top 100 lists.  His review of PGA West (Stadium) was a really good one and in it I learned that PGA West was I think #132 modern.  Why its not among our top 100 I don't know and Brad's score would have placed it within the top 100.  Obviously, some raters don't feel as strongly as Brad does about the merits of the course.  His evaluation of the architecture of that "Dye"abolical course was another education for the readers that took the time to look at it. I think its a great feature of the magazine and I certainly hope there is a wide variety of course reviews from Brad in the 2003 issues.

[TEPaul]

GeoffreyC;

That's great that Brad writes about architecture like that and about courses that GolfWeek rates and ranks or whatever. I've always thought GolfWeek was good and that's one of the primary reasons. GD, that's bigger, far wider reach, more money and the same amount of courses listed doesn't want to do that!

That's all I ask for in this rating/ranking list thing. I have nothing against rating and ranking and lists per se (as everyone thinks I do), just that they should be writing about the architecture with it.

This arguement that the architectural writings is not done because golfers just aren't interested in it (the 99%) is just not an arguement that works for me and it isn't going to.

Mark Fine is probably going to continue to tell me to get that fact (the 99% not interested) through my head but I'm not going to do that because I don't believe it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr Kiss,

Clubs can cease to make history.  Some clubs have hosted a single event 70-80 years ago to the exclusion of all other tournaments since that date, while other clubs continue to make history by demonstrating a pattern of their committment to golf through the ongoing hosting of tournaments.

Does one club live on its laurels forever, despite no ongoing contribution to golf in the last 80 years ?

USGA SR Amateur's, MID-amateurs and SENIOR Open competitions are recent additions to the tournament mix, and as such don't carry the same weight as the Walker Cup, an International USGA competition.  Had they been, and had Bobby Jones won 6 straight Mid Amateurs, or Byron Nelson, Sam Snead or Ben Hogan won 3 or 4 Senior Opens, they may have been looked at in a different light, and perhaps the gap between those tournaments would be substantially narrowed.

With respect to your list, is it the venue or the competition that determines "tournament points" ?  
If it is the competition, then the list of clubs is irrelevant.

Awarding "tournament history" points, deliberately biases the ratings, since a new course can't compete for a ranking on an equal footing.  It is a built in cushion, or fudge factor favoring classic golf courses, especially those with a historical connection to the USGA.  Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, I'm just telling you what I see.

"Tournament History" also presents a bias against southern courses, since it's difficult if not impossible to host a US Open in June, or other tournaments typically scheduled in the summertime, in the south, hence they can't compete on an equal footing for certain events = "tournament Points"

I am only advocating that the magazines that pubish these rankings/ratings disclose their methodology.

What do they have to hide ?

[DKelly]

Whilst perusing this bemusing and endless thread I noticed that nobody seems as yet to have pointed out that the proper word is "criterion."  Has Dan Kelly's near-death experience taken away the joy of editing from his life, or was he just afraid of duelling with the duellingest of the Duelling Doyens?

You will have to believe me, sir, when I tell you that tonight marks the first time I have entered this thread -- after reading the thread head several hundred times, and after shuddering at the misbegotten "criteria" each and every time.

Near-death experiences shall never rob me of the joy of editing! Nor shall they put me in fear of any doyen -- duelling, dueling or otherwise! Nor, for that matter, shall they persuade me to be interested in these interminable threads about the silly golf magazines and their silly rankings.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Pat Mucci,

The Senior Open is more prestigious than you seem to believe.
Many clubs would much rather host it than the Walker Cup.

IMNSHO.

[Steve Lang]

Guess that folks now have to argue about the ranking of all the "championships" for the tradition points to be properly awarded...  that should be relatively easy???

I would put the US Amateur Public Links Championship above the Walker Cup,.. so should Ottawa Park, vintage 1899 track (expanded to 18 in 1916), who hosted the first US AM Publinx in 1922 be given more tradition points than NGLA who hosted the Walker Cup that year??  Was who was in the field affect the course rating as questioned earlier?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gary & Steve,

I don't know the answers with respect to "relative value" of tournaments when used to determine points in the "tournament history" category.

That's one of the questions I'm asking, what is the system or methodology employed to determine these points ?

The question doesn't seem that difficult, but apparently the answer is.

[Mr. KISS]

Patrick

"What do they have to hide?"

Exactly what you and I are both in agreement on.  That this is a fudge factor in their rankings which is handled by the magazine itself and not the raters as Mark Fine informed.

Clubs can certainly cease making history with respect to its contributions to tournament golf, but that doesn't erase its history.  And the fact is that the US Sr., Mid, etc. are recent additions as you rightly point out, so they don't yet garner the same respect as a Walker Cup or US Amateur, etc.  And as I wrote previously, I don't think that tradition has any place in evaluating architecture, so take the GD ratings for whatever you think they are worth.

But in the meantime, I am still curious about your answer about Walker Cup 80 years ago versus US Sr. Am in last 10 years at GCGC.  Assuming you were asked by GD to help them formulate the tournament hosting portion of the tradition criterion, regardless of whether or not you agree with the category, would you ascribe greater weight (think club history) to the long-ago Walker Cup or the recent US Sr. Amateur?  And don't factor in any demerits for not hosting any other tournaments because GCGC, by way of example, continues to contribute to tournament golf each year by hosting a fairly major amateur tournament.

[john stiles]

My speculative WAG, based on some of the quantum (30-50 places) leaps within the top 100, is that there are some issues relative to the newer courses and older courses.  You want some classics on the list, relatively high, as they should be but then you have this rating system and all these modern courses.  If this is your job and you sell magazines, this is a problem.

As a real GCA guy,  how in the world, under any circimstance, could Wade Hampton (#13 w/o)  be ranked ahead of Pinehurst No. 2 (#14 w/o).  Honey, is the fudge done yet ? Pull-ease bring it in as no one will believe this.

Rankings are fun but somewhat silly within the top 100 or 200 or so.

Anyway, if GD went to a modern and classic (just suck it up and copy Golfweek) then they could sell the classic tradition and they could sell the ads for the modern developments, etc. They could sell more ads or charge more for the modern development courses. They could increase the rack sales on the 'ratings' issue.

In a few years,  no one would really care who do it first. It wouldn't matter.  

GD is really stuck re: the top 100 until they do a split. Another 100 with the split gives some breathing room to give their listing more interest and sell more magazines.  

Anyway,  the best thing about the GD listings are the state sublists, best new, etc., etc.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. Kiss,

I thought I specifically answered your question in the third paragraph of my January 8, 2003, 10:09 pm post.

As I indicated earlier, taken in the proper context, the ratings/rankings can have a positive effect on golf courses and their architecture.

I just wanted to understand the process a little better.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I'm getting sick and tired of you asking the same old question seven pages into this thread of yours. Everybody knows all "tradition" is is a 75 year old recipe for snapper soup.

Do I have to teach you everything?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()