[David Wigler]

About once a year, someone starts a thread asking to understand the differences between the ratings (And by extension the panels) of GD and GW.  If someone far smarter than I did a deep analysis of Kingsley and Trump International, might they find the true answer.  Why these two courses, you ask?  The answer is that I believe they illustrate the greatest disagreement between GD and GW.  

GD rates Trump International 84th in the United States, GW 41st in Florida.  GW rates Kingsley 19th modern in the US (If you added modern and classical together and subtracted .5 for relative strength of classical list, Kingsley would be 72nd in the US) and GD rates it 20th in Michigan.

Other than the obvious it is all Huckaby's fault, what would cause these two panels to not just disagree but to be in different worlds and might that not lead to a greater understanding of the panels in general?  As well, if you love Trump International does that mean that you do not get Kingsley and visa versa?

Curious what the tree house thinks.

[Jim Franklin]

I am a GD guy and I loved Kingsley and believe it is no less than top 50 in the US and, personally, I think higher. I have not played Trump's course in Florida so I cannot comment. I have played other Trump courses and while I enjoyed them, none come even remotely close to what I thought of Kingsley.

[Tom_Doak]

One major difference is that the GOLFWEEK panel prides itself on including the work of young architects who haven't been recognized elsewhere -- particularly if they have spent a bit of time with a group of panelists and been judged a good guy.  Whereas GOLF DIGEST panelists generally give more and more credit to the guys who are already established big names.

The other difference is that some GOLF DIGEST panelists (being mostly low handicap players) are more inclined to judge a quirky or difficult feature of a course as "bad architecture" instead of "interesting quirk," so that the same features which make the course high in the GOLFWEEK poll can actually bring it down in GOLF DIGEST's rankings.

[David Wigler]

One major difference is that the GOLFWEEK panel prides itself on including the work of young architects who haven't been recognized elsewhere -- particularly if they have spent a bit of time with a group of panelists and been judged a good guy.  Whereas GOLF DIGEST panelists generally give more and more credit to the guys who are already established big names.

The other difference is that some GOLF DIGEST panelists (being mostly low handicap players) are more inclined to judge a quirky or difficult feature of a course as "bad architecture" instead of "interesting quirk," so that the same features which make the course high in the GOLFWEEK poll can actually bring it down in GOLF DIGEST's rankings.

Tom,

You make a couple of interesting points.  On the first, I thought that TI was designed by Jim Fazio, who would certainly be no more well know than Mike Devries.  So I would think that would not apply.

The second is something I had never considered though.  I believe a Ryder Cup style match pitting the top 12 players from both panels might be very competitive but as a general rule, there is no doubt GD's panel are better players.  

It is in interesting thesis that a course that visually presents itself will score well in GD and a course that has quirky features that toughen it up will score well in GW.  I had never considered that.  Maybe Huckaby is off the hook.

[Jim Franklin]

It is still Huck's fault for not seeing Kingsley yet.

[Andy Troeger]

The other difference is that some GOLF DIGEST panelists (being mostly low handicap players) are more inclined to judge a quirky or difficult feature of a course as "bad architecture" instead of "interesting quirk," so that the same features which make the course high in the GOLFWEEK poll can actually bring it down in GOLF DIGEST's rankings.

Tom,
I think a key word here is "some" as obviously there are GD panelists that like Kingsley (and I would guess GW panelists that like Trump?), however you get the ones that obviously don't care for the respective courses. I think its those negative ratings that have a strong impact on where the course comes out on these lists.

On the other hand, though, are there really THAT many courses that are rated that differently by the panels? For as much as we talk about the differences, it seems like there's still a lot of similarity to the lists?

[David Wigler]

Andy,

That is why I highlighted these two.  On a whole, the lists are fairly similar.  These two are unbelievably different.  In each case, one magazine is saying it is top 100, while the other is saying it might not be top 1,000.  That is not rounding errors and digging into minutia.  That is a major difference of opinion.

As a full admission, I have played Kingsley and generally agree with GW's placement of it.  I have not played Trump International

What caused these two to be so different might be the grail that explains the lists.  That seems like a worthy quest as opposed to the explanation that comes out each time the lists come out about nefarious charges of made up rankings, bias, using pretend categories to correct rater mistakes, etc.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
  I certainly agree that those two are huge differences. I just mentioned my piece to see how many others are brought up (both to see if there are a lot and if so what courses and if they fit a mold). I wonder if it tends to be new courses that get more polarized by the lists, and then once more panelists play them they balance things out more. I'm in the same boat having played Kingsley but not Trump. Kingsley is fabulous!

[Tom_Doak]

David:

To further explore the question -- how many "classic" courses are there where there is a major difference of opinion?

[Mike_Young]

Dave,
I think in order to do a realistic study of the two...one would need to consider the reader of the two magazines, the circulation of the two magazines, the relationship with RE development of the courses involved  the marketing /promotion companies of the courses involved and the advertising budget of the courses involved.  
Mike

[David Wigler]

David:

To further explore the question -- how many "classic" courses are there where there is a major difference of opinion?

Tom,

Very good point.  Off the top of my head, I have always known one huge difference.  GW has Mountain Lake rated 70th in the top 100 classical.  Using my same -0.5 on modern scale, that would make Mountain Lake approx. 98th in the country.  Golf Digest does not have it in the top 30 in Florida (Meaning it is probably not a top 1,000 in their mind).

I am sure their are others but that is the first one that comes to mind.

[Doug Ralston]

Having played neither I am obviously quite objective [say: clueless?]. I suggest once again that you check the architecture philosophy and see if there are any tendancies here. Is it possible that one magazine supports a philosophy of open ideas ok, but who do we EXPECT to create the great ones; while the other [with fervent GCAupport] supports 'classical', possibly 'minimalist', treeless, waterless, pathless architecture? Perhaps we can even guess which is which. I am not suggesting that each is set in their ways, and that both hate 'plural' culture in designing ........ well, yes, actually I AM saying that.

Lighten up! Let Doak be Doak and let Fazio be Fazio. Golf is a big World in which lots of creative things can be tried ..... then the user will make their decision based on their own environment and opportunities, yes?

Meanwhile, I personally suggest YOU try to look at all the 'styles' with an open mind. I find that each can have something to recommend it if it is pulled off with imagination and grace.

Doug

[Andy Troeger]

Doug,
  At least four of my favorite golf courses have fairly significant amounts of trees and water (The Golf Club, Wolf Run, Point O'Woods, and Harbour Town) in varying amounts and placements. Without going back to look at the specifics, I think all four are generally more highly ranked in GW than GD.
  In terms of designers...Pete Dye is just good. RTJ doesn't seem to be at his peak of popularity and Steve Smyers is (unfortunately from what I can tell) not really a "big" name at this point.

[Jason Blasberg]

The other difference is that some GOLF DIGEST panelists (being mostly low handicap players) are more inclined to judge a quirky or difficult feature of a course as "bad architecture" instead of "interesting quirk," so that the same features which make the course high in the GOLFWEEK poll can actually bring it down in GOLF DIGEST's rankings.

Tom:

I don't think that is unique to GD (not that you said it was) since most low handicappers that I know don't appreciate quirk, hate blind shots, etc.  

A couple notable exceptions are 1) the 20 or so members at Engineers that are 5s or lower and 2) most of the low handicappers I've met from GCA.

That being said I can't fathom how Cuscowilla doesn't make GD's top 100 US list . . . it's a stern test from the tips has great movement, difficult and interesting green complexes and has very little "quirk," all the markings of a course that would on paper appeal to a low handicapper . . . yet no love from the GD panel.  That one I'll never get and consider it a signifcant omission.  

Jason

[David_Madison]

Tom Doak:

I don't necessarily agree with your statement about the general preferences of better players. I'm a GD rater and a low handicapper, and I love quirky and unique features while being somewhat bored with the straight up long, strong typical thing that I'm guessing you believe most better players prefer. Example - - While both are fine golf courses, I'll take the Upper Course at Baltusrol any day over the Lower. The latter made me work, while the Upper made me smile.

It's my experience that better players can better handle quirky features that test their imaginations and trust in their swings than can average or weaker players, who do a whole lot more guessing as to where their shots are going to end up. Do you feel that better players want a more direct and predictable result whan they hit a good shot, while average players are more understanding when things don't quite work out? I once took a group of 12 players to Tobacco Road, one of the quirkiest courses I know. The better players loved it while the others, who tended to scrape the ball around, hated it.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Your last statement does not surprise me a bit.  Tobacco Road has a lot of quirk, but it is very penal to the approach shots of average golfers.  But, it's nowhere near the GOLF DIGEST top 100 either, despite your fellow panelists supposedly liking it so much.  I'd guess in that case that some of them dismissed it as too short from the back tees.

I know it's not right to generalize, and yet I think I could explain the main reason any particular course is not on the GOLF DIGEST list in about 12 words.  The Kingsley Club has a number of blind approaches and severe greens.  

It's my belief that the majority of GOLF DIGEST panelists only like severe greens on established older courses, but not on modern courses.  Can you name a couple of exceptions to that principle?

[John Kavanaugh]

I thought Trump International has some of the most interesting greens I saw on tv all year.  They even showed better than Winged Foot, Medinah and that Open course.  As a matter of fact I enjoyed this broadcast more than any non-major I can remember in 2006.

[Mike_Young]

John,
I will be glad to post any of your off topic matter so that you remain true to your word...just IM it to me.....
Mike

[Matt_Cohn]

Why subtract .5 for the modern list? Why not just do a straight-up comparison? The point scales are the same, right?

[Tommy Williamsen]

One major difference is that the GOLFWEEK panel prides itself on including the work of young architects who haven't been recognized elsewhere -- particularly if they have spent a bit of time with a group of panelists and been judged a good guy.  Whereas GOLF DIGEST panelists generally give more and more credit to the guys who are already established big names.

The other difference is that some GOLF DIGEST panelists (being mostly low handicap players) are more inclined to judge a quirky or difficult feature of a course as "bad architecture" instead of "interesting quirk," so that the same features which make the course high in the GOLFWEEK poll can actually bring it down in GOLF DIGEST's rankings.

Tom, the GD panelsts on this web stie don't really count because most of them like quirk.  That said, the GD panelists I know are concerned too much about score because they are low handicappers.   Consequentle the tend to mark down blind shots, holes that may not reward good shots because of uneven ground etc, greens that have a lot of slope, or greensites that are severe, like 9 at Kingsley.  

[David_Madison]

Tom Doak - great points; can't really think of much new that I've played that has severe greens that is highly ranked. Closest things would be Pinehurst #4, which to my understanding is Tom Fazio doing Donald Ross, at least the greens (which makes it a new old course.) And, Hawk's Ridge north of Atlanta has some severe greens, or at least parts of greens, and that's ranked around #57. Maybe that's why I tend to gravitate towards the older courses when I have choices about where to play and rate when I travel.

Tommy Williamson - I'm not so sure that your characterization of GD having better players so therefore they care more about their scores is an accurate generalization. Maybe I and a couple of others who I am friendly with and who are GD raters are not typical, but the only time we grind for a score is when we want to test the Resistance to Scoring criterion because the course has a reputation for being difficult and that's what it's hanging its hat on. Generally, we couldn't care less about our scores.

[Tommy Williamsen]

David,  GD requires panelists to be at worst a five handicap.  When I became a panelist 15 years ago they only required that you be single digit.  While some of us don't worry too much about score anymore, most of the guys I know do.

[John Kirk]

Kingsley was recently rated #37 in a new category by Golf Digest called something like "Best 100 Golf Retreats".  This indicates the course's overall rating is improving greatly.  I'm quite sure it will move into Michigan's top 10 (maybe 5) next time.  I don't think #37 on the golf retreat list corresponds to an overall U.S. top 100 rating, though.

I played there with a GD rater last year and he liked the course very much.  I think it's a wonderful golf course, with as many truly memorable, unique holes (especially 2, 4, 5, 13, 15 and 16) as any I've seen.  I think the course is short but difficult, requiring great precision.  I do not find the course to be as aesthetically beautiful as some of my other favorites, but the course yields so many great shots to play.  It's a great place, plus the weather is super sweet up there in the summertime.

Tommy W:  #9 is my least favorite hole on the course for two main reasons.  First, the hole requires a short to mid iron of extreme precision, exactly the same challenge presented at hole #2, which I like better.  In either case, a bogey is a good score if one misses the narrow target.  Second, the hole is a damn tough walk for 165 yards, down into a deep valley before a steep walk to the green.  You can walk the cart path, which is longer but less severe.

[Tommy Williamsen]

John, I can't decide if I love or hate number 9 at Kingsley.  I have played from all the different tees and am buffaloed by it.  There is something, however, that loves the challenge.

[John Kirk]

One thing about #2 and #9 at Kingsley.  They really make you concentrate to hit a good one.  You've just got to hit it right.  Same goes for #7, #8, and also #13.  Those holes sharpen your game.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()