The Other Way to do a Ranking

[Tom_Doak]

Since it's officially open season on rankings now, I am thinking back to that "National Golf Review" ranking of courses from 1939.

They had only seventeen panelists instead of GOLF DIGEST's 850, but the people involved arguably knew more about golf:

Bobby Jones
Walter Hagen
Gene Sarazen
Robert Trent Jones (in 1939, remember)
Joyce Wethered
Glenna Collett Vare
Bernard Darwin
Edward, Duke of Windsor
Grantland Rice
William D. Richardson
Arnaud Massy
Percy Alliss
Joe Kirkwood
Tom Simpson
Charles Alison
D. Scott Chisholm
and Hans Samek

I would pay to have seen the ballot of anyone on that panel.

My question is:  if you were going to do the same thing today, what 15 or 20 people would you ask to give the ranking the same solid foundation?

[Tom Huckaby]

TD - of course you of all people would know this better than anyone, but wasn't the Golf Magazine panel at least somewhat of that quality at one point?

As for 15-20 today, that's way over my head.  But I bet this forum gives some fine nominations....

[Bill_McBride]

Don't worry, Tom, you would definitely be on the list!

Is there a modern equivalent of Bernardo Darwin?

[Tom_Doak]

There will never be an equivalent of Bernard Darwin.

And I was actually surprised to see that there were three architects on their panel.  I thought there wouldn't have been any back in those days when rankings and p.r. were lesser factors than they are today.

[Rick Shefchik]

Well, obviously you'd have to start with Prince Charles...

[George Pazin]

My list would be way too slanted for anyone but me and a few others to enjoy:

Tom D
Any Morrissett
Geoff Shackelford
Brad Klein
Bill & Ben
Daniel Wexler
Tom MacWood
Tom Paul
Ian Andrew
Gil Hanse
Jim Sullivan
Mike Clayton
Greg Ramsay
Lorne Rubenstein
Paul Daley
Brian Phillips
Paul Turner

and maybe a couple others I haven't thought of yet.

No one who agrees with that wavy greens favor bad putters nonsense is on my panel. That eliminates Huck, Jeff B, Rich G, Barney and Mike Nuzzo (the only one I feel bad about leaving off...).

I'd probably have Matt submit a ballot as well, even though I'd end up throwing it out.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George - that list is worthy of my form of intentional brown-nosing.  Here's hoping you were being facetious.

As for leaving me out due to my oh so correct logic, I feel honored.  

In all seriousness though, my panel would include precious few regulars here... us being far too insulated and far too susceptible to group-speak.  I'd want real world people.

TH

[Mark Chaplin]

I wonder how Walter Hagen rated Deal after he was refused access to the clubhouse at the 1920 Open? In revenge he got his driver to serve his lunch each day on a linen covered table directly outside the clubhouse entrance.

This list doesn't look like a bunch who would be influenced by some freebies and a nice lunch. Although the ladies may have had trouble even playing one or two well known courses.

[George Pazin]

George - that list is worthy of my form of intentional brown-nosing.  Here's hoping you were being facetious.

Not in the least.

I'd definitely only have people whose opinions I really respected (which does not mean that I would have everyone whose opinion I respect included, as I would want to keep the panel somewhat manageable in size - there's a good many others on here I respect but would probably just miss the cut).

Heck, I might even include some like Tom Fazio, except that the only thing I have to base my opinion of his opinion on is his writings, which scare the beejesus out of me.

The above people have proven themselves to me. Precious few real worlders have.

[John Foley]

Isn't part of the problem is that w/ a small panel they can not get around to see all the courses that open, get renovated & need to be revisited?

Is the better solution a bigger, wider panel?

[BCrosby]

Almost half that list is composed of former world class golfers few of whom were ever involved serioulsy with gca. Other than Bobby Jones, I'm not sure their lists would be terribly interesting. In fact Sarazen and Hagen's favorites might be contra-indicators of good gca.

It would be a bit like a modern panel that included Trevino,   Littler, Casper and Carole Mann. I'm not sure I care what they think about gca.

I do think, however, that a small panel hand-picked by me would come up with a really good top 100.

Bob  

[Tom Huckaby]

George - ok, understood.

Let's just chalk this up to yet another thing on which we think differently.

I guess it depends on what we are to rate/rank though:  is it "architecture", or is it "golf courses"?  As you know (I hope), I rather fervently believe those are two different things.  I can re-explain why if you like.  

Assuming it is golf courses, I'd want precious little representation from golf course architects, especially those winning favor these days - there's just too much potential for conflict of interest, and if you say they can't assess their own courses, that eliminates one opinion from a small group that can't afford to lose such, and also eliminates one opinion of a lot of damn good courses!  So that strikes off most of your list for me...

A few of the others would, could, should make it though.  I share your regard for their opinions.  

I just would want a few more well-travelled golfers who DON'T participate here, that's all.  I do find a group-speak here about courses, and a general lack of touch with what is favored out in the real world.  It's not universal, and of course we don't agree on much in here... but the general trends are hard to deny.

All this being said, I am not nearly well-versed enough in all of this to make particular nominations.  But there have to be a lot of people out there who do get around a lot, have no conflict of interest nor axe to grind, and know their stuff.  Perhaps they are all on your list... I just hope not.

You wanna hear something funny though?  If I had to pick anyone from our regulars here, I'd start with Mucci.

TH

ps to John F - I share that concern... coverage would be a real issue.  But let's just go with this for fun....

[Geoffrey Childs]

George

You would have to have a Fazio on such a panel.  Have you no sense of balance or is your panel stacked towards the courses you like?  

MacWood on such a panel   - never on one I'd put together.  I thought you have to go and actually see a course to rate it. Way too much pre-determined prejudice in his views and not enough modern courses seen from a balanced set of architects (my humble opinion only).

I'd have to put Noel Freeman on my panel - He has played nearly every historically imporrtant course in te US, UK, Australia and yes even Japan (Hirono included).  Even most beloved Ran can't claim that many important architectural masterpieces.  He sees modern courses in a balanced view as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Before one can answer your question, don't you have to identify the criteria used to determine the rankings ?

Analysis of the coaches poll for the BCS shows that the coaches are NOT disinterested parties, and are incapable of making arms length selections, without various biases.  
Their team, their conference, regioinalism, their friends, their enemies, etc., etc..

Hence, architects should be excluded from the list as well.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Doak,

Before one can answer your question, don't you have to identify the criteria used to determine the rankings ?

Analysis of the coaches poll for the BCS shows that the coaches are NOT disinterested parties, and are incapable of making arms length selections, without various biases.  
Their team, their conference, etc., etc..

Hence, architects should be excluded from the list as well.

Patrick - holy moley, go read my last post... you and I seem to be in lockstep lately, and that has to scare both of us... you might also like the end of it... or not.  

[BCrosby]

Who was D. Scott Chisholm?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom MacWood
Tom Paul

They'd never finish a round!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Kim Jong Ill....

George... thanks... but I'd much rather see many more courses to be included on such a list - not that I couldn't identify a great course - it does help to see them all.
I would probably suggest fewer architects.

Why did you leave off Ron Whitten?  I wouldn't.

Cheers

[Dan Kelly]

Who was D. Scott Chisholm?

The Google to the rescue!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846948,00.html

[George Pazin]

Huck -

I'd view my rankings list as simply another type of Confidential Guide - compiled opinions that I respect. I couldn't care less whether someone is well-travelled or not, unless they showed me their opinion was well thought out and articulated, following principles I respect. I couldn't care less about balance or diversity or any other such crap.

And along those lines, Geoff, you're right, Noel would make the cut.

 

And I can't believe I left off Bob Crosby.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Understood.. I just do believe you completely changed what Tom Doak was asking about in this Topic.  Nothing wrong with that... but I'm trying to answer what he's asking.

If I wanted just a group of people whose opinions I respected, giving such about golf courses, hell our lists would be pretty much the same I have to believe.

That's just not what TD is asking for.

TH

[Ash Towe]

Other nominations that could be considered-
John Huggan
Brad Faxon
Greg Turner
Donald Steel
Davis Love
Bob Harrison

[George Pazin]

Why did you leave off Ron Whitten?  I wouldn't.

Too many reviews of his that I've read and disagreed with (which is rather bizarre considering how few courses I've played).

Not that I care about disagreement, but rather what I find myself disagreeing with.

I might knock Tom D off if he doesn't raise his Oakmont # at some point.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The logic of this way of ranking courses is that you are trying to pick people who know more about what makes a great golf course than the guy who would write the definition.  That's why GOLF Magazine's ranking never had a definition -- I wasn't going to write a definition for Nicklaus and Palmer and Ballesteros and Bonallack and the rest of that panel, especially at the age of 22.

If you didn't want to include architects, that's fine, but that eliminates a lot of great players nowadays, too.  And generally speaking, the architects as a group have seen more courses than most other groups.

Geoffrey:  Tom Fazio has candidly expressed his opinion in print that most older courses are very overrated and that everything he does is great.  Why would you have to include him?

Bob Crosby:  I don't know exactly who D. Scott Chisholm was but he was from the west coast and his name shows up frequently on old articles about architecture going back to the late 1920's.  Not sure if he was a "golf writer" or editor or just an interested observer.

[George Pazin]

George:

Understood.. I just do believe you completely changed what Tom Doak was asking about in this Topic.  Nothing wrong with that... but I'm trying to answer what he's asking.

If I wanted just a group of people whose opinions I respected, giving such about golf courses, hell our lists would be pretty much the same I have to believe.

That's just not what TD is asking for.

TH

I prefer to make up my own questions and answer them in the way I see fit. (Less disagreement that way.)