The Other Way to do a Ranking

[Tom_Doak]

Jim T:

That is just the point ... such a panel would not bother trying to pick the Best New Courses every year because it's impossible.    They would wait until one or two people on the panel thought highly of a particular course and then they would go see it and decide for themselves.

Take that 1939 panel ... if Bobby Jones or Joyce Wethered or Bernard Darwin told you they thought a new course belonged in the top 100, wouldn't you go see for yourself?

[bakerg]

I've had this discussion with some of my golfing friends from time to time.  I never really care too much what most of the magazine rankings say.  Some of the rankings I agree with some I don't.  The only one that I keep track of is Golf Mag's World 100.

That being said, if I was in charge I would put Doak and Crenshaw in a room and let them decide on one list for the World.  That is something that I would love to see.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,

I think you're onto something in that if every expert applied their own criteria as to what constitutes greatness, then whereever agreement on a course arose, that course could be said to be truly special, because it meets so many diverse philosophies of "greatness."

Mark:

I think we may be on the same page. The thing about Shinnecock is it may not come in first in any category with anyone judging great courses but when you add them all up (courses and categories) it may come in really high and strong in all categories with most everyone judging it. It may be a course that is forever destined to fly under the radar screen as #1 but I suspect that when anyone looks for whatever weakness it may have that's just very hard for anyone to identify.

It may be the kind of course that could come in first without coming in first in a single category.

All I know is when I stand on that hill and look across that course it sort of makes me nervous but I have never been able to figure out exactly why and I must say I've never had a reaction like that to another golf course.

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

I certainly understand where you are heading with this and in the context of overall greatness where time is not of the essence, your approach may be best.  However, when left to deal with the need to sell magazines and rounds at new courses while getting some kind of apples to apples evaluation of courses I think you need a braod base of sorters and a small group of dedicated finalizers.  I wouldn't want to publish a magazine that only came out with a ratings list that was always five years behind the times or only came out once every three years when an annual model sells so many more magazines.  I also wouldn't want to bear the cost of the big names that wouldn't do it for free anymore.  I think a little reality needs to come to the party every once in a while.  How long did Crystal Downs wait before Ben's article? If a course isn't at an air center or near a tour stop I don't think it would do the game justice.

Another thing I've often wondered is, why there isn't an architectural award rather than a course award?  By that I meen an award that recognizes the overall accomplishment made on a given site relative to its initial state or nature; more like a coach of the year award.

Cheers!

JT

[TEPaul]

"They would wait until one or two people on the panel thought highly of a particular course and then they would go see it and decide for themselves.

Take that 1939 panel ... if Bobby Jones or Joyce Wethered or Bernard Darwin told you they thought a new course belonged in the top 100, wouldn't you go see for yourself?"

TomD:

So, you're saying that's a good thing, even today? Right?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Mark B and Tom D,
I was trying (and apparently failing) to distinguish  between a "definition" which I agree would be stifling, and "criteria" which I am trying to establish could be more open-ended and designed to stimulate thinking on the golf course and thoughtful discussion later.

Maybe it's too academic, as in "Please come to class prepared to discuss and contrast the artistic merits of Dr. Mackenzie's work at Pasatiempo and at Cypress Point."  If such criteria were included, Jack might not want to have anything to do with my panel, I suppose.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I want Jack on my panel, but I might also want Philip Johnson, if he  were still with us

[TEPaul]

"I certainly understand where you are heading with this and in the context of overall greatness where time is not of the essence, your approach may be best.  However, when left to deal with the need to sell magazines and rounds at new courses while getting some kind of apples to apples evaluation of courses I think you need a braod base of sorters and a small group of dedicated finalizers.  I wouldn't want to publish a magazine that only came out with a ratings list that was always five years behind the times or only came out once every three years when an annual model sells so many more magazines."

But Jim, that's the problem, don't you think? It's far more about selling magazines than it is about accurately and intelligently ranking golf course architecture?

The thing that really pisses me off about the major magazine rankings (perhaps other than Golfweek) is they trot these lists of the 100 greatest golf courses out every year with enormous fanfare and no actual detailed explanation of why they're good architecture. And if you ask them why they trot those courses out there with no detailed textual or descriptive explanation of why they're great architecture their answer is always that golfers don't care about architecture.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, if there are only 15 or 20 panelists many great courses would get overlooked.  There are only so many places someone can play.  The musgrove Mill's of the world wouldn't get a nod.  After all it took years for Crystal Downs to get enough panelists to qualify for GD's top 100.

[Tom_Doak]

Eric:  I do agree it would be interesting to include the opinion of a nongolfer, but what nongolfer gets around to a bunch of great courses and studies them?  It's not at all feasible to send your panel around to see courses -- people like these are all too busy for that -- you have to rely on the fact they've already gotten there.

Jim T:  I agree with you, that Digest's rankings would be much better if a small group of panelists and/or editors went to see the top 15 and compared them more directly.  But, 15 x 3 lists = 45 courses x how many panelists??  They won't commit the time or the money to do that when they can just pretend the list they do publish is authoritative.

[TEPaul]

"After all it took years for Crystal Downs to get enough panelists to qualify for GD's top 100."

tommy williamsen;

I know Crystal Downs pretty well and I'm fairly sure they ain't complaining.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

"After all it took years for Crystal Downs to get enough panelists to qualify for GD's top 100."

tommy williamsen;

I know Crystal Downs pretty well and I'm fairly sure they ain't complaining.  

I have been playing CD on and off for thirty years.  In some ways I like it better when no one had ever heard of it.  There is something nice about anonymity.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy W:  It didn't take long to get Crystal Downs recognized once I started trying, even if I might regret it now.

As for the Musgrove Mills of the world, you are probably right ... I still haven't been there myself, but mostly because my sources have said it's very good, but not THAT good.  We aren't trying to rank the top 300 courses here, that is a folly ... once you get much below 75th place they are all of similar quality and there is no point in trying.

[Jim Sweeney]

A couple of names I haven't seen yet but that might be included on anyone's list:

William C. Campbell, Bruce Devlin

[Jim Thompson]

Jim T:  I agree with you, that Digest's rankings would be much better if a small group of panelists and/or editors went to see the top 15 and compared them more directly.  But, 15 x 3 lists = 45 courses x how many panelists??  They won't commit the time or the money to do that when they can just pretend the list they do publish is authoritative.

Surely they could get 3 groups of fifteen that rotated between affordable, public, and private each year.  The A-teams would only have to do 15 a year.  Or even do a GolfWeek and lump them into a new group which gets a frresh look each year and a composite approach toward classic and modern of past that are re-rated only when a group of three raters who ratings come in with a significant deviationfrom prior years, then they go back on a list for a full re-rate of 10 or so raters?

Cheers!

JT

[Dan_Callahan]

Mark,

I think we are in agreement.

The problem is that it is impossible to come up with strict criteria and a formula for calculating a rank.

At least in U.S. News & World Report's college rankings, you can see the data that was compared and how it was weighted. There are books on the topic. Of course, we're still talking about trying to quantify the unquantifiable, in my opinion (declaring Harvard is "better" than Princeton or Williams or Virginia is lunacy). However, it is easy to see how those results are reached, factoring in endowment, selectivity, etc.

I don't see how you could ever develop a comparable scientific method for rating architecture, because that ranking depends on personal preferences rather than discrete data. Because different people prefer different things (I might like an engineered look, my friend might favor a more natural style), those rankings aren't really helpful to us.

Obviously, there's no real harm in it, but in response to the title of the thread, I don't think there is another way of ranking that would offer more "valid" results.

[TEPaul]

Tommy W:  It didn't take long to get Crystal Downs recognized once I started trying, even if I might regret it now."

TomD:

In all these years I never heard that it was you who set the stage for putting them on the map. I read your post about that a week or so ago and it rings true and makes perfect sense. Are there any other golf courses you have up your slieve of that quality vein you'd like to put through the exposure you did with Crystal? Don't name them here and now---just a yes or no will do.

[Jim Thompson]

Oh and another thing, if you could choose which region of the country to have the people who rate your courses to come from, where would that be???  I doubt it would be West Michigan.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Tommy W:  It didn't take long to get Crystal Downs recognized once I started trying

Tom, you might be on to something with this comment.  We don't need an illustrious group of rankers to attract attention to good work, just a bully and a pulpit  

You may be right that it would be difficult to get non-golfers interested in our quest--it would be a job for them, not an adventure.  But I'm sticking with my requirement that the rankers agree that the evaluation criteria include some consideration of the architect's choices and whether they were well-met.

[TEPaul]

Here's one for you Tom Doak;

Is there any golf course anywhere in the world you'd like to emulate in some fashion in something you'd like to do in the future? And where is it and what is it and why does it interest you?

Let me rephrase that. Let's say there is no client--let's say it's yours. What would you really like to do and why?

[Tom_Doak]

Dan C:

You've stumbled on another part of the problem, pretending anything about golf course rankings is scientific when it is certainly NOT.

Tom P:

You are getting off topic, perhaps you should start multiple different threads.  But I'd probably better answer some of those off the board.

[Tom_Doak]

So back to my topic.  I was looking back through Michael Dugger's list, and was shocked to see he didn't include Tiger Woods or any other player of the current generation.  I don't think you want to overload on those guys, but you don't want to leave out their point of view, either.

Here is my back of the envelope committee:

Tiger Woods
Ernie Els [need somebody from S Africa]
Nick Faldo
Ben Crenshaw [or Tom Watson if you think I'm playing favorites]
Jack Nicklaus
Michael Clayton [or Ian Baker-Finch]

Alice Dye
Annika Sorenstam
at least 1 more woman [always difficult to find good candidates who have traveled enough]

Lorne Rubenstein
Peter Alliss
Tom Ramsey
Masa Nishijima or Sho Tobari from Japan
Ran Morrissett [Geoff hasn't traveled enough outside the USA]

Mike Davis
Sir Michael Bonallack
Bill Clinton or George Bush 41st

Ron Whitten
Brad Klein
myself

plus maybe a photographer [Jo Ann Dost or Larry Lambrecht or Brian Morgan -- Aidan's got to say something critical before he gets on my list], and whoever we can find for the non-golfer analyst


Sorry if I left you off; I'm sure there are a couple of obvious candidates I have omitted while writing this on the fly.

[Kyle Harris]

Edward, Duke of Windsor??

Getoutatown! Or should I say Getoutaengland?  

Joe Kirkwood?

I've seen about three things he did to a golf course and it was a mater of ugly and uglier and ugliest! But the guy could sure play. May've been the best trick shot artist in the world at the time.

If I was to form a limited panel of golf architecture analysts and rankers the first one I'd put on the list is our current US Open champion, and follow him up with his new pal GeoffShac. I'd follow GeoffShac up with David Fay to create some instant dynamics and then I'd put TomD on there for completely obvious reasons. Then I'd put Ben and Bill on there, and follow them up with USGA Museum/Library director Rand Jerris, and while I was in the Far Hills office I'd go down the hall and put Mike Davis on the panel (he loves classic architecture). Then I'd put that pretender to the throne Tiger Woods on there and follow him up with Golf's Most Beloved figure, our own Ran Morrissett. I'd follow him up with another GOLFLCUBATLASER, the most level-headed one on here, Mike Cirba, and then that all time energizer bunny and the best American women amateur of the last half century Carole Semple Thompson, follow her up with teen phenom Michelle Wie, then Pete and Alice Dye. After that would be Merion Superintendent Matt Shaeffer followed by ex-LPGA star Dottie Pepper.

That's seventeen panelists and it's also a helluva representation of my "Big World Theory" that "golf and architecture is a great big thing and there should be something out there for everyone".

Tom,

Kirkwood's contributions to Huntingdon Valley were at the bequest of his membership, I don't think it could be said he had free architectural input there. Apart from the 2nd and 3rd holes - Scott Anderson has things back in line there.

My question was, is this Kirkwood Sr. or Jr.? I'm guessing Sr. as Junior was more concerned with making movies.

Please remember that Kirkwood also built the 14th green off of McGovern's plan, at least as per Linc Roden's book and that is widely considered one of the best on the course.

[Larry_Keltto]

Seventy-eight replies and Jim Finegan hasn't been chosen (or did I miss him)? He'd be one of my first choices.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Just because someone is a great player does it mean they recognize great design?  After all Nicklaus takes it on the chin on this site.  Would tour caliber players see the greatness in a St. Enodoc?