[W.H. Cosgrove]

Geoff while Spanish Bay was entangled in environmental red tape, Chambers was still a licensed mining operation allowing the builders to go hog wild with few restrictions.  

They could not possibly have made it a worse.

[John_Conley]

Mike Cirba - Golfweek Rater,

Here is the list of top 100 Modern Courses, please explain to me your logic considering there are only ten courses with a rating higher than 8.00; http://www.golfweek.com/lifestyles/golfweeksbest/modern/ You make my initial point in that I think Brad fluffs up a course that should be 25 to 30 with a score of 8.5 to 9...How else can you explain his number?  I agree with him and would do the same...why not help out a new course with a little boost...It is good for golf and the future of the game and increased work for our architect friends.

I hope you build roads by sight and not through using any formulae.  Your math isn't so good.  Repeatedly you ask for explanations of the same thing.  Brad is very open with the process.  There is no mystery.

A guideline is like this:

7 implies a course is Top 100
8 implies Top 50
9 implies Top 25
10 implies Top 5 or 10

If a course has unanimous scores of 9, where EVERYONE agrees it is a Top 25, the course will not be anywhere near #25.  It will be much higher.

What you are seeing is that past the top few modern courses there is a ton of disagreement over what comes next.  Also, the differerence between #20 and #60 on the list isn't much.  Play both and you'll probably like them.  A lot.

Brad's score implies a course in his Top 25.  He is the rare person that has sampled nearly all of the major ballot courses.  The reality is that any panel will be comprised of people that have not played most of the courses on the ballot.  There are just too many.  

One final reason that scores at the top aren't higher is that many people are reluctant to rate anything a 10.  I think it makes sense to use it for the best of the best, but others withhold it using the rationale that "nothing's perfect".

Despite the explanation, you'll ask again.  Using the same tone.

[John Kavanaugh]

Fluff is not a bad word...it is what I do to my pillow before I lay my head to sleep.

[Jim Nugent]

Mike Cirba - Golfweek Rater,

Here is the list of top 100 Modern Courses, please explain to me your logic considering there are only ten courses with a rating higher than 8.00; http://www.golfweek.com/lifestyles/golfweeksbest/modern/ You make my initial point in that I think Brad fluffs up a course that should be 25 to 30 with a score of 8.5 to 9...How else can you explain his number?  I agree with him and would do the same...why not help out a new course with a little boost...It is good for golf and the future of the game and increased work for our architect friends.

Golfweek's scale as given to me is:  

10      Top 5
 9       6 - 15
 8      16 - 40
 7      41 - 100
 6     101 - 200
 5     201 - 750

So Brad giving the course an 8.5 to 9, means he thinks it's in the top 40 of modern courses.  Maybe even near the upper end of that, though not top 5.  

That is Brad's personal rating.  We'll have to wait for enough raters to play CB and give it their scores, to see how Golfweek Mag ranks the course.  Because of the way GW does its ratings, we get these apparent contradictions that a course with an average rating of 8.59 (probably somewhere in the middle of the top 40) is actually the 3rd-highest rated course in the country.  

I enjoyed RJ's comment about numerology, though I'm not aware of the occult influence.  Maybe that's how it work, though, hunh?  The dark side seductively lays it trap for you, till you're in so deep that it's too late to turn back...

[Bob Jenkins]

I was one of those fortunate enough to be able to play Chambers Bay on May 29, ie. "GCA.com Day".

I have been around a bit in Scotland, Bandon, Pebble area and a few other areas and I have no hesitation in echoing Garland's comments. Chambers is a fabulous golf course and you will know it from the moment you get out of your car and look down to the course and Puget Sound. I would pay $150 any time for a chance to play that course again. If there is a thread at the end of 2007 discussing the new course of the year and it is not Chambers Bay, Dr. Mackenzie will have returned unannounced!

I have no intention of reviewing the course but the tees are unique and interesting, it gives a true links feel, it is tough with options from most tees, the greens are most interesting, the vistas are outstanding, each hole is memorable and it is just plain fun. I was excited to look at every hole.

Finally, I cannot conceive of comparing Chambers Bay to Spanish Bay, other than the reference to a "Bay". Spanish Bay was, I understand, built on a sand and gravel pit but it is quite boring land compared to Chambers.

Chambers Bay is a unique place and well worth a visit.

Bob Jenkins

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

Did you just use the phrase "pretty darn great"?

I did indeed... it's one my English teacher Dad liked to use... I think it made him feel wild and adventurous, in its awful grammar.  I like it.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H.

Yes, I have played Rustic Canyon. It is a fine course. However, Chambers Bay is better. I believe it offers more strategic options, it has better terrain, it has more distinct and memorable holes, and it is far more scenic to name a few things.

You have openly admitted to be blown away by the links courses of GB and by Bandon. If you think so highly of those places, I don't see how you can't be blown away by Chambers Bay.

Garland - very cool - this puts in in proper perspective for me - thanks!

Hope to see it some day....

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

Its so nice to see/hear about a course in the Pacific Northwest getting  that doesn't involve the word Bandon.  

Haven't played much this year, but this course has me looking forward to visiting my parents in the greater Seattle area later this summer.

[Garland Bayley]

The one thing that stood out most for me in Brad's review was him giving his lowest rating to the par 3s. In that rating, he made what I believe to be an inaccurate statement, saying that only #17 can be set up as a long par 3. The card lists #17 at 218 from the back, whereas #9 is listed as 227 from the back. Admittedly #9 drops 80 feet more or less depending on tee. However, with a wind it will play very close to it's length on the card. When I played, my caddy calculated the wind into his length a came up with a number that was equal to the length listed on the card.

As for them all being downhill, perhaps it would be nice to see a forward tee added to the lower level of #17. Also #3 is not significantly downhill as can be seen by the average given by Brad. I would note that 80 and 0 average to 40. (Brad used 100, which was wrong since he was talking about the 6500 yard tees.)

One last thing. I found it a disservice to the beautiful Douglas fir trees of the Pacific Northwest to say there was a lone pine tree on the course.
 

[Geoffrey Childs]

Admittedly #9 drops 80 feet more or less depending on tee. However, with a wind it will play very close to it's length on the card. When I played, my caddy calculated the wind into his length a came up with a number that was equal to the length listed on the card.

Garland

I give you this discussion of rangefinders to look over.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=29975

I believe that caddie gave you way too much information.  In fact, given that the version of rangefinder that also gives slope is illegal for tournament or handicap posting play I believe that getting such information from a knowledgable caddie should also be declared illegal.

What's the game coming to if you had to resort to using such outside influence to enjoy a course like Chambers Bay.  Maybe this course isn't all its cracked up to be after all  

[Brad Klein]

Okay, so it was a lone Douglas fir. For a New York boy, all conifers looks the same. My mistake.

But not on the yardage or elevation change on the par-3s. I'm sitting here looking at a topographic analysis of each hole. The 9th falls 102 feet, not 80; the 3rd falls 10 feet. I stand by my claim. If you want to tell me that by playing the ninth hole at 228 yards you make it long, fine, but to do that you'd be playing the entire course from 7,585 yards, and not 1% of all people who play there will do so. And in any case, it would falls so much that it's like playing a hole 30 yards shorter anyway so that its effective playing length would be less than the 17th.

[Garland Bayley]

Brad,

I guess I don't understand. To play #17 as a long par 3 you would have to be playing from 7585 too. Why is my statement out of line with yours?

[Dan Herrmann]

I loved the review.  It served its purpose very well.  It educated about a great new golf course that deserves study.  If Pacific Dunes is the inspiration and CB is the product, may we have a lot more offspring.

This minion is a happy minion.

[Norbert P]

Okay, so it was a lone Douglas fir. For a New York boy, all conifers looks the same. My mistake.

The Douglas Fir has always been confusing. Take the latin name for it . . .  Pseudotsuga menziesii  .  I think Karl Linneaus would be rolling in his grave at the misdirection of his categorizing intent.   Pseudotsuga translates to "False hemlock"  hardly a definition of a genus. Also, the menziesii refers to Arthur Menzies, the discover of the tree (me thinks) yet we call it a Douglas Fir (from the botanist/explorer David Douglas, who later died in a Burmese wild boar trap. He was the original John Wayne of tree hugger dudes.)

Also, it is NOT a true fir (Abies) in that the cones hang down.  All other firs have cones that grow upward.  

So, there it is. Sorry to get all academic with hardly an opinion to bandy.

[Norbert P]

 If there is a thread at the end of 2007 discussing the new course of the year and it is not Chambers Bay, Dr. Mackenzie will have returned unannounced!

  (I cannot believe I'm getting roped into "rating" topic, but...)

 Bob, An interesting and literate statement but the course, through all its intentions to be great with walking only, links play, wind, interesting greens, strategic fairways, wonderful bunkering, great views, fescue/bent, public accessibility, etc. is vastly unfinished to my eyes to be considered at its "Best".   I was fortunate to be there that day and my enthusiasm for the course was only matched by my joy to be taking a day off out of town.  
  If Chambers Bay finishes 1st, where will it go as it gets better?  Wherever it gets ranked, by no help of me, I only see it climbing as the out of play areas become more alive and playable. As the wasteland is now, at least in the D8 dozer track dunes, every shot from them will be in a virtual footprint.  I don't know how fertile the unfertilized and unirrigated sand/gravel dunes are, but if the fescue holds, the golf course will be charming and comforting as well as exciting. I'm being optimistic that the fescue will survive but if it doesn't, then I think some of the intentions of design are obliterated.  

  I don't know much about ranking but does spending 24 million help or hurt its placement.  Does it put it into a different category of low mid high end classification?

  I believe the course can be great over time and I believe that I will have the patience to keep visiting and appreciating its seasoning.   (And I hope I can play the 8th down the fairway!!!)

[Jay Flemma]

JK, just so we're clear, does that include my reviews in Golfweek's pages of: RTJ Trail - Schoolmaster (4.0), World Golf Village - Slammer & Squire (4.5), The Ranch GC (4.5), Marriott Wildflower - Faldo (5.0), University of New Mexico - Championship Course (5.0), Easthampton GC (5.5), Marriott - Grande Pines (5.5), The Orchards (5.5), Bridgewater (6.0), Farm Links (6.0), Greywalls (6.0), K Club - Palmer Course (6.0), Mauna Lani - North (6.0), PGA National - Champions (6.0), Redlands Mesa (6.0)?

What did you like so much about Redlands Mesa?  I liked the routing and the bunkering (not too much muscle bunker as its early-ish Engh) the most.

[redanman]

JK again bashing raters blindly, I'm certain Wayne-O will be here soon. Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.

John Conley at appx. 2345 on 28 June summarized the process succinctly and very well, JK, please tell Barney to read that carefully. Like it or not everyone likes lists (and everyone disagrees).

There is always a spread of votes, there are no unanimous votes as there are are here on GCA with all C&C's receiving 10's. (even though we have had a GW rater imply that he had more than 5 "10 moderns" a few months back).

Just to e.g. you - BK says his raters don't back him up on his opinion of PGA West at 8.0 - I have it higher than that. And I sure don't have Hidden Creek at 8.5.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am not bashing raters...I bashed one rater John Conley based on his posts on this site.  Go to his profile and read his last 50 posts and see if I am wrong.  I have not met a rater whose opinion I do not respect.  I have not met John.

I understand your process where the architectural editor can say a course is 8.5 to 9 and that means it is top 50 when the Golfweek site would indicate it is top 10.  That is why I call it fluff.

[John_Conley]

I am not bashing raters...I bashed one rater John Conley based on his posts on this site.  Go to his profile and read his last 50 posts and see if I am wrong.  I have not met a rater whose opinion I do not respect.  I have not met John.

A sad commentary on what serves as your fascinating life.

Actually, you are again wrong with your own lack of logic.  The comment was about Brad fluffing up a course's rating.  When challenged, your retort is that it was about me.  Sure, jaka, sure.

Don't worry, Bill V.  It will only be a few weeks or months before he lobs the same assertion about Golfweek's rating method.  If you are utterly ignorant of mathematics I suppose it makes sense.

[John Kavanaugh]

8.5 to 9 = 7.2 is really quite easy to achieve, you just divide by stupid.

[Brad Klein]

JK,

why don't you read what it says in the text I wrote in Golfweek? I did not say 8.5-9.0 "means" that it's top-50. I said that Chambers Bay "clearly rates among Golfweek's Best top-50 Modern Courses." That leaves lots of latitude for higher than a 7.2 average if the raters so decide, or lower if they decide, and in any case it's obvious that my own vote is not a collective average of the raters. That's to be determined by them.

[John_Conley]

8.5 to 9 = 7.2 is really quite easy to achieve, you just divide by stupid.

So a rater that gives this a 6, or five raters that give it a 7, are now - in your words - "stupid".

My suggestion to any rater that wants to put that on their ballot... consider the source.

While John Kavanaugh won't let the myriad raters have different opinions, fortunately Brad Klein does.

Barney has never considered the converse.  If other scores come in as high as Brad's (or higher) the course will be far higher than Brad suggests in the ultimate ranking.

[redanman]

I understand your process where the architectural editor can say a course is 8.5 to 9 and that means it is top 50 when the Golfweek site would indicate it is top 10.  That is why I call it fluff.

Dear John,

You do not understand mathematics or gestalt theory.

Love,
redanman



I wrote the above before looking at page 2 until the "post reply" window came up. The part about math.

Now I'll add - GW does not use the sole opinion of the panel superior to constitute its ratings.  People like the 75 year old 14 handicapper and the 12 index woman I played with the other day as well as jackass me each have an equal vote to his.  If it (the vote) is a gross outlier, I understand it gets discussed.

I have never had my vote number discussed with me, just for the record.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()