Bias by course raters?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

You missed my point / re: Sanctuary. I don't see the course as being the best of what Engh has done. I see the building of a course on such a demanding site as the claim to fame for the place and as a springboard for Engh's career to take off nationally.

Engh has done a number of superb courses through the mountain time zone but unfortunately the raters are lacking the wherewithal (either to play them or to keep an open mind) on other more recent layouts he has done that our very good -- in fact better than Sanctuary.

One other thing -- there are a number of solid AZ and other SW courses that don't have housing ON BOTH SIDES but are dissed for the reasons I initially explained. People from the northeast or midwest likely have a harder time conceptualizing golf in such arid climates. I have heard the comments that they believe such golf is not the REAL thing --often they fail to define what REAL golf truly is.

In my mind -- it's bias and when you have such slight differences in voting totals -- it's quite possible such a bias will hold back such layouts from national consideration.

Tom -- in the states you mentioned I can easily take off a number of states that I would include at least one course for national consideration and conversely pull off an existing top 100 courses because it has succeeded in GLOMING on to the bright light of a nearby neighbor.

One last thing -- I never said that courses in AZ and mtn time zone with houses on both sides of the holes should be held to a different standard. The ones from AZ and the mtn time zone that can be rated at the elite level don't have such a situation. Like I said -- you do have massive house clutter around plenty of northeast courses -- they don't have to be on both sides -- they simply engulf the properties but that's not held against them.

[Craig Sweet]

I raised this issue of bias in the thread comparing pre-season college football rankings and course rating...I think BOTH are heavily biased...heck when you look at a state like Montana and everyone "pencils in" Old Works" and won't bother to check out the newest courses...though I'm sure they'll all come to see Doak's... well...there is some bias there...and if you can't divorce yourself from the idea that housing development golf is somehow weaker than say a course located on the plains of nebraska...bias is written in...

That's why I said long ago, you might as well rate Interstate highways as golf courses...

[Adam_Messix]

Matt--

I understand your points concerning WH.  There has been substantial drainage put in at Wade Hampton over the last couple of years that have improved the condition of the course.  The area is simply apt to get a lot of rain, the average over the last century is 100 inches per year (that's not a typo).  I haven't been to Glenwild, but I do like WH better than the other two courses that you mentioned.  My comments concerning Wade Hampton were pointed toward how the development was put together in keeping houses from sticking out like they do at many developments.  I agree with Tom D, how many older courses have homes down both sides(very few if any), many (but far from all) newer ones do unfortunately.  

As far as drainage goes, you could do what Moutaintop did and sandcap every fairway and that has seemed to work.  However, you can run into a dry summer like it has been this year and you run your irrigation ponds dry trying to keep up with the water sifting quickly through the sand.  Simply put, it's tough to get great playing conditions here in the mountains during the typical summer.  This year would be an exception.  

[Jim Franklin]

Tom -

Pete Dye is #99 in Golf Digest (should be higher IMHO, but it is on the GD list too). So West Virginia is covered by two of the three mags.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

The straw argument put forward by others concerning golf courses with housing down both sides is fundamentally flawed.

I never opined -- nor did others including Huffman -- that such courses bracketed deserve acclaim. There are a number of outstanding courses in that section of the country that do have housing -- but in nearly many ofthe instances such housing is to one side -- not both.

Glad to hear about the improved drainage -- but like I said I still believe TF has done better work elsewhere and often times it's simply because people have played a small smattering of his overall portfolio and applied a permanent "tag" to whatever else he does.

One other thing -- we agree to disagree about Dallas National and Karsten Creek v WH.

W.H. Cosgrove:

The designs you are seeking -- those that go outside the box -- are clearly alive and well in AZ and in many areas throughout the SW and southern tier of the mtn time zone.

I don't know which ones you have played -- or not played -- but I can certainly list a number of them that can easily compete for a spot when compared to the other courses in the northeast (and elsewhere) that have grabbed a spot simply because they are "in the neighborhood" of big time superstar courses which they have seen fit to glom onto their spotlight for attention.

[Patrick Kiser]

Ratings... schmatings...

Spoke my mind on the "Walkability" thread.

When are we going to stop relying on ratings so much?

Who cares?

Get out there and find out for yourself.  And do yourself a favor and resist the temptation to compare courses to one another.  They're all different in their own way.

Life it too short to rely on ratings.

My two cents.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ratings... schmatings...

Spoke my mind on the "Walkability" thread.

When are we going to stop relying on ratings so much?

Who cares?

Get out there and find out for yourself.  And do yourself a favor and resist the temptation to compare courses to one another.  They're all different in their own way.

Life it too short to rely on ratings.

My two cents.

Patrick,

I don't think you understand that 90% of the posters on this thread were or are raters for one of the big three mags.  I think it is perfectly natural and expected for raters to love ratings.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Perhaps I've been guilty of generalizing too much about courses with housing on both sides -- but you haven't specifically named a course in AZ which is being derailed over bias which doesn't have a lot of housing issues, nor have you named a course in the east which has a lot of houses and still makes the rankings.  Just give me a couple of names, and I'll concede your point.

Not everybody who submits votes for the rankings is all consumed by housing intrusion, but I've heard enough panelists mention it over the years to know it's a factor.  And you missed my point about Sanctuary -- I believe it's Engh's highest rated course not because it's his first, but because it doesn't have the same housing quotient as Black Rock or Lakota Canyon or Blackstone, all of which are developments.

As for "bias" in general, I'm just tired of hearing about it.  Designing a course in the desert gives you some advantages (dramatic scenery) and some disadvantages (playability of the native areas).  The disadvantage is tough to overcome -- if you make a course too narrow it's unfair to some raters, if you make it wide enough to be playable it's too easy in others' minds.  That's why not many desert courses have made the grade, it's not some regional homerism ... it's local columnists who are the "homers".

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Fair enough / re: Sanctuary. My point was that "housing sites" in which Engh has designed are often held back because of the reasons I mentioned prevously. Blackstone in Peoria, AZ is a first rate design that people might dimiss because it's in AZ / arid climate and because housing will be a major component when maxed out.

Tom, you can poo-poo all the talk abot bias but the simple fact is that since so few raters are national in scope they assess things from their own sections of the country and as a result the fringe areas like the SW and good portions of the mountain time zone are often either forgotten or thought of as second tier places.

Denial is a powerful thing and from all the years I used to do ratings for the big time magazine groups I can tell you that few people really see golf across the larger canvass and leave their local promotions to the side. I've said this before -- the NYC metro area has the nation's deepest supply of top tier private courses -- however, there are courses in that section which have benefited from simply being "in the neighborhood" of other superstar courses and have glomed on to a favorable spillover vote / recognition.

Here are a few names of worthy consideration --

Black Mesa (no housing on the entire property)

Outlaw at Desert Mtn (ditto)

Whisper Rock (the original 18) - housing is happening but far off to the side.

Chapparal Pines (Payson, AZ) -- first rate layout by Gary Panks / David Graham -- with housing -- but far from intrusive.

Blackstone

There are others I can likely add with some time for thought.

On the eastern side -- go to Westchester County (NY) and you'll find courses with housing that have simply swallowed up the land in and around the respective layouts there. I never said that courses with housing nearby (or even on top of) are bad or in need of a lesser evaluation -- what I did say is that applying a double-standard to courses in the SW which DO HAVE housing should not hold them back if their respective design is indeed first rate.

Tom -- keep this firmly in mind -- you have raters who visit an area -- often times cherry picking one or two courses and then forever KEEPING THAT IMPRESSION front and center in all future instances. Once people "TAG" a given location it becomes obvious, at least to me, that the bias -- which you dismiss out of hand -- is clearly an issue and often times influences them to apply a lesser value to such courses.

You have raters who made their last visit to AZ ten years ago and think golf there is nothing more than the usual assemblage of target golf or bland empty designs. That's far from the case as the design bar has risen and the competition has called upon even better layouts to come forward.

[JMorgan]

.

[Jim Franklin]

For the guys who have built desert courses, what are the 3-5 biggest challenges you face with desert construction vs. building courses in other climes -- and how do they affect the implementation of your design ideas?  

Well, let us see now, James... so far you have 1.) your edge definition and 2.) your housing developments as issues when it comes to designing desert courses.  

Let's see if we can pick up a few more "challenges," shall we?

Of course. Thanks, James!

Oh you're welcome.  Any time, glad I could help.

James, starting a little early on Friday are we?

[Tom Yost]

Huffman's a long time local golf writer and his target is the Phoenix area golfer, so perhaps he can be given a pass for being a "homer."  But I do see an attempt to stir the pot a bit.

I can't speak with the experience of having played ANY top 100 courses.  I learned the game in Ohio, but most of my adult golfing life has been in Arizona and exclusively on public access tracks. So I won't argue that Phoenix should have more courses in the top 100.  

Obviously, Arizona lacks old courses that have a lot of history and tradition.  No more than a handful date back farther than 40 years.  As the population grew, water concerns drove a mandate to limit turf areas and a new style of "desert golf" course was born in the 80's.  The form is still relatively new and it continues to evolve.  

Perhaps many of the raters familiar with the more traditional golf experience have been slow to warm to the desert golf style.  I have read opinions here where some just don't like it at all.  I'm sure that when golf first moved away from the links and into the interior where the first parkland style courses appeared, there were those who turned up their noses with the belief that this was not proper grounds for golf.

Just a matter of time.


Tom

[JMorgan]

.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — There is most definately an "East Coast" bias in golf. That does nothing to help Arizona, New Mexico or Utah courses. Some courses in the west are very spread out — that doesn't help either. I do agree with your width notion.

[Jim Nugent]

There are a lot of good desert courses, but unfortunately they all look very much alike, so it's hard to support one above the rest.

Wasn't Pine Valley, in effect, a desert course when Crump built it?  i.e. islands of green surrounded and intersected by an ocean of sandy wasteland?  

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Indeed, on paper, lots of the newer desert courses have similarities to holes at Pine Valley with their island fairways.  On the ground, though, what makes Pine Valley so great (and so frightening) is the playability of its sandy wastes and the fact that you have to go in there and play out of them ... whereas in Arizona, the formal bunkers are perfectly groomed and simple to get out of, and the native areas are usually unplayable or a lost ball.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

W.H. Cosgrove:

The designs you are seeking -- those that go outside the box -- are clearly alive and well in AZ and in many areas throughout the SW and southern tier of the mtn time zone.

I don't know which ones you have played -- or not played -- but I can certainly list a number of them that can easily compete for a spot when compared to the other courses in the northeast (and elsewhere) that have grabbed a spot simply because they are "in the neighborhood" of big time superstar courses which they have seen fit to glom onto their spotlight for attention.

I certainly don't want to get into any kind of contest here about what and where we have played.  And the risk is always over generalization, when going for the joke or the sound bite.  However, I have played quite a bit in the Palm springs area and to a lesser degree in AZ.  

There are some very good courses, Dye's PGA West Stadium has always been a favorite.  Mostly due to his diabolical use of angles and visual intimidation.  The Plantation is very good.  And then you get a list of very good courses with some flaws.  I choose not to make a list.  

In AZ,I think Whisper Rock is very good.  Blackstone is good as are The Rim, Stone Canyon, Chapparel down the list from there.  

The point is they have built dozens of courses in those two areas and the great majority of them are really quite common.
I think for many of the reasons I tried to point out earlier.  It is my opinion that economics drives much of the design and owners want a course that looks intimidating without much real difficulty.  The prime drivers are pace of play and revenue.  If I were in a position to build a course those would be considerations you would have to at least examine, wouldn't you?

That of course doesn't mean that the dumbing down of the course would be the correct choice, but it is one many have made.  Which getting back to the thread leads to this observation that in these areas with hundreds of golf courses, there don't seem to be many on 'the lists.'  Not all that surprising considering Digest rates the top 100 out of over 16,000 and the business plans of many developers negate the possibility of the course even coming close to rising from the vast masses.


Not every course can be designed to be Top 100, Can they?

[Patrick Kiser]

That explains things A LOT now doesn't it  

Thanks for the heads up.

Patrick,

I don't think you understand that 90% of the posters on this thread were or are raters for one of the big three mags.  I think it is perfectly natural and expected for raters to love ratings.