The Value of Ratings ?

[Matt_Ward]

Plenty of people obviously follow ratings of one type or another from a host of different publications. I'm curious to find from GCA contributors how much value they place in ratings?

Do they matter? And, if so, which ones and why? If you could change one thing about ratings (besides there being no ratings  ) what would it be?

In recommending a course to another person what particular aspect of the experience to you place as the "first among equals." Please don't chicken out or be politically correct and say two or three or four things are tied and lumped together. Pick one.

Thanks ...

 

[Tom Doak]

The only ratings I place any value upon are my own.

However, I must say I'm shocked by how much value others place upon them.  Pacific Dunes has had a huge effect on what I can charge as a design fee, and I'm getting more calls than ever, even when the business is contracting.

[Joe Hancock]

Now, thats a cowardly attack....

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

I've built a spread sheet with all the rankings from the three
"big" US publications (Golf Digest, Golf Mag, and Golfweek), as well as GolfWorld of Europe, for my own personal use.  

When I travel, I make it a point to try to visit courses that are or have been on the lists. It's a very good way to find the good quality courses and avoid the not-so-good.

What's most interesting to me is to visit courses that are no
longer on the lists, but used to be, and try to figure out why they are no longer "worthy".  Many times, I find some real "hidden gems."

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Having never stated an opinion against ranking, I am not digging a hole here.

I too have a spreadsheet like Paul (except mine has Canada's top 100 too) and I try to keep it a few years back.

I love to see the change, in fact I just wrote a piece on the merits of Banff Springs and inevitably came back to rankings.

As much heartburn as they have given me, until I met the GCA they were one of the better indicators of great golf.  I would much prefer Golf Digest's Top 100 to their Place's to Play, because at least there seems to be a preference towards courses.

Having said that, I was disappointed in the most recent Golf Digest rankings, not only because of the strange change at the top.  Mainly because the change in criteria caused me to scratch my head as older courses surpassed newer courses on tradition .  

I like GOLF Magazine's world, and I feel it is go to list, mainly because I believe the courses are ranked.  George Peper's comments regarding Seminole in the last foreword to the rankings were exactly the opposite of what I envision in the GOLF panel.

GolfWeek's are newer to me, I really like the set up and appreciate the seemingly genuine care they have for architecture and less the experience.

I will not go into my thoughts on other rankings, but I have appreciated that they cause discussion and healthy discussion at that.

[brad_miller]

Paul, not sure I'd call a once ranked course a "hidden gem"

As for me, my taste and likes runs much closer to Golf Mag and GW and don't much look at GD.

Matt.....FUN

[Paul Richards]

Brad:

By "hidden gem" I'm referring to those courses that, in many
cases, don't even make a state's top 10 or 20 list anymore.

Someone newer to golf, or who never had access to these lists, might never appreciate that a Flossmoor CC, for instance, used to be highly regarded enough to make those lists, but, today, is no longer "worthy."  

It's sad but true.  There are many courses out there that are just as good as the latest and greatest, but may be a bit tired or overgrown and no longer generates the respect it used to garner.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I believe ratings are very important to some clubs.

Higher ratings bring greater exposure, local and National.

Greater exposure broadens the pool of perspective members

The broader the pool, the more selective the club can be.

And, the membership ranks and waiting list benefit.

[Don_Mahaffey]

As Tom Doak wrote, the ratings certainly hold some value for those in the design business. Even though most of us could guess, it's pretty honest of him to state that his fees have risen with the high ranking of one of his courses. I wish I understood the rankings better, but I'm still a little suspect of the results. Should a course that goes to great expense to bring in raters be ranked higher then one that says, sure you can play but bring your wallet. My only experience with raters or reviewers has been those folks who come to my course or restaurant and expect to be well taken care of in return for telling me how things are. I guess I trust the feedback from my regular customers a little more.
So, I guess my No. 1 criteria would be a totally unbiased, analytical study. I mean, there are raters on here who obviously have problems with certain architects. How can we trust that the next time they rate something done by that architect the course will get a fair shake?
It would help if there was someway for the folks who compile the rankings to give us an idea why a certain property was ranked or not. For instance, I'm very curious how Quintero was ranked 39th in the latest Golfweek rankings. I certainly don't know all the raters in the west, but of the ones I do know, they either haven't seen it or didn't like it. Obviously, some raters liked it very much and I'd like to know what it is that moved them to rank it so high. That would help me to understand how the rating game works.

[brad_miller]

Paul, agree with the state lists, thought you were refering to courses that once were ranked in the top 100 of the National lists.

[Paul Richards]

brad:

My spreadsheet includes the state lists, so that's why I mentioned them.

[Matt_Ward]

Don M:

You raise a very important point -- ratings obviously do matter to a variety of people -- magazines do them to cause bumps in readership / controversy. Architects who are credited with new designs can clearly raise their profile which in turn means a bigger future paycheck.

I do agree that ratings can be a healthy exercise in debate and itemize key aspects / trends worthy of note and publicity.

The related question is if ratings do have value -- what about those doing the ratings? Do they really know how to assess a course? Do raters really have the wherewithal to make the kind of cross comparisons necessary between courses from around the country? Many times I've played with various "raters" and what is considered truly important can be completely different than what is often discussed here on GCA. How do trained architects react to "raters?"

Clearly, many of the ratings are rather similar for a good number of courses but the question already raised is an interesting one -- I too have played courses that were formerly on a list and was surprised many times that the course had been bumped off or lowered considerably. Comments?

[A_Clay_Man]

I can tell you that from my perspective, the city of Farmington could care less about rankings.

The subtle changes that sometimes ruin a place, are so subtle that those that make the changes don't even see that they are changing alot when they alter even just a little.

Take for example those that bother to go inside and really complain about a certain feature or hole. The most obvious culprits would be the Women's club that might complain that a forced carry is to long or that there isn't enough room to bail out over here, blah blah blah. My personal favorite is the story of people complaining about having to play too fast. No sh&#!

I fear that the changes contemplated here, while small, will take away from the original intent which boils down to giving the player less options and obstacles which in turn leads to just being a bomber of the ball.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Matt,

You asked if raters have the ability to assess courses? Sure they do, just ask them. But in my opinion, NO!!!

I recently saw a ranking of golf resorts that had a Minnesota resort rated higher than Pinehurst and Pebble Beach. It's so egregious that it's laughable, but it does show how ridiculous rankings are.

I don't know what raters look at, but I'm convinced it's not golf course architecture.

I'm with Tom Doak, the only ratings I trust are my own. Although, I do understand that what I value is different than almost everyone else.

[THuckaby2]

I don't know what raters look at, but I'm convinced it's not golf course architecture.

I swore to myself I was gonna stay out of this one, it's been beat to death too many times before... but...

Jeff, are you implying that raters should look ONLY at architecture and nothing else?

My quote below would indicate I believe strongly that pure on the ground architecture is only one of several factors important in assessing a "golf course".

I really believe the magazine rankings all rank different things, and vive l'difference.  I look to them all of them as guides, none of them as bibles.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

As someone who has been a rater / reviewer for a number of years I agree with you there are some people who rate courses and you have to wonder what they were reviewing or even looking at. But, let me also point out that certain people automatically concede "greatness" to all of the past courses and sometimes short side the many good ones that exist today.

Can you tell me what areas of emphasis you assess first when reviewing a course?

What specific areas of course design do you believe are undervalued or just ignored but should be?

Thanks ...

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

When I was younger I used ratings to make travel decisions wanting to visit all the classics and the hot modern designs.

Today I travel less and I don't find the ratings quite as important.  Instead, I seek out the views of people who share common tastes.  I'm not as likely to visit every hot new course, but I do want to visit courses I'm more likely to really appreciate.

Keep in mind that twenty years ago such things as this web site or The Confidential Guide didn't exist, so the magazines were a bit more important, at least to the golf architecture student.

[Jeff_Lewis]

My wine teacher Kevin Zraly, formerly of Windows on the World, made the following statement in response to a question about the value of the magazine ratings of wines:

"If you like it, it's good."

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Jeff,
I think that is a great line, applies to far more than golf and wine.
Ben

[Rick Shefchik]

I see about ten movies a year, maybe half of them with my kids. For the five movies I'll go to with my wife, I almost always choose movies that sustain their buzz past opening weekend. If people are talking or writing about a movie two or three weeks after it opens, I want to see it to know what people are talking about. I know I miss some good ones and see some stinkers following that policy, but at least I feel informed.

That's my criteria for using golf course ratings, as well. I'll be in northern California next spring to play Pebble Beach for the first time. If someone on this board suggested to me that there was a better course somewhere in the area that I could play, not as expensive but more enjoyable, I'd thank them for the information and go ahead and play Pebble Beach. PB's consistently high rating plus that indefineable talk-about factor makes it a course I feel I must play to be better informed and have a well-rounded golf education.

I was in the Tampa area with my family last spring; my wife anbd I drove up to World Woods Pine Barrens, because of its rating and because I hear it talked about fairly often. I enjoyed my round, but I came away thinking the course wasn't quite as good as I was expecting. Yet I wasn't disappointed that I had chosen to play there; I don't know why the raters liked it as much as they did, and I would have arrived at a slightly different opinion, but at least I now know what people are talking about when they discuss Pine Barrens.

Call me shallow; I'll probably go see "Goldmember" two weeks from now.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Matt,

You make a good point that I sometimes get trapped in. I will discredit raters when they rate modern courses higher than I think, but I use the rankings as evidence of the value of classic design principals. I really shouldn't be able to have it both ways. I'll straighten up asap.

I put architecture at the top of the list. I am influenced by aesthetics and maintenance, but I can separate the two. I feel that a lot of raters cannot do this.

Fancy clubhouse, obnoxious entrance gates, and stuffiness make me think less of the facility. However, I think this elevates courses in many raters eyes.

What gets missed a lot by raters is strategy, options, and how the course plays for different skill levels.

Tom,
I am not implying that raters should look at only architecture. I simply said that's not what they look at.

[THuckaby2]

Tom,
I am not implying that raters should look at only architecture. I simply said that's not what they look at.

I wouldn't make that generalization, Jeff.  If anything I believe my beloved friends who are Golf World raters by nature of their system look at architecture TOO MUCH, to the extent of other factors that real world golfers care about... just as they would say Golf Digest raters look at the extraneous too much at the expense of the architecture.

But I would never say any raters don't look at architecture AT ALL... that is the basic bottom line any rater starts with, I'd say - the design of the course, whatever that means to them.

I hear ya and agree if you mean raters don't get into judging how well an architect used the land or how cost-efficiently... but I'd argue that doesn't matter to anyone but land developers and other architects, so unless the rating is for that audience, who cares?

TH

[Jeff_Lewis]

All the ratings systems have biases eminating from who the raters are, the questions they are asked to answer and sampling errors. What they end up providing though is a very general road map to courses worth playing. My rule of thumb is that any course that ever got ranked in the top 100 at any point in time is probably worth a visit. Is number 35 definitely better than number 45? Does it matter? I would like to see Digest go back to its ranking in groups of ten without specific numbers. But even in the present format, we still get useful information and much fodder for discussion.

[Jeff_McDowell]

OK Tom, I'll rephrase my statement to be more accurate.

I don't think raters look at architecture, but if they do they don't know how to evaluate it.

I say this with a slight bit of sarcasm.

I'll give you an example. I had a conversation with a golf course owner who wanted to be a rater. He was told by a different architect that he would be a good fit, because he traveled and played a lot of courses. Unfortunately, this guy couldn't evaluate the architectural merits of a golf hole. His comments were mystifying, stupifying, and childish. He clearly has never read anything other the popular magazines, and has no historical or theoretical appreciation for golf course architecture. I suspect he's closer to your typical rater than not.

I surely don't mean to pigeon hole all raters, but this is why I don't trust raters. When you're asked to rate a course, and you don't know much about architecture you have to base your decision on something. Whatever that something is, I'm not interested.

I can't comprehend the ratings anyway. I've been asked to give my top ten, and I can't do it. There are courses that are must plays so you should play them. Putting one above the other seems to run against the current of why golf is great - variety.

[Derek_Duncan]

Do ratings matter?  I say they absolutely do, for me, but there's a difference between ratings and rankings.  The major magazine rankings are based on a compilation of scores for each particular course by a variety of individuals of whose tastes we're uncertain.  So rankings (Top 100 or whatever) show what the greatest number of nameless raters like, but tells you nothing of WHAT they liked about the course.  It also offers no space for dissenting criticisms that might be very useful as counterpoints to the views of the majority.

Ratings, on the other hand, can be very helpful if you can develop a repoir with the individual rater.  By examining a rater's history you can develop a trust or mistrust that can be enlightening.  The best correlation seems to be with movies.  All of us who go to movies know the tastes of either our local or national critics and can make our choices based on their reviews.  Same with friends.  I don't pay much attention to the opinions of my friends who loved, say, Gladiator.  I know I have different tastes, and at the same time they know when I rave about a movie it's not the type of fare that they're likely to enjoy.

In short, individual ratings can prove much more valuble than conglomerized rankings.  I'd like to see more golf writers actually rate courses and put their name on it.

To answer Matt's question about my personal recommendations, I'd have to say 1) options, and a close 2nd would be great green complexes.