Aussie GD Ranking Criteria: Make You Go "Hmm"?

[Mark Bourgeois]

It appears a highly competent panel, but as to the *criteria* Aussie Golf Digest uses to rank courses....

Here it is:
1.  Shot Values, including "how difficult, yet fair, is the course?" - 40 percent
2. Design Variety - 20 percent
3. Memorability - 20 percent
4. Conditioning - 20 percent

Do clubs take these rankings seriously? If not, then it's just a bit of fun and all's fair, but if this system guides their behavior, then does it guide the proper behaviors (and) properly?

For example, forgive the ignorance, but under current restrictions how much of  conditioning is down to the sheer chance of which state a course is located as well as the happenstance of whether it has access to a bore / aquifer?  And is it good leadership - is it morally defensible - for a publication to encourage clubs in behavior that at the very least seems to contradict the common weal, even if the club is within the law to water:

"The surefire way to improve a ranking is to start with conditioning, which makes up 20 percent of a course's score."

 I can see if it has access to reclaimed water, but isn't that down to location, too? Why should that have an impact on the inherent quality of a course?

Judging the tree by the fruit it bears, this system put Royal Melbourne Composite at the top - but gave scores
*within one percent* to Kingston Heath, NSW, and Ellerston.

Does this result resonate? Is this latter trio really just 1 percent "worse" than RM-C? And are the scores meant to quantify the relative quality in this manner?

Thanks,
Mark

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Conditioning should have nothing to do with the ranking of a course.  I am in a tiny minority that thought Bethpage Black was a better layout when the bunkers were sandboxes and the greens were worse than poor (pre Craig Currier).  Bethpage really did have something close to the Pine Valley look.  Bethpge today looks closer to Winged Foot than Pine Valley.  One exception on conditioning is if the maintenance severely affects the design of the course--stupid tree plantings, poor mowing patterns, ect.

[RichMacafee]

Mark,

The clubs do take the rankings pretty seriously.

It's definitely a very dubious criteria, but I would be very surprised if the panelists took any notice of the criteria at all when submitting their lists.

Mike and Matt would know better, but my guess would be that 1 in 10 panelists would stick to that criteria for their rankings.

[Dustin Knight]

Our course is within the top 50 in Aus and i can assure you they take it very seriously, unfortunately the powers that be at the club have no idea what it really means. A club official recently asked Tom Ramsey how do we improve our ranking and how much would it cost??? WTF??

Some people really do have no idea about how courses are ranked and why some are better than others. I almost choked on my dinner across the tabe when he said that. They think it is all about coin and conditioning!

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

In my opinion the list is not a reliable indicator of the best courses in the country but people do take them seriously and the magazines have a responsibility to do this better than they currently do.
It gets the top few right but they are hardly a secret and after that the list goes haywire.

Does anyone seriously think there are 29 courses better than St Andrews Beach?
The panel do not see enough of the work and some clubs have done significant work in the last 2 years that has not been seen or properly judged.

For mine the sole criteria - or at least 80% -  should be The Architecture - not conditioning,shot values (whatever that means) design variety or memorability which are all parts of architecture but not the most important part.

Architecture is not even mentioned in the criteria.

[Andrew Hastie]

I agree The Architecture of a Golf course should be the most important factor in ranking courses.
However IMO good and great courses should also have good turf quality. Firm and Fast playing conditions leading to sustainable greenkeeping. Any standard of condition couldn't be considered OK for rankings.   

[Mark Bourgeois]

If I was editor of a magazine that ranked courses, I would want those rankings to generate:
1. Interest
2. Influence

Here's how I would accomplish that: I would come up with a criterion or criteria that a) created lots of potential for movement (where's the interest / news in a system that doesn't rejigger the list with each iteration), and b) was within the clubs' ready control (if clubs had to blow up holes to move up that would limit the power of the magazine to effect change).

Voila conditioning.

But what about the drought?

[Matthew Mollica]

Hi Mark. Hope you're doing well.

I'm one of a few that does rankings for Golf Australia magazine (which generates a more accurate list IMHO), and also Aust Golf Digest. There are several things I'd immediately change with the way AGD goes about it's rankings, as they undermine the integrity of the result. The criteria is one of them but as Rich stated, many panellists stray from this, I'm sure.

The drought was a factor for some. I was under pressure from several quarters to downgrade RM for example due to it's poor conditioning. Some of those thoughts were valid, as RM seemed to manage the drought worse than others. Their greens sufferred for a time, where they were so poorly conditioned that the course really just wasn't herself. Square yards of fairway were bereft of grass less than 6 months ago. The drought is obviously responsible for this, and the Club has done great work in securing more water for the future. But when in a given ranking period, the Clubs on the same page of the street directory are presented in better condition, and one of them is a $20 public course, what does one do?

I take your point, and Mike is correct too. RM's architecture is that far ahad of anything else here it's not funny. Architecture should be the be all and end all when considering course quality, and no water shortage diminishes that in the long-term.

As an aside (and an interesting point to consider when asssessing course quality) a friend counts the number of shots to play at a given course, which cause him to day-dream or salivate with anticipation in the day(s) prior to playing there. It's a subjective kind of measure, yet when you list courses in brackets of whether they provide 0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16+ such moments of eager anticipaton (even on the drive to the course) you start to get a reliable ranking of course quality.

Matthew

[Joel_Stewart]

For mine the sole criteria - or at least 80% -  should be The Architecture - not conditioning,shot values (whatever that means) design variety or memorability which are all parts of architecture but not the most important part.

Architecture is not even mentioned in the criteria.

Shot values:   How well do the holes present a variety of risk and rewards, test accuracy over length and finesse without over emphassing one skill over another.

So do you hit driver on every hole, is every hole a driver - 9 iron, etc.

With shot values and design variety, in my mind its 60% about the architecture. 

In the US, conditioning is still rated as a full category.  There is a rumor that its going to be eliminated or reduced in value but nothing has been announced.

[Mike_Clayton]

Joel,

That is a great description but I wonder how may of the panelists could articulate it so well.
That is the problem with the list becase there are courses with great 'shot values' that are miles behind some others on this list.

And I have seen poor courses that would rate highly on 'shot values'
The Belfry for example

[Andrew Bertram]

Mike

The rankings should certainly be based on Architecture with conditioning and other factors taking a back seat.

Even though some courses are in far better shape than RM it is still clearly the best in Australia. Panellists do get blurred vision in a lot of cases when confronted by a course in maybe less than ideal condition when comparing it to other courses.

At a previous club I was involved in the great majority of members felt Metropilitan was a far better course the RM, due entirely to the wonderful conditioning at Metro. This no doubt affects panelists as well.

I also agree with your comment on how recently a panellist visited a course, in the past 4 years less than 10% of pannellists have visited my club which is in the top 40. I have no doubt this is the case with many of the leading clubs.
Lists create wonderful debate and interest and that is how they should be recieved, as an interest not a gospel.



 

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

As a member of Metropolitan I well know how well conditioned it is and I have a great affection for the course but those who judge it as better than RM on the basis of conditioning clearly have no understanding of architecture.
Sometimes I wonder if they even know if there is even such a thing.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hi Matthew! Great to see you posting on GCA.com.

I have to say, and of course it is all personal preference, I would rather play either RM course on *dirt* than 99 percent of the courses in the world.

Which of course is not the same as saying more than 99 percent of the courses in Melbourne. But close....

Your friend's comment is interesting and gives me two thoughts:
1. Does it include putts?
2. A great course will have many *permutations* of potential shots, especially on and around the greens. Some shots such as tee shots will not vary, but many others will.

Which gets to Mike's question about shot values. *Whose* shot values!

Regards
Mark

[Matthew Mollica]

Hi Mark.

My friend's sense of anticipation does extend to putts, where he's likely to face challenging putts to tough pins, and includes such greens as 5 & 6 & 7 RMW, 15 KH,  and a few others.

The potential chips and pitches and short game options are things he generally appreciates yet doesn't include in his "exciting shot count" if you will.

Also, whose shot values you may well ask. Especially among a diverse and sizeable panel.

MM

P.S. When are you back in Melbourne Mark?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Matthew

I confess right at this moment!

Sorry I didn't call / write as I did not get my act together.

Well, I got it together enough to play RM - E this afternoon...on dirt!

Going to the food / wine fest tomorrow if you're interested....could be up for golf too / instead.

Sunday's probably out though (maybe not) and Monday will be spent on another soul crushing flight...some "labor day"!

Mark

[Matthew Mollica]

I'm shattered Mark.

Why on earth didn't you call me?

Didn't you want to come over here and change nappies,
rather than go walking around some crumby golf course

MM

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ha! Use them to fertilize / irrigate burnt out Vic fairways.

[Andrew Summerell]

This discussion shows up the great fault in ranking lists. They are subjective, but many view them as objective.

In other words, many (including golf club committees) view these lists as being accurate accounts of the quality of the golf courses in that particular country. Even though, these same people have probably never seriously considered what ‘quality’ is. They assume the people on the panel know what they are talking about & play all the courses on a regular basis.

I think subjectivity is a great thing, but when people view these lists (& magazines promote these lists) as the definitive ranking, then it can cause problems.

The lists create discussion, but at what cost ?

[Mark_F]

As an aside (and an interesting point to consider when asssessing course quality) a friend counts the number of shots to play at a given course, which cause him to day-dream or salivate with anticipation in the day(s) prior to playing there. It's a subjective kind of measure, yet when you list courses in brackets of whether they provide 0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16+ such moments of eager anticipaton (even on the drive to the course) you start to get a reliable ranking of course quality.

I would have thought this was far too off beam to get a reliable ranking of course quality. 

Using that criteria, National Old is surely in the top three courses in the country?

[Matthew Mollica]

Interesting method isn't it Mark?

I agree it's not the most definitive sysitem, but it gives a thumbnail guide at the least.

As per your comment, it makes you wonder why National Old is poorly viewed by some, yet very highly by others when the routing is very good,
and there's so many thrilling shots, and exciting putts (albeit on some of the more 'manufactured' greens on Oz).

Maybe if those at AGD employed the "anticipation prior to your round" score, Gunnamatta may not have been in the 30s?

Matthew

[Mark_F]

Matt,

I think National Old is viewed poorly by some for the same basic reason Gunnamatta is - it's different.

I imagine that Metropolitan rates so highly because it ticks all the boxes in regards to shot testing and conditioning, without resorting to "trickery" like National Old and Gunnamatta.

[Matthew Mollica]

Yet how many shots does Metro ask you to it, which have you licking your lips on the drive to the ccourse?

MM

[Mark_F]

Yet how many shots does Metro ask you to it, which have you licking your lips on the drive to the ccourse?

I have no idea, as I have never played it.

However, I imagine for most Metro members there is quite a few - and I would be equally sure some  would regard National Old as fun park golf by comparison. 

That's the dichotomy - a course can test all facets of someone's game,  yet perhaps lack a little je nais se quoi.   

Two British Open courses - Birkdale and Carnoustie.  I would rather play Carnoustie any day of the week.  Birkdale I wouldn't care if I never saw  again.  Yet it has all the advantages Carnoustie doesn't.  Both are similarly thorough tests. Birkdale does have some terriffic shots, but is otherwise mundane and uninteresting, apart from 9, 2 and 15.  It's a much more special place to play, however.  Which is better?

Do you think National Old's architecture overall is better than Metropolitan's?

[Matthew Mollica]

That's the dichotomy - a course can test all facets of someone's game,  yet perhaps lack a little je nais se quoi.   

Fair point Mark. That's where secondary factors begin to see some courses rise sligtly, and some occupy lower positions.
 

Do you think National Old's architecture overall is better than Metropolitan's?

Yes, I think it is. I hope I can play Metro with you shortly.

Having said that as a new dad, I hope I can play shortly!

MM

[Mark_F]

Fair point Mark. That's where secondary factors begin to see some courses rise sligtly, and some occupy lower positions.

Isn't it bribery?
 

Do you think National Old's architecture overall is better than Metropolitan's?

Yes, I think it is. I hope I can play Metro with you shortly.

Having said that as a new dad, I hope I can play shortly!
[/quote]

That would be very nice.  I would look forward to it.  I am sure Metro allow prams on the fairway, and probably even across the greens.